1 
 
 
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of:   ) 
     ) 
    . )  ISCR Case No. 14-03312 
    ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Nicole A. Smith, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access 
to classified information is denied. Applicant failed to provide sufficient information to 
mitigate security concerns based on his personal conduct. He did mitigate financial 
security concerns. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On February 11, 2013, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance required for a position 
with a defense contractor. Applicant was interviewed by a security investigator from the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on March 21, 2013. After reviewing the results 
of the OPM investigation, the Department of Defense (DOD) could not make the 
affirmative findings required to issue a security clearance. DOD issued Applicant a 
Statement of Reasons (SOR), dated March 25, 2015, detailing security concerns for 
personal conduct under Guideline E and financial considerations under Guideline F. 
The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified 
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, 
2 
 
Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as 
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective in the DOD on 
September 1, 2006. 
  
On April 22, 2015, Applicant responded to the SOR and denied the three 
allegations under Guideline E and the two allegations under Guideline F. He requested 
that his case be decided on the written record. The Government received Applicant’s 
response on May 19, 2015, and on May 21, 2015, timely requested that the case be 
assigned for a hearing and a decision by an administrative judge. (Hearing Exhibit I) 
Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on June 30, 2015. On July 7, 2015, the 
case was initially assigned to another administrative judge who scheduled a hearing for 
August 6, 2015. Applicant requested a delay, and the case was assigned to me on 
August 31, 2015.  DOD issued a Notice of Hearing on October 23, 2015, scheduling a 
hearing for November 3, 2015. I convened the hearing as scheduled. The Government 
offered 12 exhibits that I marked and admitted into the record without objection as 
Government Exhibits (GX) 1 through 12. Applicant testified. I kept the record open so 
Applicant could submit additional documents. Applicant timely submitted two documents 
that I marked and admitted into the record as Applicant Exhibits (AX) A and B. 
Department Counsel did not object to the admission of the documents. (GX 13, e-mail, 
dated November 23, 2015) DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on 
November 13, 2015. The record closed on November 23, 2015.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is 59-years-old. He graduated from a maritime college in 1979 with a 
bachelor’s degree. He received a master’s degree from a military professional military 
college in 1999. He is presently working on his doctorate degree. He married in 1980, 
and has three adult children. He served as a ship’s engineer, including a chief engineer, 
on Navy civilian ships from 1979 until 2007. In 2007, he was employed by another 
government agency as a chief engineer on their ships. In 2010, he became chief of fleet 
maintenance and logistics for the government agency. He retired from government 
service in 2012. He worked for a short time as a consultant until employed by a 
government contractor in January 2013 as a senior engineer. He is now a project 
manager for preventive maintenance software. He requires a security clearance for the 
project manager position. (Tr. 81-83; GX 1, e-QIP, dated February 11, 2013)  
 
The SOR alleges under guideline E that Applicant sexually molested his 
youngest daughter on several occasion on or about 1996 (SOR 1.a), and his eldest 
daughter on various occasions from about 1988 until 1997 (SOR 1.b). The SOR also 
alleges under guideline E that Applicant deliberately falsified information to a security 
investigator during an interview conducted on March 4, 2005 (SOR 1.c), Under 
guideline F, the SOR alleges that Applicant has a past-due mortgage debt of $74,739 
3 
 
on a foreclosed house (SOR 2.a); and a delinquent debt on a time share for $21,863 
(SOR 2.b).  
 
In 1989, Applicant’s oldest daughter, 8 years old at the time, told the family 
babysitter that she had been sexually abused by her father. The babysitter reported the 
information to the state child protection services (CPS). The daughter was placed in 
foster care while the allegations were being investigated. Applicant admitted to sexual 
contact with his daughter but states that he was acting in his parental role for his 
daughter’s health and hygiene. No criminal charges or civil court proceeding were filed 
against Applicant in State C. Applicant did not seek psychological treatment as ordered 
because he was at sea for the next three years.  
 
In 1999, his youngest daughter, 14 years old at the time, reported that she also 
had been sexually abused twice by her father. Applicant’s version of his actions with his 
daughter did not differ greatly from what the youngest daughter reported. The daughter 
described the action as molestation, and Applicant described it as a concerned parent’s 
examination over a yeast infection.  
 
In 2000, Applicant was referred for a psychosexual evaluation and treatment by 
the CPS. Applicant was administered a psychological evaluation test and interviewed by 
social work counselors. Applicant admitted kissing and fondling his oldest daughter’s 
vagina. He denied sexual intercourse. However, his daughter reported to CPS that they 
had sexual intercourse. Applicant adamantly denied sexual intercourse and said that his 
daughter did not know what sexual intercourse meant. He stated that they only laid 
close to each other with cloths on and under a blanket.  
 
Applicant told the counselors that when his youngest daughter was 14-year-old, 
he noticed a discharge on her underwear. He had her spread her legs and examined 
her vagina. He thought she may have a yeast infection. A few days later, he examined 
her vagina again. He showed her how to masturbate to keep from getting an infection. 
He denied exposing himself to her, penetrating her, or having any contact with her other 
than for health and hygiene reasons. The daughter’s report to CPS was similar to her 
father‘s admissions except she reported that he also touched her breast and asked if 
she was having sex. Applicant’s daughter reported that he propped her legs on his 
stomach to look into her vagina. She told him “not to put it in”, and he said he “would not 
do that.” She reported that he told her not to tell her mother of their activities because 
she would get the wrong idea. Applicant denied making these statements to his 
daughter.  
 
In summary, the counselor’s concluded that Applicant was a narcissistic, 
hedonistic, totally self-absorbed person who is without empathy, guilt, or remorse and 
labors under extreme cognitive distortions. Based on Applicant’s obvious sexualized 
and pleasure-seeking behavior with his prepubescent daughters, and his extremely 
distorted thinking and denial of sexual misconduct, the counselors recommended that 
Applicant receive specialized counseling. However, they doubted that Applicant would 
be amenable to treatment. The counselors’ concluded that Applicant presented a 
4 
 
continued risk of having sexual activities toward prepubescent children. (GX 4, 
Psychosexual Evaluation and Treatment Plan, dated April 23, 2000) 
 
In 1995, Applicant submitted a security clearance application to renew his access 
to classified information. He provided an affidavit to security investigators. (GX 7, 
Affidavit, dated March 3, 2005m, at 7) He was interviewed by OPM security 
investigators the next day. (GX 6, Personal Subject Interview, dated March 4, 2005 at 
2), In both the affidavit and the interview, Applicant stated that it was reported to CPS in 
1999 that he molested his daughter. He took a polygraph and psychosexual exam and 
passed both. He was not arrested or charged with any offense after an investigation. At 
a CPS hearing, it was determined that his daughter would be placed in foster care 
because she had a drug addiction and alcohol problem, and he and his wife were way 
at sea. He further stated that his daughter was not placed in foster care due to any 
abuse or violence on his part. 
 
In 2006, Applicant was referred for a psychological evaluation and polygraph 
examination by his command as part of the security clearance process. A clinical 
psychologist conducted the evaluation. He reported that there was an open child abuse 
case regarding Applicant and his oldest daughter in State C. Applicant admitted he was 
the subject of a CPS investigation regarding his oldest daughter in March 2000. During 
the investigation, Applicant’s youngest daughter also reported that she had been 
sexually abused by Applicant. Based on the youngest daughter’s report, a court in State 
W ordered that Applicant’s youngest daughter be temporarily placed in foster care with 
only supervised visits by Applicant. Applicant was to complete a state-certified sexual 
offender treatment program. Applicant did not comply with the order and his youngest 
daughter was permanently removed from the home and place in permanent foster care 
with relatives until reaching majority age.  
 
Applicant denied any history of child molestation to the psychologist. He was 
administered two self-reporting questionnaires. The psychologist concluded that 
Applicant’s answers on the tests suggest someone who responded in terms of how they 
would like things to be rather than as things actually are. The psychologist suggested 
that the results of the tests be considered with caution. The psychologist’s diagnosis 
was adult antisocial behavior with obsessive traits. Antisocial behavior is characterized 
as a pervasive sense of entitlement and pursuit of self-interest that is devoid of internal 
regular behavior controls such as conscience or concern of consequences which are 
necessary for impulse control. He concluded that Applicant’s mental condition and 
dysfunctional behavior may cause a material defect in his ability to properly safeguard 
classified information or perform sensitive duties. He noted that Applicant has a 
documented history of impaired judgment, poor insight, and inadequate internal 
controls. He concluded that Applicant is at an increased risk of demonstrating impaired 
judgment and/or reliability to properly safeguard classified information and/or perform 
sensitive duties. (GX 5, Psychological Evaluation Report, dated April 11, 2006) 
 
Based on all of this information, the Department of Navy Central Adjudication 
Facility (DON CAF) on August 3, 2006, issued Applicant a Letter of Intent (LOI) to 
5 
 
Revoke Security Clearance and Eligibility for Assignment to a Sensitive Position. The 
attached Statement of Reasons (SOR) listed sexual behavior; emotional, mental, and 
personality disorders; and criminal conduct security concerns based on the molestation 
of his two daughters. Personal conduct security concerns were raised for stating in the 
March 3, 2005 affidavit and telling the security investigator that CPS did not place his 
daughter in foster care due to any abuse or violence on his part. The facts leading to the 
allegations in this case are the same facts that resulted in the DON CAF SOR. (GX 8, 
LOI, dated August 3, 2006)  
 
The DON CAF case was referred to a DOHA administrative judge for a personal 
appearance which was convened on January 12, 2007. Applicant was represented by 
counsel. Applicant testified and introduced nine exhibits. (GX 12, Transcript, dated 
January 12, 2007) The administrative judge issued his recommended decision on 
March 13, 2007. The administrative judge made complete and extensive findings of fact, 
and reached conclusions concerning the security concerns. The administrative judge 
concluded that Applicant engaged in criminal sexual misconduct with his daughters. His 
conduct with his daughters raise sexual behavior security concerns as noted in AG ¶¶ 
13(a), 13(c) and 13(d). The administrative judge also concluded that Applicant 
deliberately provided false or misleading information during the security clearance 
process raised security concerns for personal conduct under AG ¶¶16 (a) and (b). He 
also found against Applicant on the emotional, mental, and personality disorder security 
concern, and the criminal conduct security concern. He made formal findings against 
Applicant. He concluded that it was not clearly consistent with the interest of national 
security to grant Applicant a security clearance. The administrative judge recommended 
that the Department of Navy Personnel Security Appeals Board (DON PSAB) sustain 
the decision to revoke Applicant’s security clearance and eligibility for assignment to 
sensitive positions. (GX 3, Recommend Decision, dated March 13, 2007) On April 12, 
2007, the DON PSAB issued its Final Decision revoking Applicant’s security clearance 
and eligibility for assignment to a sensitive position. The DON PSAB concluded 
Applicant failed to mitigate a number of security concerns including the sexual behavior 
and personal conduct. (GX 9, DON PSAB Decision, dated April 12, 2007) 
On February 11, 2013, Applicant submitted his latest security clearance 
application for the position of project manager with a defense contractor. He was 
interviewed by an OPM security investigator on March 21, 2013. Applicant stated that 
he was never arrested or charged with any offense as a result of the allegations of his 
daughters. He notes that on the dates some of the incidents reported by his daughters 
took place, he was at sea. While the transcript of the interview does not specifically 
state that Applicant denied the sexual abuse of his daughters, the responses he 
provided the investigator indicates that he was not involved in sexual activities with his 
daughters. He stated that he did not deliberately attempt to deceive anyone. He stated 
the facts as he recalled them. (Tr. 27-28; GX 2, Personal Subject Interview, dated 
March 21, 2013, at 9)  
 
At the hearing conducted on November 3, 2015, Applicant continued to deny that 
he sexually molested his two daughters. He noted that the daughters’ allegations were 
made ten years ago in 2005. There have been no other allegations of deviant sexual 
6 
 
behavior. His lifestyle has changed. He no longer goes to sea, and he does not go to 
bars to drink. He mostly stays home. He is cautious with his grandchildren. He does not 
want to put himself in a situation where someone could make an accusation that he 
cannot disprove. He does not put himself in situations where someone could question 
his motives and actions. However, he has not participated in any family or psychological 
counseling or therapy as ordered by two different courts. (Tr. 24-29, 51-80, 84-85) 
 
He does not see his eldest daughter. They have chosen to go different ways. He 
does not bother her and she does not bother him. His youngest daughter is now married 
with children of her own. He sees his youngest daughter and her children several times 
a year and face times them daily. He gets along well with the family. (Tr. 80-84)  
 
Applicant owned a multi-family house. His family occupied part of the house and 
the other part is rented. He was having trouble meeting his mortgage payments in 2006 
because he was not working. He applied for a mortgage adjustment with his lender 
under the Home Affordable Mortgage Program (HAMP). So many people were applying 
for an adjusted mortgage that the processing was slow. Before he and his initial 
mortgage lender could complete the adjustment, the lender sold the mortgage to 
another creditor. Applicant then negotiated with the new creditor to adjust his mortgage 
payments. Eventually, the mortgage payment was adjusted to an amount that he could 
afford. Applicant presented his mortgage statement to show that his mortgage is now 
current. (Tr. 30-39; AX A, Mortgage Statement, dated October 15, 2015) 
 
Applicant had purchased an interest in a time share in Mexico. The value of the 
timeshare depreciated rapidly when there was an economic downturn in 2007/2008. He 
asked the time share company if there was a way to sell his interest in the timeshare. 
He was told that for a processing fee of $500, his interest in the property and his debt 
would be cancelled. He paid the fee and the company provided him with a letter stating 
that his interest in the property was canceled and he has no further obligation or liability 
for the property. (Tr. 39-48; AX B, letter, dated November 18, 2015) 
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered in 
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.  
 
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as 
the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, 
7 
 
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in 
making a decision. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to 
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based 
on the evidence contained in the record.  
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is 
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, 
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . . .” The 
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion in seeking a favorable security decision. 
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This 
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The 
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it 
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
Analysis 
 
Personal Conduct: 
 
Personal conduct is a security concern because conduct involving questionable 
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and 
regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and 
ability to protect classified and sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to 
provide truthful and candid answers during the process to determine eligibility for 
access to classified information or any other failure to cooperate with the process (AG ¶ 
15) Personal conduct is always a security concern because it asks whether the person’s 
past conduct justifies confidence the person can be trusted to properly safeguard 
classified or sensitive information. Authorization for a security clearance depends on the 
individual providing correct and accurate information. If a person conceals relevant 
information or provides false information, the security clearance process cannot function 
properly to ensure that granting access to classified or sensitive information is in the 
best interest of the United States Government.  
 
 The Government has presented substantial evidence that Applicant sexually 
molested his two daughters between 1988 and 2005. The Government has also 
presented evidence that Applicant did not provide full, candid, and complete information 
8 
 
in an affidavit that he provided during the security clearance process in 2005. This 
information raises the following disqualifying conditions under AG ¶16: 
 
(a) the deliberate omission concealment, or falsification of relevant facts 
from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or 
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment 
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security eligibility or 
trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; and  
 
(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is 
not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single 
guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-
person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, 
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and 
regulation, or other characteristic indicating that the person may not 
properly safeguard protected information; and 
 
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s conduct, 
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such 
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s 
personal, professional, or community standing, or (2) while in another 
country, engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country or that is 
legal in that country but illegal in the United States and may serve as a 
basis for exploitation or pressure by the foreign security or intelligence 
service or other group.  
 
 In the personal appearance held in 2007, Applicant denied that he sexually 
molested his two daughters. After a full and complete hearing, an administrative judge 
determined that he did sexual molest his daughter as alleged, and that he did not 
provide full, complete, and accurate information during the security clearance process. 
in an affidavit he provide security investigators. The administrative judge’s findings were 
approved by the DON PSAB, and Applicant’s security clearance was revoked. Applicant 
submitted an application to again have access to classified information in 2013. He was 
issued an SOR based on the same factual circumstances that were previously raised 
and decided at the personal appearance. At the hearing held in this case, Applicant 
again denied that he sexually molested his daughters and that he provided false or 
inaccurate information during the security clearance process. An analysis of Applicant’s 
testimony at the two hearings shows that he did not raise any new evidence at the latest 
hearing. I reach the same findings the administrative judge in the personal appearance 
concluded, that Applicant sexually molested his daughter and that he deliberately 
falsified information during the security clearance process. The findings support an 
assessment that Applicant has questionable judgment, is untrustworthy, unreliable, and 
lacks candor. The sexual molestation of one’s own daughters can create a vulnerability 
to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, if known, and will affect Applicant’s personal, 
professional, and community standing. 
9 
 
 Applicant raised new information that may mitigate the personal conduct security 
concerns. He noted that it has been ten years since the initial allegations of improper 
sexual activities with his daughters was raised. There have been no other allegations of 
deviant sexual activities raised against Applicant in that time. He also noted that he 
changed his lifestyle. He no longer goes to sea and does not go to bars to drink. He has 
no contact with his oldest daughter; but he has a good relationship with his youngest 
daughter and her family. He sees them a few times a year and communicates with them 
almost daily. 
 
 I considered the following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17: 
 
(a) The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, 
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts: 
 
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is 
so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is 
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, 
trustworthiness, or good judgement: and 
 
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling 
to change the behavior or taken other steps to alleviate the stressor, 
circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, or other 
inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur. 
 
 None of the mitigating conditions apply. Applicant has continued to deny that he 
provide false and inaccurate information. He merely states that he presented the 
information as he sees it. There is substantial evidence that his daughter was placed in 
a foster home because she was being sexually molested by Applicant, her father. 
Applicant knew why she was placed in the foster home because he was told that a 
number of times and he challenged the placement.  
 
 Sexual molestation of one’s own children is not a minor offense. The 
inappropriate sexual activities happened frequently over a period of years. There was 
substantial evidence from mental health professionals that Applicant was narcissistic, 
hedonistic, and a totally self-absorbed person who is without empathy, guilt, or remorse 
and labors under extreme cognitive distortions, and presented a continued risk of 
having sexual activities toward prepubescent children. Another psychologist opined that 
Applicant had adult antisocial behavior with obsessive traits, and that his mental 
condition and dysfunctional behavior may cause a material defect in his ability to 
properly safeguard classified information or perform sensitive duties. He noted that 
Applicant has a documented history of impaired judgment, poor insight, and inadequate 
internal controls, and is at an increased risk of demonstrating impaired judgment and/or 
reliability to properly safeguard classified information and perform sensitive duties. 
Applicant was advised by two courts to seek mental health counseling but he twice 
refused to seek counseling and treatment. The mere passage of time alone does not 
negate these psychological findings. Applicant did not present any information from 
10 
 
mental health professionals that he is now considered eligible for access to classified 
information. Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns based on the sexual 
molestation of his daughters, and the deliberate falsification during the course of a 
security clearance investigation.  
 
Financial Considerations 
 
Failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial 
obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by 
rules and regulations, thereby raising questions about an individual’s reliability, 
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. An individual who is 
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
(AG ¶ 18) Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his obligations to protect classified 
information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an 
indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage finances in such a way as to meet financial 
obligations.  
 
It is well-settled that adverse information in credit reports can normally meet the 
substantial evidence standard to establish financial delinquency. Applicant’s history of 
delinquent debts is documented in his credit reports, his SOR response, and his 
answers to financial question from a security investigator. It shows two delinquent 
debts, a past-due foreclosed house mortgage, and a delinquent debt on a time share. 
Applicant’s delinquent debts are a security concern. The evidence is sufficient to raise 
security concerns under Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) 
(inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting 
financial obligations). The information raises an inability to pay delinquent debt.  
 
I considered the following Financial Consideration Mitigating Conditions: 
 
(a) The behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred 
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast 
doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good 
judgment;  
 
(b) The conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely 
beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business 
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or 
11 
 
separation) and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; 
and 
(d) The individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay the overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
For AG ¶ 20(d) to apply, there must be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” 
to repay, and “evidence” of a good-faith effort to repay. A systematic method of handling 
debts is needed. Good faith means acting in a way that shows reasonableness, 
prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation. Applicant must establish a 
"meaningful track record" of debt payment. A "meaningful track record" of debt payment 
can be established by evidence of actual debt payments or reduction of debt through 
payment of debts. A promise to pay delinquent debts in the future is not a substitute for 
a track record of paying debts in a timely manner and acting in a financially responsible 
manner. Applicant must establish that she has a reasonable plan to resolve her financial 
problems and has taken significant action to implement that plan. 
 
Applicant incurred the mortgage debt when he was not working as a ship’s 
engineer and could not meet his mortgage payments. As he was negotiating to modify 
the mortgage payments with the original mortgage holder, the mortgage was sold to 
another creditor. Applicant negotiated with that creditor and the mortgage was modified. 
He presented information to establish a meaningful track record of mortgage payments 
so that his mortgage is now current.  
 
Applicant also notified the time share company that he wanted to sell his time 
share. The company sold the time share. Applicant presented information to establish 
that he has been released from his time share contract and has no further liability for the 
time share. Applicant mitigated financial security concerns. 
 
Whole-Person Analysis 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
relevant circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative 
process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):  
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of 
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation 
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or 
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
 
12 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance 
must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. After a personal appearance, 
Applicant’s security clearance was revoked because of deviant sexual behavior with his 
daughters. He also deliberately did not provided full and complete information on an 
affidavit provided in conjunction with the security investigation conducted prior to the 
personal appearance. Applicant has not presented sufficient information to overcome 
the security concerns regarding his conduct that originally led to a revocation of his 
security clearance. The record evidence still raises and establishes substantial 
questions and doubts as to Applicant’s judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and 
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. Applicant has not overcome those 
questions and doubts. For all these reasons, I conclude that Applicant has not mitigated 
security concerns arising under the personal conduct, but mitigated security concerns 
under the financial considerations guidelines. Eligibility for access to classified 
information is denied.  
 
Formal Findings 
 
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraph 1.a – 1.c:  Against Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline F:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 2.a – 2.b:  For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge