1
                
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 12-06429
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: David F. Hayes, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
The criminal conduct concerns were mitigated by the amount of time that has
elapsed since the last offense. Applicant’s omission of a 33-year old criminal offense
from his security clearance application does not constitute a falsification, therefore there
are no personal conduct security concerns. Conversely, Applicant failed to substantiate
his contention that his delinquencies either have been paid, or are being paid through
payment plans. Consequently, financial considerations security concerns remain.
Clearance is denied. 
Statement of the Case
On December 11, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing
security concerns under Guideline J, criminal conduct, 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
2
                
September 1, 2006. On January 17, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting
subparagraphs 1.a, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.g, and denying Paragraph 3. As for Paragraph 2, the
allegations related to the financial considerations guideline, he neither admitted nor
denied them. Instead, he stated that each debt was either satisfied or in the process of
being satisfied. I have construed this answer as a denial. Applicant requested a decision
without a hearing.
On May 14, 2015, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Materials
(FORM). Applicant was provided a copy of the FORM on June 3, 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 March 3, 2016, the case
was assigned to me.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 57-year-old single man with two adult children, ages 39 and 30.
He was married previously from 1985 to his divorce in 2006. Applicant’s oldest child is
from a  relationship that pre-dated his marriage. (Item 2 at 13) Applicant has a high
school education. (Item 3 at 1) He has worked as a federal contractor since 2011. 
On September 22, 1983, Applicant was charged with the possession,
manufacture, distribution, or sale of marijuana. On or about July 20, 1993, Applicant
was charged with battery of a person without injury. On February 7, 2000, Applicant was
charged with grand theft, and petty theft with prior conviction. The outcome of these
three charges is unknown from the record. In May of 2011, Applicant was charged with
using profanity and being intoxicated while in public. He was fined $25 and ordered to
pay $80 in court fees. (Item 2 at 30) On May 21, 2012, Applicant was charged with
being drunk in public. He was found guilty and fined.
The SOR alleges three additional charges, as set forth in subparagraphs 1.b, 1.c,
and 1.f. The Government provided no substantiating documentation.
 Applicant has approximately $40,000 of delinquent debt. Approximately $35,000
of this debt constitutes back child support payments (SOR subparagraph 1.f). Three
delinquencies, totaling approximately $3,000, constitute judgments for delinquent rental
payments incurred between July 2010 and February 2012 (subparagraphs 1.a through
1.c). Subparagraphs 1.d and 1.e, totaling approximately $1,800, are a tax lien and a
medical bill, respectively.
Applicant attributes his financial problems to two lengthy unemployment periods
following layoffs. The first period of unemployment lasted from May 2006 to June 2007,
and the second period of unemployment lasted from June 2010 to May 2011. (Item 2 at
32; Item 3 at 1) His financial problems following the first period of unemployment were
exacerbated by a costly divorce. (Item 3 at 4) Applicant contends that he has satisfied
the debts alleged in subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d, and is making payments towards
the satisfaction of subparagraphs 1.e and 1.f. He provided no corroborating evidence.
3
                
Applicant completed a security clearance application in January 2012. In
response to the question, “[h]ave you EVER been charged with an offense involving
alcohol or drugs?,”  he failed to disclose the 1983 marijuana arrest. Applicant contends
that he misread the question, thinking that he was only supposed to list criminal activity
that occurred within ten years of completing the application. (Item 1 at 2) Elsewhere on
the security clearance application, he disclosed the criminal charges from 2011 and
2012. (Item 2 at 29-30) He also disclosed all of his derogatory financial information, as
required, on the security clearance application. (Item 2 at 36-37) 
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.
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 J, Criminal Conduct
Under this guideline, “criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness.” Moreover, “by its very nature, it calls into question a
person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” (AG ¶ 30) 
There is no record evidence supporting the allegations set forth in SOR
subparagraphs 1.b, 1.c, and 1.f. In light of Applicant’s denials, I resolve these
allegations in his favor. The remainder of the criminal conduct allegations, which he has
admitted, triggers the application of AG ¶ 31(a) “. . . multiple lesser offenses.”
Applicant’s most recent crime occurred four years ago. His three remaining criminal
offenses occurred 15 to 30 years ago. Considering the infrequency of the offenses and
the amount of time that has elapsed since the last offense, I conclude that AG ¶ 32(a),
“so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened . . . that it is unlikely to
recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good
4
                
judgment,” and AG ¶ 32(d), “there is evidence of successful rehabilitation including . .
passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity,” apply.
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 two lengthy periods of unemployment,
the first of which coincided with a costly divorce. Applicant contends that he has either
satisfied his delinquencies entirely, or is in the process of satisfying them through
payment plans. However, he provided no substantiating documentary evidence. Under
these circumstances, AG ¶ 20(b) is partially applicable, to the extent that his financial
problems were out of his control, but none of the remaining mitigating conditions apply. 
Guideline E, 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.)
Given that Applicant disclosed other derogatory information that was responsive
to the questions on his security clearance application, I conclude that his explanation for
the omission of the 1983 drug arrest was credible. There are no personal conduct
security concerns.
5
                
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.
Although Applicant has a history of criminal conduct, only two of his criminal
offenses have occurred within the past 15 years, and the most recent episode occurred
more than four years ago. Both of the most recent criminal offenses were minor,
resulting in fines. Under these circumstances, Applicant mitigated the criminal conduct
security concern. Conversely, Applicant addressed the mitigating circumstances
surrounding his financial problems, but failed to substantiate the steps that he has taken
to alleviate them. Under these circumstances, he has not mitigated the financial
considerations security concern. 
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 J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.g: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.f: Against Applicant
Paragraph 3, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 3.a - 3.b: For Applicant
6
                
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