1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-06762
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Pamela Benson, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
June 8, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge:
Applicant was alleged to be indebted to 12 creditors in the total approximate
amount of $223,836. One debt was a duplicate. The remaining 11 alleged debts are
unresolved and total $159,266. Additionally, Applicant intentionally failed to disclose his
financial delinquencies, repossession, and judgment on his security clearance
application. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated. Based on a review of the
pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on May 10, 2013. (Item 2.)
On May 13, 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 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
1 Item 5 is inadmissible. It will not be considered or cited as evidence in this case. It is the summary of an
unsworn interview of Applicant conducted by an interviewer from the Office of Personnel Management in July
2014. Applicant did not adopt it as his own statement, or otherwise certify it to be accurate. Under Directive
¶ E3.1.20, this Report of Investigation summary is inadmissible in the absence of an authenticating witness.
2
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines that came into effect in the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted two written responses to the SOR (Answer), dated June 15,
2015; and June 30, 2015 (Item 1), and requested that his case be decided by an
administrative judge on the written record without a hearing. Department Counsel
submitted the Government’s written case on November 6, 2015, containing five Items.1
A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM) was received by Applicant on
November 17, 2015, and he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit
material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the
FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of his copy of the FORM
on November 17, 2015. He failed to submit anything further within the allotted time
frame that ended December 17, 2015. I received the case assignment on April 1, 2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 45 years old, and has worked for his employer, a defense contractor,
since February 2012. Prior to this job, he worked for various other government
contractors. He served on active duty in the Navy from 1990 to 1994. He was in the
Navy Reserves from 1997 to 2003. He is divorced and has two daughters. (Item 2.)
The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a clearance because he
made financial decisions that indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which raise questions about his
reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. The SOR alleged
that Applicant is delinquent on 12 debts in the total approximate amount of $223,836.
Applicant admitted the debts identified in SOR ¶¶ 1.c through 1.h, 1.,k, and 1.l. He
denied debts identified in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.i, 1.j, Applicant’s delinquent accounts
appeared on his credit reports dated May 15, 2013; and August 21, 2014. (Item 3; Item
4.)
Applicant is delinquent on a $130,236 mortgage in the amount of $46,682, as
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. This debt has been delinquent since 2011. Applicant’s Answer
contends that this is the same as the debt identified in ¶ 1.f. He explained that the
company changed names and submitted an internet link which substantiated his claim.
This debt was for an investment rental property Applicant purchased in approximately
2006. He experienced difficulties paying the mortgage when his tenants abandoned the
house and he was unable to release it or sell it. He claimed in his Answer that the
mortgage was foreclosed upon and that his “real estate agent told [him] that the
3
mortgage is no longer [his] responsibility.” He claimed to be unable to produce
documentation to show that this debt is resolved because he lost track of it during his
marital separation. This debt is unresolved. (Item 1; Item 3; Answer.)
Applicant is indebted on a charged-off account in the approximate amount of
$23,314, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b. This debt has been delinquent since 2010. Applicant
admitted having a delinquent debt with this creditor, but indicated, “I do not believe this
account is mine because I never had a balance of $23,314.” Applicant failed to provide
documentation of what he believes is the correct balance, or show that he disputed this
debt with the creditor. This debt is unresolved. (Item 3; Answer.)
Applicant is indebted on a charged-off account in the approximate amount of
$1,999, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.c. This debt has been delinquent since 2013. Applicant
admitted this debt and indicated, “I have no problem contacting them to satisfy this
account.” However, he failed to provide proof that he took any actions to repay this debt.
It is unresolved. (Item 3; Answer.)
Applicant is indebted on a collection account in the approximate amount of $893,
as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d. This debt has been delinquent since 2013. Applicant admitted
this debt was his credit card and indicated, “I have no problem contacting this creditor to
satisfy this account.” However, he failed to provide proof that he took any actions to
repay this debt. It is unresolved. (Item 3; Answer.)
Applicant is indebted on a charged-off account in the approximate amount of
$717, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e. This debt has been delinquent since 2008. Applicant
admitted this debt and indicated he would contact the creditor to satisfy the account.
However, he failed to present documentation showing that he followed through with this
promise. This debt remains unresolved. (Item 4.)
Applicant is indebted on a collection account in the approximate amount of
$148,124, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f. This debt is the same debt as ¶ 1.a and is discussed
above. (Item 3; Item 4; Answer.)
Applicant is indebted on a collection account in the approximate amount of
$1,654, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g. This debt has been delinquent since 2011. Applicant
admitted this debt and indicated he would contact the creditor to satisfy the account.
However, he failed to present documentation showing that he followed through with this
promise. This debt remains unresolved. (Item 4.)
Applicant is indebted on a collection account in the approximate amount of $225,
as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.h. This debt has been delinquent since 2008. Applicant admitted
this debt and indicated he would contact the creditor to satisfy the account. However, he
failed to present documentation showing that he followed through with this promise.
This debt remains unresolved. (Item 3; Answer.)
2 This judgment was not alleged under Guideline F and will not be considered as disqualifying under the
Financial Considerations section, but was alleged as part of the Personal Conduct concerns and will be
considered under Guideline E.
4
Applicant is indebted on a medical collections account in the approximate amount
of $68, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.i. Applicant indicated that he did not recognize this
account. However, he failed to provide documentation to show he disputed this debt.
This debt is unresolved. (Item 3; Answer.)
Applicant is indebted on a medical collections account in the approximate amount
of $60, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.j. Applicant indicated that he did not recognize this
account. However, he failed to provide documentation to show he disputed this debt.
This debt is unresolved. (Item 3; Answer.)
Applicant is indebted on a medical collections account in the approximate amount
of $50, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.k. Applicant admitted this debt and indicated that he lost
track of his bills after his divorce. He provided nothing further to show to has addressed
this debt. It remains delinquent. (Item 3; Answer.)
Applicant is indebted on a medical collections account in the approximate amount
of $50, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.l. Applicant admitted this debt and indicated that he lost
track of his bills after his divorce. He provided nothing further to show to has addressed
this debt. It remains delinquent. (Item 3; Answer.)
Applicant’s May 15, 2013 credit report reflects a judgment against him filed in
June 2011.2 The judgement was satisfied, through garnishment, February 2013. (Item
3.)  
Personal Conduct security concerns arose out of Applicant’s failure to disclose
the judgment entered against him in June 2011 in the amount of $2,934. Section 26 of
the e-QIP asked, “Delinquency Involving Enforcement. In the past seven (7) years, have
. . . you had a judgment entered against you?” He answered this question “No.” despite
the fact that a judgment was entered against him in June 2011.
Section 26 of the e-QIP also asked, “In the past seven (7) years, have . . . you
had any possessions or property voluntarily or involuntarily repossessed or foreclosed?;
. . .you defaulted on any type of loan?; . . . you had any bills or debts turned over to a
collection agency?; . . .you had any account or credit card suspended, charged off, or
cancelled for failing to pay as agreed?; . . . you had your wages, benefits, or assets
garnished or attached for any reason?” Applicant answered these questions, “No.” He
failed to disclose his delinquent debts as identified in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.l, as well as
a 2012 garnishment to satisfy the June 2011 judgment and a 2009 vehicle
repossession. 
5
Applicant denied that he intentionally falsified his security clearance application in
his Answer to SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b. He explained:
When I began filling out the e-QIP questionnaire I was going through a
divorce. By the time I completed this questionnaire my divorce was final.
During this time I was going through a lot of emotional trauma dealing with
the divorce and also concerned about the well being of my children. The
two questions in “Section 26" of the e-QIP questionnaire that I answered
“no” was not an attempt to deceive anyone of my past mishaps. . .I
apologize for answering these two questions incorrectly but I honestly
forgot about these financial situations. This information I entered is based
upon what I was able to recall and what I know to be true at the time that I
completed the e-QIP questionnaire. Please understand that I was going
through a great deal at this time regarding my divorce. (Answer.)
Applicant submitted no evidence that he has received any financial counseling.
He did not submit a budget, or any other information concerning his income and
expenses.
Applicant provided no evidence concerning the quality of his professional
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. I was unable
to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or character in person since he elected to have his
case decided without a hearing.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used in
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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 the national security.” In reaching this
6
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant 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.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter into a
fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns under the guideline for financial considerations are set out
in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:      
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. 
Department Counsel asserted, and the record evidence established, security
concerns under two Guideline F DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.
Applicant has a history of delinquent debt. He has had unresolved delinquencies
since 2008. His ongoing pattern of delinquent debt, and history of inability or
7
unwillingness to pay his lawful debts, raises security concerns under DCs 19(a) and (c),
and shifts the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those concerns. 
The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:
(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; and
(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.
Applicant failed to produce sufficient evidence that he has addressed any of his
delinquencies. He offered little evidence from which to establish a track record of debt
resolution. While the record shows evidence of a divorce in 2013, a condition beyond
his control, he failed to show how the divorce affected him financially or that he acted
responsibly under the circumstances. He did not produce evidence that he received
financial counseling. MC 20(e) requires documented proof to substantiate the basis of a
dispute concerning an alleged debt, and Applicant failed to provide such evidence.
Accordingly, the record is insufficient to establish mitigation under any of the foregoing
provisions.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
The security concern for the Personal Conduct guideline is set out in AG ¶ 15:
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 
8
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The following disqualifying condition is potentially applicable:
(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.
Applicant failed to list his SOR-listed debts, judgment, garnishment, and vehicle
repossession on his e-QIP, instead denying their existence with his “No” response to
the questions in Section 26. His explanation that he was “going through a lot of
emotional trauma dealing with the divorce” does not explain his omissions. He clearly
knew of the judgment, delinquent mortgage, and vehicle repossession. His explanation
does not explain his lack of disclosure. On balance, the evidence indicates that he
willfully chose not to disclose his delinquent debts on the e-QIP. This behavior
demonstrates questionable judgment and untrustworthiness.
AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. The following
are potentially applicable: 
(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; and
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.
9
After considering the mitigating conditions outlined above in AG ¶ 17, it is
apparent that none of them were established in this case. Applicant did not make
prompt or good-faith efforts to correct his falsification and concealment. He provided no
information that indicates he was ill-advised in completing his e-QIP. Falsifying material
information raises serious concerns and Applicant has done nothing to show that similar
dishonesty is unlikely to recur. Further, he failed to take responsibility for his actions. He
has not provided sufficient evidence to meet his burden of proof for his personal
conduct.
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
conduct and all relevant 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 considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is an accountable
adult, who is responsible for his voluntary choices and conduct that underlie the security
concerns expressed in the SOR. His SOR-listed delinquent debts arose over the past
eight years and all appear to remain unresolved. He further failed to disclose his debts
and judgment on his e-QIP. He offered insufficient evidence of financial counseling,
rehabilitation, better judgment, or responsible conduct in other areas of his life to offset
resulting security concerns. The potential for pressure, coercion, and duress from his
financial situation and personal conduct remains undiminished. Overall, the record
evidence leaves me with substantial doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility and
suitability for a security clearance. He did not meet his burden to mitigate the security
concerns arising from his financial considerations.
10
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a through 1.e Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.b through 1.e Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a and 1.b 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.
                                              
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Administrative Judge