DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 15-00561
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Nicole A. Smith, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 31, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on May 21, 2014.  (Government Exhibit 3.)  On August 6, 2015, the Department
of Defense (DoD), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992 (as amended), issued a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed reasons why the DoD could not
make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant and
recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance
should be denied or revoked.
Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on October 21, 2015, and elected to
have the case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing.  Department Counsel
submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) to Applicant on
November 18, 2015.  Applicant received the FORM on December 9, 2015.  Applicant
was instructed to submit information in rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days
of receipt.  Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM.  This case was assigned
to the undersigned on April 1, 2016.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, and
exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
2
 FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is 61 years old, and married with three adult children.  He has a high
school diploma.  He is employed with a defense contractor as a Coating Fabricator and
is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with this employment.
The Government opposes Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is financially overextended and at risk of
having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
There are six delinquent debts set forth in the SOR totaling approximately
$17,700.  Applicant admitted allegations, 1.b., 1.d., and 1.f.  He denies allegations 1.a.,
1.c., and 1.e., with some explanations under this guideline.  Credit reports of Applicant
dated January 2, 2015; and July 13, 2015, which include information from all three
credit reporting agencies, indicate that Applicant is indebted to each of the creditors
listed in the SOR.  (Government Exhibits 5 and 6.)  Applicant has been employed with
his current employer since July 1978.  He was granted a security clearance in July
2009.  (Government Exhibit 3.)            
     
Applicant explained that for a period, he and his wife tried to provide financial
assistance to their children, which caused him to fall behind on their own bills.  His
daughter has some health issues, and their son went through a nasty divorce.  
During his security clearance background investigation, Applicant was asked if he
had any delinquent debts.  Applicant stated, “NO,” and was then confronted with his
credit report that revealed the delinquent debts set forth in the SOR.  Applicant
professes no knowledge of his financial record and states that his wife handles the
finances in the family.  (Government Exhibit 4.)  He has provided no documentation to
support that he has  done anything in regard to the debts, whether it be to dispute them,
set up a payment plan, or pay them.  Applicant failed to submit any documentation to
establish that he has acted responsibly to address his delinquent debts.  Thus,
according to the Applicant’s credit reports in evidence, the following debts remain
owing:
1.a., a debt owed to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the
approximate amount of $318.  Applicant contends that the debt was paid in full but
provides no documentation to support this contention.      
1.b., a debt owed to a creditor for a medical account in the approximate amount
of $151.  Applicant claims that this account is in the process of being paid, but provides
no documentation to support this claim.    
3
1.c., a debt owed to a state creditor for a tax lien entered against the Applicant in
the approximate amount of $11,590.  Applicant claims the debt was paid in full.  He
states that he recently learned that he must go down to town hall and get a copy of the
original lien and forward that to the state to have them sign off on the lien.  He plans to
do this.       
1.d., a debt owed to a creditor for a medical judgement filed against the Applicant
in the approximate amount of $775.  Applicant claims that this account is in the process
of being paid, but provides no documentation to support this claim.   
1.e., a debt owed to a creditor for an account that was charged off in the
approximate amount of $4,862.  Applicant claims the account is not delinquent.  He
plans to send a letter to the credit reporting agencies to have it removed from his report.
There is no documentary evidence in the record to support this contention.  
1.f., a debt owed to a creditor for a medical account that was placed for collection
in the approximate amount of $5.00.  Applicant claims that this account is in the process
of being paid, but provides no documentation to support this claim.
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct).  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he has engaged in conduct involving
questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness 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.  
Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
dated May 21, 2014, and answered, “NO,” to a series of questions concerning his
financial record. Section 26 asked, “In the past seven years, have you failed to file or
pay Federal, state or other taxes when required by law or ordinance?”  The Applicant
answered, “NO,” to the question.  This was a false response.  He deliberately failed to
disclose the Federal Tax lien that was placed against him in 2010 in the approximate
amount of $26,617 for failing to pay his taxes.  (Government Exhibit 3.)   
Section 26 of the same questionnaire also asked, “ In the past seven years, have
you been delinquent on alimony or child support payments; have you had any
judgments entered again you; have you had a lien placed against your property for
failing to pay taxes or other debts; and are you currently delinquent on any Federal
debt?”  The Applicant answered, “NO,” to the questions.  (Government Exhibit 3.)  This
was a false response.  Applicant deliberately failed to disclose both the tax lien and the
judgment set forth in 1.c. and 1.d of the SOR.     
Section 26 also asked “In the past seven years have you had any possessions
voluntarily or involuntarily repossessed or foreclosed; have you defaulted on any type of
loan; have you had bills or debts turned over to a collection agency; have you had an
account or credit card suspended; charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed;
were you ever evicted for non-payment; have you had your wages, benefits or assets
4
garnished or attached for any reason; have you been over 120 days delinquent on any
debt not previously entered; are you currently over 120 days delinquent on any debt?”
The Applicant answered, “NO,” to the questions.  (Government Exhibit 3.)  This was a
false response.  Applicant deliberately failed to disclose his delinquent debts set forth in
1.a., 1.b., 1.e., and 1.f. of the SOR.  
Applicant states that he did not intentionally fail to list his various creditors on his
security clearance application and that his failure to list these debts was due to a lack of
understanding as to the meaning of the financial questions on the application.  He goes
on to say that he was intimidated by the security clearance process and may have
misunderstood the question.  (See Applicant’s Answer to SOR.)  The questions on the
application regarding his financial history are clear and simple.  Applicant knew or
should have known how to answer them correctly.  He did not.  Thus, it cannot be said
that he has shown the requisite good judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness to meet
the eligibility requirements for access to classified information.      
 POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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.  An individual who
is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate
funds. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
Guideline E (Personal Conduct)
15.  The Concern.  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
5
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.
Condition that could raise a security concern:
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.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19,  in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the administrative judge should
consider the following general factors:
a. the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding
circumstances;
     b.  the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  the frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  the extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavior
changes;
g.  the motivation for the conduct; 
h.  the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
 i.  the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct, which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
6
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The administrative
judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence, which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as
emphasized by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination
under this order . . . shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in
no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an applicant for
clearance may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility and dishonesty,
which demonstrate poor judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the applicant’s conduct and the
holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation,
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that Applicant
has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F) and dishonest (Guideline E).  This
evidence indicates poor judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the
Applicant.  Because of the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there
is a nexus or connection with his security clearance eligibility.
The evidence shows that Applicant remains indebted to each of the creditors
listed in the SOR in an amount totaling approximately $17,700.  He claims that he has
paid some of the debt and others are in the process of being paid, however, he has
failed to provide any documentation which supports his assertions.  Without this
evidence, Applicant’s history of excessive indebtedness demonstrates a pattern of
unreliability, and poor judgment.  In fact, he has not provided any documentary
evidence to show that he had done anything with respect to resolving these debts.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that he has received credit counseling to help him set
7
a budget and learn to live within it, or that his finances are under control.  The record is
void of mitigation, and Applicant has failed to establish that he is financially responsible. 
Under the particular circumstances of this case, Applicant has not met his burden
of proving that he is worthy of a security clearance.  He does not have a concrete
understanding of his financial responsibilities, and has not sufficiently addressed his
delinquent debts in the SOR.  Thus, it cannot be said that he has made a good-faith
effort to resolve his past due indebtedness.  He has not shown that he is or has been
reasonably, responsibly, or prudently addressing his financial situation.  Applicant has
not demonstrated that he can properly handle his financial affairs.  His indebtedness is
significant.  Assuming that he demonstrates a history and pattern of financial
responsibility, including the fact he has not acquired any new debt that he is unable to
pay, he may be eligible for a security clearance sometime in the future.  However, he is
not eligible now.  Considering all of the evidence, Applicant has not introduced
persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation, or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome
the Government's case. 
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligations, apply.  Applicant has been irresponsible.  Applicant could benefit from
intense financial counseling. In this case, none of the mitigating conditions are
applicable.  Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations).    
In regard to his personal conduct, Applicant was not truthful and candid with the
Government on his security clearance application when he intentionally omitted relevant
information concerning his financial record.  At the time he completed the application in
2014, he knew or should have known that he had a number of delinquent debts, within
the past seven years.  Even though his wife may handle the finances, he must be aware
of his financial standing at all times.  The only reasonable conclusion for not revealing
the truth concerning his delinquent debts was that he did not want the Government to
know about them.  There is no excuse for this misconduct.
    
Under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Disqualifying Condition 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.  None of the mitigating conditions are applicable.  Accordingly, I
find against the Applicant under Guideline E (Personal Conduct).
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth above, when viewed under all of the guidelines as a
whole, support a whole-person assessment of poor judgement, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, a lack of candor, an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations,
8
and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard
classified information.
  
I have considered all of the evidence presented.  It does not mitigate the negative
effects of his history of financial indebtedness, dishonesty and the effects that it can
have on his ability to safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that
Applicant has not overcome the Government's case opposing his request for a security
clearance.  Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against Applicant as to the
factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the SOR.  
    FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1:  Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.    1.a. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.b. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.c. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.d. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.e. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.f. Against the Applicant.
Paragraph 2:  Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.    2.a. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    2.b. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    2.c. Against the Applicant.
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge