The Government submitted five items for the record.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-06578
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi,  Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On April 29, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance
Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative
guidelines (AG), implemented in September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a review based on the written
record in lieu of a hearing. The case was assigned to me on January 20, 2016.
Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), dated October 8,
2015.  Applicant received the FORM on October 16, 2015. Applicant did not submit a1
response to the FORM. Based on a review of the case file, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the SOR allegations (1.a through
1.p) under Guideline F. He also provided explanations. 
Applicant is 52 years old. He is married and has one child. He graduated from
high school in 1982. (Item 3) He also obtained a certification from a technical institute.
He was unemployed for six months in 2013; three months in 2011; and eleven months
in 2006. Since 2014, Applicant has been employed with his current employer. He
completed an application for a security clearance on June 5, 2014. 
Applicant informed an OPM agent during his 2014 subject interview that when he
was unemployed, he was financially supported by his wife and unemployment benefits.
However, he stated that his wife was “in and out of work,” but he did not specify the
dates of her unemployment. (Item 5) 
Financial
The SOR alleges a 2013 state tax lien, 2012 unsatisfied judgment, six collection
accounts, five delinquent medical accounts, a past-due mortgage account, and failure
to file state and federal income tax returns from 2007 to the present, with unpaid taxes
for those years. (Items 3, 4, and 5)  In his security clearance application Applicant listed
his failure to file the tax returns and collection accounts. The reasons for the
delinquencies included his wife’s unemployment and his periodic unemployment.
As to SOR 1.a, a state tax lien in the amount of $4,728, Applicant provided no
documentation that the lien is satisfied or that there is a plan in place to resolve the lien.
In his interview and in his security clearance application, he claims he is paying $100 a
month. 
Applicant attributes the alleged debt in SOR 1.b for $1,995  to a 2012 judgment
for unpaid rent. He did not have the funds to pay the account, and he still is unable to
pay. (Item 5)
As to the  collection accounts listed in SOR 1.c to SOR 1.n, Applicant admitted
that he was delinquent on the accounts. In his 2014 interview, he stated that he would
research the accounts so that he could pay them. He provided no evidence of any
payment plans or payments. He noted that he would consult with a bankruptcy lawyer in
July 2014 to discuss the resolution of the debts using bankruptcy.  The record does not
provide any information however, on financial counseling or a petition for bankruptcy.
The unpaid state taxes for 2007 to the present, listed in SOR 1.o, are still
unresolved. The unpaid taxes to the federal government from 2007 are still unresolved.
SOR 1.p, and the tax returns have not been filed. 
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
3
 Policies 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An administrative judge must consider all
available, 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. 
The U.S. Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts
alleged in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a2
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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
the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather
than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance5
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
4
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a7
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for financial considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an 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, all of which can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information.” It also states that “an individual who is
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.
 Applicant incurred delinquent debt in the amount of approximately $113,000,
and he did not file his state tax returns for tax years 2007 to the present. He has a state
tax lien, unpaid taxes, and numerous collection accounts. His admissions and credit
reports confirm the delinquent debts. Consequently, Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts),
FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations), and FC DC AG ¶
19(g) (failure to file federal or state tax returns as required by law) apply. With such
conditions raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against him and mitigate
security concerns.  
The nature, frequency, and relative recency of Applicant’s financial difficulty
make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago.” Applicant’s debts remain
unpaid. He provided no information or documentation that he has made any payments
on the debts or filed the tax returns. Consequently, Financial Considerations Mitigating
Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(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) does not
apply.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (the
conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g.,
loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death,
5
divorce or separation) and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances)
does not apply. Applicant noted periods of unemployment for himself and his wife. He
stated lack of funds and an inability to pay but he did not show a nexus between the
unemployment and his failure to file tax returns, pay taxes, or make payments on
collection accounts. He has been employed since 2014. He has not provided any
evidence of payments made to any accounts. He says that he intends to pay his
delinquent debts, but he has not shown any efforts to repay by submitting
documentation. He has not acted responsibly under the circumstances. 
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply. There is no evidence in the
record to support this mitigating condition. There is no information to show that he has
obtained recent financial counseling.  FC MC AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has received or is
receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the
problem is being resolved, or is under control) does not apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The 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. 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person
factors. Applicant is a 52-year-old man who is married and has one child. He has been
employed with his current employer since 2014. He was unemployed for a period of
time, but he stated that he was financially supported by his wife and unemployment
benefits. He gave no reason for not filing his state income tax returns. He stated that
he intends to pay his delinquent debts. He maintained that he would schedule a
meeting with a bankruptcy attorney to resolve his financial issues. However, a promise
to pay in the future is not sufficient for mitigation. He did not respond to the FORM to
6
supplement the record. Applicant did not provide evidence to mitigate the financial
considerations security concerns. He has not met his burden of proof.
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 F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-p: Against 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge