1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 14-05519
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace L. Garcia, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Although Applicant’s financial problems were significantly caused by
circumstances beyond his control, he failed to provide evidence documenting what
progress, if any, that he has made in addressing them. Moreover, he provided no
explanation for failing to disclose relevant financial information, as required, on his
clearance application. Clearance is denied. 
Statement of the Case
On February 5, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing
security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations, and Guideline E, personal
conduct. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG)
implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006. On March 2, 2015, Applicant
2
 
answered the SOR, admitting all of the allegations and requesting a decision on the
written record rather than a hearing.
On May 4, 2015, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Materials
(FORM). Applicant was provided a copy of the FORM on May 21, 2015, and was
instructed that he had 30 days to file any objections to this information, or to supply
additional information. Applicant did not file a response. On February 3, 2015, the case
was assigned to me.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 53-year-old married man with an adult child. He has been married
since 2009.  A previous marriage ended in divorce in 1988. Applicant earned a GED in
1979 and an electronics trade school certificate in 1982. (Item 2 at 11) Since March
2014, he has worked for a defense contractor as a field service engineer.
Before beginning his current job, Applicant had been unemployed for
approximately seven months, having been laid off from his previous job. While
unemployed, he fell behind on his finances. Currently, he has approximately $18,000 of
delinquent debt, including the deficiency balance on a repossessed car totaling $5,718
(subparagraph 1.b). In February 2015, Applicant retained a credit counselor and
developed a payment plan. (Item 1 at 5) He provided no evidence of how much he is
supposed to pay monthly, nor did he provide a projected date when the debts would be
satisfied.
Applicant completed a security clearance application in March 2014. He did not
disclose any delinquent debts, as required in response to Section 26. (Item 2 at 40-42)
During an interview with an investigative agent, Applicant explained that he did not list
any delinquent debts because Section 26 required the disclosure of debts that were
more than 120 days late, and none of his debts met this criterion when he completed
the SOR. Later, in Applicant’s supplemental answer to the SOR, he admitted
intentionally omitting his delinquent debts from his security clearance application.
Policies
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 together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. 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, reliable information about the person,
past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
3
 
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.” 
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 for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline,“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, all of which can raise questions about
an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information.”
(AG ¶ 18) Applicant’s history of financial problems triggers the application of AG ¶ 19(a),
“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting
financial obligations.” 
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or
separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
(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; and 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debt.
Applicant’s financial problems stem from a seven-month unemployment period
between August 2013 and March 2014. Since then, he has retained a credit counseling
agency to help him develop a debt repayment plan. Conversely, this is not the first time
that Applicant has had difficulty paying his debts. Between 1999 and 2005, he incurred
approximately $11,000 of delinquent debt, including the deficiency on a loan for a car
that was repossessed. Under these circumstances, AG ¶ 20(b) is only partially
applicable.
4
 
Although Applicant provided evidence that he has retained a credit counseling
agency, he provided no proof of the terms of their agreement, nor any proof that he has
been making payments. Under these circumstances, AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) do not
apply.
Personal Conduct
Under this guideline, “conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified
information.” (AG ¶ 15) Moreover, “of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process . . .” (Id.)
After initially denying that he intentionally omitted relevant information about his
delinquent finances from his security clearance application, Applicant later admitted the
allegation, and offered no further explanation. AG ¶ 16(a), “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 clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities,” applies without
mitigation. 
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows: 
(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.
Circumstances beyond Applicant’s control clearly contributed to his financial problems. 
However, he provided minimal supporting evidence documenting steps taken to get his
financial problems under control. This failure, together with his falsification of his
security clearance application, compel me to conclude that he has not mitigated the
security concerns. 
5
 
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-1.l: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: 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 eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge