1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 14-06711
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, 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, 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 June 16, 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 July 30, 2015, Applicant answered
the SOR, admitting all of the allegations set forth in Paragraph 1. He did not provide an
Applicant did not object to the admissibility of any of these Items, therefore, I have considered all of them in1
this Decision.
2
 
answer for any of the allegations in Paragraph 2. On August 6, 2015, Applicant
answered  Paragraph 2, via e-mail, admitting the allegations. He requested a decision
on the written record rather than a hearing.
On October 14, 2015, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Materials
(FORM) containing nine items including the SOR (Item 1), Applicant’s Answer (Item 2),
two security clearance applications (Items 3-4), three credit bureau reports (Items 5-7) a
copy of a judgment (Item 8), and a copy of an unsworn personal subject interview dated
June 30, 2014 (Item 9).  Applicant received the FORM on October 21, 2015. He did not1
submit a response. On December 17, 2015, the case was assigned to me.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 48-year-old single man who lives with his fiancé. He is a high
school graduate and has earned a certification in computer design from a trade school.
(Item 9 at 2) Since 2003, he has worked in the computer design field for a defense
contractor. Currently, he is a senior designer. He has held a security clearance since
May 2004. (Item 3 at 25)
Since 2009, Applicant has incurred approximately $50,000 in delinquent debt.
Applicant attributes much of his financial problems to medical problems experienced
first by him between 2009 and 2010, and later by his fiancé in 2013. (Item 9 at 2) The
period when Applicant was sick exceeded the amount of his available sick leave.
Consequently, over time, he exhausted his sick leave benefits, and began losing
income.
About three years after Applicant recovered, his fiancé was diagnosed with a rare
disorder that rendered her unable to work. Consequently, they experience recurrent
income loss and incurred additional costly medical bills. Although Applicant’s fiancé has
health insurance, it did not cover the treatment for her disorder.
Applicant contends that he retained a credit counselor in July 2015, and that with
the credit counselor’s help, has developed a payment plan that he has begun executing.
(Item 2)  He provided no supporting documentary evidence.
Applicant completed a security clearance application in May 2014. He falsified it
by intentionally failing to list delinquent debts, as required, in response to Section 26. He
offered no explanation for the falsification.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
3
 
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.
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; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debt; and
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the case of the problem and provides documented
4
 
proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of
actions to resolve the issue.
Applicant’s financial problems stemmed from serious health problems
experienced by his fiancé and him over the past seven years, that both generated costly
medical bills and rendered his fiancé unable to earn any income to help with their
expenses. Applicant, however, provided no documentary evidence supporting his
contention that he has been taking concrete steps to satisfy his delinquencies. None of
the mitigating conditions 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.)
Applicant falsified his 2014 security clearance application by intentionally failing
to list financial information, as required, in response to Section 26. He provided no
explanation, consequently, I conclude that no mitigating conditions apply.
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 no supporting evidence documenting steps taken to
get his financial problems under control. The failure to provide documentary evidence,
together with his falsification of his security clearance application, compel me to
conclude that he has not mitigated the two security concerns alleged in the SOR. 
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:
5
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.j: 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