1 
 
 
   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
       DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
     )  ISCR Case No. 15-00040 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Aubrey De Angelis, Esq. and Ben Dorsey, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
___________ 
 
Decision 
___________ 
 
HARVEY, Mark, Administrative Judge: 
 
 Applicant’s statement of reasons (SOR) includes allegations of nine delinquent 
debts totaling $15,983. He failed to make sufficient progress resolving his SOR debts. 
Applicant intentionally failed to disclose a judgment entered against him on his June 18, 
2014 Questionnaire for National Security Positions or security clearance application 
(SCA). Financial considerations and personal conduct security concerns are not 
mitigated. Access to classified information is denied.      
  
History of the Case 
  
On June 18, 2014, Applicant completed and signed an SCA. (Government 
Exhibit (GE) 1) On July 2, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated 
Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued an SOR to Applicant pursuant to Executive Order 
(Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry; DOD Directive 
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive); 
and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became effective on September 1, 2006. 
 
The SOR detailed reasons why the DOD CAF did not find under the Directive that 
it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance 
for him, and recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a 
clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. (Hearing Exhibit (HE) 2) 
Specifically, the SOR set forth security concerns arising under Guidelines F (financial 
considerations) and E (personal conduct). 
 
2 
 
 
On July 24, 2015, Applicant responded to the SOR. On October 16, 2015, 
Department Counsel was ready to proceed. On February 29, 2016, the case was 
assigned to me. On April 4, 2016, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 
issued a notice of hearing, setting the hearing for April 7, 2016. (HE 1) Applicant waived 
his right to 15 days of notice of the date, time, and location of his hearing. (Tr. 15-16) 
Applicant’s hearing was held as scheduled.  
  
During the hearing, Department Counsel offered six exhibits, which were 
admitted without objection. (Tr. 13, 19-20; GE 1-6) Applicant did not offer any exhibits. 
(Tr. 13) On April 19, 2016, DOHA received a copy of the transcript of the hearing.  
 
Findings of Fact1 
 
 In Applicant’s SOR response, he admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 
1.i. He denied SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b. Applicant’s admissions are accepted as findings of 
fact.  
 
Applicant is a 54-year-old aircraft mechanic, who has been employed by a 
defense contractor since May 2014. (Tr. 6, 20; GE 1) His current salary is $35 an hour. 
(Tr. 21) In 1980, he received a General Educational Development (GED) diploma. (Tr. 
7) He has not attended college. (Tr. 7) He served in the Air Force from 1980 to 1991, 
and he specialized as a turboprop engine mechanic. (Tr. 7-8) When he left the Air 
Force, he was a staff sergeant, and he received a general discharge under honorable 
conditions. (Tr. 8) He was having financial problems in the Air Force, and he requested 
an early discharge. (Tr. 8) He has been an aircraft mechanic with the same company 
since 1997. (Tr. 21) Since 2014, he has had a second job as a vehicle service 
technician, and he receives an hourly wage of $11 an hour. (Tr. 22-23) He has held 
other part-time employment from 1997 to 2014. (Tr. 23-24)  
 
In 1984, Applicant married, and in 1987, he divorced. (GE 1) In 1989, he married. 
(GE 1) He has five children; however, none of them are living in his home. (Tr. 9) The 
two youngest children are ages 27 and 28. (Tr. 10; GE 1) His spouse does not work 
outside their home. (Tr. 26)   
 
Financial Considerations 
 
 Applicant’s history of delinquent debt is documented in his credit reports, Office 
of Personnel Management (OPM) personal subject interview (PSI), SOR response, and 
hearing record. Applicant does not have any money left over from his monthly 
paychecks after paying his bills. (Tr. 27-29) He has about $800 in his checking account 
and nothing in his savings account. (Tr. 29) His federal and state taxes are current. (Tr. 
30) Applicant had two heart attacks in the previous 10 years. (Tr. 32) He also had gall 
bladder surgery before his first heart attack. (Tr. 44) His spouse had medical problems 
too. He did not describe the financial impact of their medical problems. Before the 
                                            
1Some details have been excluded in order to protect Applicant’s right to privacy. Specific 
information is available in the cited exhibits.  
 
3 
 
 
Christmas of 2015, Applicant’s daughter some removed funds from his account without 
his permission. (Tr. 46) 
 
 In 2004, Applicant’s child support was delinquent, and he had a debt dispute over 
a wrecked vehicle and insurance. (Tr. 31-32) His pay was garnished in 2003 or 2004 to 
pay his child support debt. (Tr. 48) In 2004, he had several debts; he contacted the 
creditors and advised them he could not pay; and he did not hear anything further from 
some of the creditors. (Tr. 33) In 2004, Applicant had a security clearance hearing, and 
the administrative judged granted his access to classified information. (Tr. 56, 59)2 In 
about 2009 or 2010, Applicant paid a credit counseling company to help him pay off his 
delinquent debts. (Tr. 40-41) He could not remember how much he owed or how much 
was paid. (Tr. 41) Sometimes Applicant did not open his mail, and it would get thrown 
away. (Tr. 33-35)   
 
 Applicant had the following five SOR medical-collections debts: ¶ 1.a for $1,949; 
¶ 1.c for $638; ¶ 1.d for $540; ¶ 1.e for $100; and ¶ 1.f for $20. (Tr. 42-43) He did not 
remember: the basis for the specific medical debts; whether he had insurance coverage 
for any of them; and when they occurred. (Tr. 43-45) He did not make any payments to 
address the five medical debts. (Tr. 45)  
 
Applicant learned of the collection account owed to a bank in SOR ¶ 1.b for 
$1,168 when he received the SOR; however, he had not made any payments or 
contacted the creditor about making payment arrangements. (Tr. 50) Someone was 
garnishing his paycheck for $600 every two weeks for the six weeks prior to his hearing. 
(Tr. 45-46) He did not know who was garnishing his pay or why his pay was being 
garnished. (Tr. 47)  
 
 In 2012, Applicant learned about a debt he owed to a lawyer, which resulted in 
the judgment in SOR ¶ 1.h for $3,675. (Tr. 35-36) Around August 2015, he paid the 
lawyer the remainder of the $1,800 he owed on the account. (Tr. 35-37)   
 
 Applicant did not recognize the judgments in SOR ¶¶ 1.g for $6,860 and 1.i for 
$1,033. (Tr. 39, 52) He thought the debt in SOR ¶ 1.g might be related to a vehicle 
accident. (Tr. 51) He did not know about the debt in SOR ¶ 1.g until he received the 
SOR. (Tr. 51) He has not contacted the creditor. (Tr. 51) He has not made any 
payments to either of the creditors. (Tr. 52) 
 
 Now that Applicant has paid his lawyer $1,800, he plans to begin paying off his 
other SOR debts. (Tr. 52) He cannot make much progress paying his debts until he 
learns about and resolves the $1,200 monthly garnishment. (Tr. 54) His house will soon 
be paid off, and this will free up or make available more funds to address his debts. (Tr. 
54)  
 
                                            
2Applicant’s previous security clearance hearing is documented at 2005 DOHA LEXIS 1453, 
ISCR Case No. 04-07783 (A.J. Howe, July 27, 2005). Judge Howe found the financial considerations 
concerns were mitigated. Neither party offered a copy of Judge Howe’s decision into evidence. Because 
of lack of notice to Applicant, this decision will not be considered.  
 
4 
 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
Section 26 of Applicant’s July 18, 2014 SCA asked Applicant whether, “In the 
past seven (7) years, you had a judgment entered against you?” (SOR ¶ 2.a; GE 1) It 
also asked Applicant two additional questions: “In the past seven (7) years, you had bills 
or debts turned over to a collection agency?”; and “In the past seven (7) years, you had 
any account or credit card suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as 
agreed?” (SOR ¶ 2.b; GE 1) Applicant answered, “no” to these three questions.  
 
In addition to the three SOR judgments in SOR ¶¶ 1.g, 1.h, and 1.i, two non-SOR 
judgments were filed and paid in the previous seven years. Applicant’s non-SOR 
judgment for $7,947 was filed in January 2009, and it was paid and satisfied in February 
2012. (Tr. 39; GE 5 at 3) The non-SOR judgment for $7,957 related to a vehicle that 
was totally destroyed in an accident. (Tr. 38) In August 2009, another non-SOR 
judgement for $1,290 was filed, and in December 2009, this judgment was paid and 
satisfied. (GE 5 at 3) 
 
Applicant’s August 11, 2014 OPM PSI states: 
 
When asked if he had any judgments filed against him, any accounts over 
120 days delinquent, or any accounts taken to collections in the last seven 
years, Subject stated no. Subject was then confronted with 27 financial 
delinquencies. (GE 2 at 8) 
 
Applicant said he did not remember his 2012 judgment (SOR ¶ 1.h) when he 
completed his SCA. (Tr. 56, 58) He told the investigator he was making $218 monthly 
payments to address a judgment for $3,675. (Tr. 58; GE 2 at 8-9) 
 
Applicant described himself as a competent employee. (Tr. 60) He had longevity 
with his employer. (Tr. 60) His record does not include any evidence of illegal use of 
drugs, alcohol abuse, or security violations. (GE 1) 
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the 
Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security 
emphasizing, “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. 
Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the 
authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine 
whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. 
at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant 
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.  
 
Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the 
criteria contained in the revised adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not 
 
5 
 
 
inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these 
guidelines are applied in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An 
administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and 
commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available, reliable 
information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable.  
 
The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with 
access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and 
endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the 
possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified 
information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation 
about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. 
Clearance decisions must be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be 
a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. 
Thus, nothing in this decision should be construed to suggest that it is based, in whole 
or in part, on any express or implied determination about applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, 
or patriotism. It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the 
President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance.  
 
 Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in 
the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant 
from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden 
of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 
“Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. 
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines 
presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the 
criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 
at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996). 
 
Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial 
evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the 
facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it 
is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security 
clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). The burden of 
disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 
02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, 
if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b).  
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concern relating to financial problems:  
 
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 
 
6 
 
 
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 ¶ 19 provides two disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern 
and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts”; and 
“(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.” Applicant’s history of delinquent debt 
is documented in his credit reports, OPM PSI, SOR response, and hearing record. His 
records document evidence of nine debts that were at one point delinquent totaling 
$15,983. The Government established the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a), and 
19(c), requiring additional inquiry about the possible applicability of mitigating 
conditions. 
  
Five mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:  
 
(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 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 debts;3 and 
 
                                            
3The Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a “good faith” effort to repay 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts:  
 
In order to qualify for application of [the “good faith” mitigating condition], an applicant 
must present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
some other good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does 
not define the term “good-faith.” However, the Board has indicated that the concept of 
good-faith “requires a showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, 
prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.” Accordingly, an applicant must 
do more than merely show that he or she relied on a legally available option (such as 
bankruptcy) in order to claim the benefit of [the “good faith” mitigating condition]. 
 
(internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004) (quoting 
ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)).   
 
7 
 
 
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the 
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides 
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides 
evidence of actions to resolve the issue. 
 
The Appeal Board concisely explained Applicant’s responsibility for proving the 
applicability of mitigating conditions as follows:  
 
Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance 
eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance 
of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th 
Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the Government 
presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the 
applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The 
standard applicable in security clearance decisions is that articulated in 
Egan, supra. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for 
access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national 
security.” Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).  
 
ISCR Case No. 10-04641 at 4 (App. Bd. Sept. 24, 2013).  
 
Applicant’s conduct in resolving his delinquent debt does not warrant full 
application of any mitigating conditions to all of his SOR debts; however, he presented 
some important mitigating information. Several circumstances beyond his control 
adversely affected his finances: Applicant and his spouse’s medical problems; vehicle 
accidents; and his daughter removed funds from his account without his permission. 
However, he did not provide enough specifics about how these circumstances 
adversely affected his finances, and he did not show that he acted responsibly to 
address his delinquent debts. He received some financial counseling several years ago.      
 
Applicant said in August 2015, he paid the debt owed to a lawyer, which resulted 
in the judgment in SOR ¶ 1.h for $3,675. I have credited him with paying this debt. He 
did not claim that he made any other payments to any other SOR creditors.  
 
Applicant did not establish mitigation under AG ¶ 20(e) because he did not 
provide documentation such as copies of letters to the SOR creditors and credit 
reporting companies disputing his responsibility for any debts. 
   
Applicant’s failure to make greater progress addressing his delinquent debts 
shows a lack of judgment and responsibility that weighs against approval of his security 
clearance. There is insufficient evidence about why he was unable to make greater 
documented progress resolving more of his SOR debts. There is insufficient assurance 
that his financial problems are being resolved, are under control, and will not recur in 
the future. Under all the circumstances, he failed to establish that financial 
considerations security concerns are mitigated. 
 
 
 
8 
 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct: 
 
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. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful 
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other 
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process. 
 
AG ¶ 16 describes one condition that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying with respect to the alleged falsification of his July 18, 2014 SCA used to 
process the adjudication of Applicant’s security clearance in this case: 
 
(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.4 
 
Section 26 of Applicant’s July 18, 2014 SCA asked Applicant whether, “In the 
past seven (7) years, you had a judgment entered against you?” (SOR ¶ 2.a) It also 
asked, “In the past seven (7) years, you had bills or debts turned over to a collection 
agency?” and “In the past seven (7) years, you had any account or credit card 
suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed?” (SOR ¶ 2.b) 
Applicant answered, “no” to these three questions.  
 
Applicant was well aware that he had a judgment in 2012. He was making 
payments on the debt in SOR ¶ 1.h. He admitted knowledge of the judgment to the 
OPM investigator after confrontation, and he admitted knowing about it at his hearing. I 
do not find his statement about forgetting about this judgment at the time he completed 
his SCA to be credible.   
 
                                            
4The Appeal Board has cogently explained the process for analyzing falsification cases, stating:
 
(a) when a falsification allegation is controverted, Department Counsel has the burden of 
proving falsification; (b) proof of an omission, standing alone, does not establish or prove 
an applicant’s intent or state of mind when the omission occurred; and (c) a Judge must 
consider the record evidence as a whole to determine whether there is direct or 
circumstantial evidence concerning the applicant’s intent or state of mind at the time the 
omission occurred. [Moreover], it was legally permissible for the Judge to conclude 
Department Counsel had established a prima facie case under Guideline E and the  
burden of persuasion had shifted to the applicant to present evidence to explain the 
omission.  
 
ISCR Case No. 03-10380 at 5 (App. Bd. Jan. 6, 2006) (citing ISCR Case No. 02-23133 (App. Bd. June 9, 
2004)). 
 
9 
 
 
Applicant said he did not open some correspondence, and his bills might have 
been thrown away. There is no proof that he was aware that he had bills or debts turned 
over to a collection agency or that he had any account or credit card suspended, 
charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed. SOR ¶ 2.b is not substantiated. 
See AG ¶ 17(f), infra. 
 
Applicant understood that the DOD was seeking specific derogatory or negative 
financial information about his history of delinquent debt. He should have disclosed his 
2012 judgment in SOR ¶ 1.h, and he knowingly and intentionally chose not to disclose 
it. AG ¶ 16(a) is established.     
 
AG ¶ 17 provides seven conditions that could mitigate security concerns in this 
case: 
 
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, 
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; 
 
(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was 
caused or significantly contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of 
authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the individual 
specifically concerning the security clearance process. Upon being made 
aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the 
individual cooperated fully and truthfully; 
 
(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 judgment; 
 
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling 
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the 
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, 
or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur; 
 
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate 
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress;  
 
(f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable 
reliability; and 
 
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activity has ceased or 
occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's 
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules 
and regulations. 
 
Applicant deliberately and improperly failed to disclose the judgment in SOR ¶ 
1.h on his July 18, 2014 SCA. An intentional omission allegation is not mitigated when 
 
10 
 
 
an applicant admits the omission after an investigator tells him or her that the 
government has already learned facts establishing the omission.5 Once it becomes 
apparent to an applicant that an investigator is likely to discover derogatory information, 
it is too late to receive mitigating credit under AG ¶ 17(a). Applicant’s August 11, 2014 
OPM PSI states: 
 
When asked if he had any judgments filed against him,6 any accounts 
over 120 days delinquent, or any accounts taken to collections in the last 
seven years, Subject stated no. Subject was then confronted with 27 
financial delinquencies. (GE 2 at 8) 
 
Applicant cannot receive mitigating credit under AG ¶ 17(a) because he did not 
volunteer information about his judgments in the previous seven years. In addition to the 
judgment in SOR ¶ 1.h, Applicant was aware of two non-SOR judgments. His non-SOR 
judgment for $7,947 was filed in January 2009, and it was paid and satisfied in February 
2012. In August 2009, another non-SOR judgement for $1,290 was filed, and in 
December 2009, this judgment was paid and satisfied.  
 
In sum, Applicant’s falsification of his security clearance application by 
intentionally failing to disclose his negative financial information was improper and 
raised a security concern. He did not sufficiently correct the omission, concealment, or 
falsification before being confronted with the facts. No mitigating conditions apply. 
Guideline E concerns are not mitigated.   
 
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 the Applicant’s 
                                            
5ISCR Case No. 02-30369 at 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 27, 2006) (sustaining denial of security clearance); 
ISCR Case No. 04-00789 at 7 (App. Bd. June 28, 2006) (reversing grant of security clearance); ISCR 
Case No. 99-0557 at 4 (App. Bd. July 10, 2000) (reversing grant of security clearance).  See also ISCR 
Case No. 05-10921 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 19, 2007). 
 
6Applicant’s SOR does not allege: that he initially lied to the OPM investigator when he denied 
knowing about any judgments in the previous seven years; that his history of delinquent debts exceeds 
20 years, going back to his active duty Air Force service; and he paid two non-SOR judgments entered 
against him in the previous seven years, but did not disclose them on his SCA. In ISCR Case No. 03-
20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006), the Appeal Board listed five circumstances in which conduct not 
alleged in an SOR may be considered stating:  
 
(a) to assess an applicant’s credibility; (b) to evaluate an applicant’s evidence of 
extenuation, mitigation, or changed circumstances; (c) to consider whether an applicant 
has demonstrated successful rehabilitation; (d) to decide whether a particular provision of 
the Adjudicative Guidelines is applicable; or (e) to provide evidence for whole person 
analysis under Directive Section 6.3.  
 
Id. (citing ISCR Case No. 02-07218 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 15, 2004); ISCR Case No. 00-0633 at 3 (App. Bd. 
Oct. 24, 2003)). See also ISCR Case No. 12-09719 at 3 (App. Bd. April 6, 2016) (citing ISCR Case No. 
14-00151 at 3, n. 1 (App. Bd. Sept. 12, 2014); ISCR Case No. 03-20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006)). 
Consideration of these three allegations will not be considered except for the five purposes listed above.  
 
11 
 
 
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. I have incorporated my comments 
under Guidelines F and E in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 
2(a) were addressed under those guidelines, but some warrant additional comment.  
 
Applicant is a 54-year-old aircraft mechanic, who has been employed by a 
defense contractor since May 2014. His current salary is $35 an hour. He served in the 
Air Force from 1980 to 1991, and he specialized as a turboprop engine mechanic. 
When he left the Air Force, he was a staff sergeant, and he received a general 
discharge under honorable conditions. He was having financial problems in the Air 
Force, and he requested an early discharge. He has been an aircraft mechanic with the 
same company since 1997. Since 1997, he has held second jobs to supplement his 
income. His spouse does not work outside their home. There is no evidence of criminal 
offenses, abuse of alcohol, use of illegal drugs, or security violations.  
 
Applicant provided some important mitigating financial information. Applicant is 
credited with paying a non-SOR judgment for $7,947 in February 2012, and a non-SOR 
judgment for $1,290 was paid in December 2009. He is also credited with paying the 
debt in SOR ¶ 1.h in August 2015. His credit reports also contain additional positive 
financial information. He received some financial counseling several years ago. Several 
circumstances beyond his control adversely affected his finances: Applicant and his 
spouse’s medical problems; vehicle accidents; and his daughter removed funds from his 
account without his permission.   
 
The financial evidence against approval of Applicant’s clearance is more 
substantial at this time. Applicant has a history of financial problems exceeding 20 
years. He has eight unresolved delinquent debts totaling about $12,000. He did not 
provide enough specifics about how the circumstances beyond his control adversely 
affected his finances, and he did not show that he acted responsibly to address his 
delinquent debts. His failure to make greater progress resolving his SOR debts shows 
lack of financial responsibility and judgment and raises unmitigated questions about 
Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. See 
AG ¶ 18. More documented financial progress is necessary to mitigate financial 
considerations security concerns. When he completed his July 18, 2014 SCA, Applicant 
 
12 
 
 
intentionally and falsely denied that he had any judgments entered in the previous 
seven years even though he knew that he had at least one reportable judgment.  
 
I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Egan, Exec. Or. 10865, the 
Directive, and the AGs, to the facts and circumstances in the context of the whole 
person. I conclude that financial consideration and personal conduct security concerns 
are not mitigated, and it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or 
reinstate Applicant’s security clearance eligibility at this time.  
 
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 through 1.g:   Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.h:    For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.i:    Against Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline E:     AGAINST APPLICANT  
 
Subparagraph 1.a:     Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.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 or reinstate Applicant’s eligibility for 
a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________________ 
MARK HARVEY 
Administrative Judge