1 
 
 
                                                              
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
            DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
          
             
 
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
-------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 15-03727 
 ) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOWE, Philip S., Administrative Judge: 
 
On June 14, 2012, Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP). On November 9, 2015, the Department of Defense 
Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DODCAF) issued Applicant a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guidelines F and E. 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) effective within the 
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.  
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on December 9, 2015. Applicant admitted 
the financial allegations and made no answer to the personal conduct allegation. Later, 
on December 18, 2015, in an email Applicant admitted the falsification allegation but 
denied it was deliberate.  Applicant requested his case be decided on the written record 
in lieu of a hearing.  
 
 
 
 
 
2 
On January 14, 2016, Department Counsel submitted the Department=s written 
case. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM), consisting of Items 1 to 5, 
was provided to the Applicant on January 15, 2016. He was given the opportunity to file 
objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant 
received the file on February 22, 2016.  
 
Applicant filed a Response to the FORM within the 30 day time allowed that 
would have expired on March 23, 2016. It was filed February 26, 2016. 
 
 Department Counsel submitted five Items in support of the SOR allegations.  
Item 3 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 August 2012. 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. In 
light of Applicant’s admissions, it is also cumulative. 
 
I received the case assignment on April 22, 2016. Based upon a review of the 
pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant admitted the allegations in Paragraphs 1 and 2, and claimed in his 
Answer that he was negotiating settlements on his first three debts; had paid his two 
state tax liens from December 2012 and 2013; and falsified his answer to Section 26 of 
the e-QIP, but not deliberately. (Items 1, 2, 4, 5) 
 
Applicant is 57 years old and is married. He does not have any children. He 
works for a defense contractor. He has a current security clearance. He does not have a 
college degree. He owes $36,066 on three delinquent financial accounts. He owed 
another $2,441 on two state tax liens. (Items 2, 4, 5) 
 
Applicant owes a bank $20,500 on an account (Subparagraph 1.a) since 2009. It 
became delinquent in September 2011. It is shown on his March 30, 2015 credit report 
as a home equity loan. It also appears on his June 23, 2012 credit report. It is unpaid. 
Applicant stated in his Answer that he was negotiating a settlement but did not submit 
any documents to show any settlement was offered or consummated. This debt remains 
unpaid. (Items 2, 4, 5) 
 
Applicant owes $9,296 to a bank on an unspecified type of account since 2002 
(Subparagraph 1.b). It became delinquent in August 2009. This debt remains unpaid. 
Applicant’s Answer stated he is waiting for paperwork to verify it was repaid. The credit 
reports state it was charged off, which is not the same as being repaid. He did not 
submit any evidence of a repayment plan for this debt. This debt is unresolved. (Items 
2, 4, 5) 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
Applicant owes another bank $6,270 on a charge card account that was opened 
in 1995 (Subparagraph 1.c). It became delinquent in October 2010. Applicant’s Answer 
states he is working toward a settlement. The credit report in Item 4 shows a credit card 
debt in the amount of $6,270. Applicant states he is working on a repayment plan. 
Applicant also stated that plan in his December 2015 Answer. He did not submit any 
documents to show a settlement was reached or was in negotiation. This debt is 
unresolved. (Items 2, 4, 5) 
 
Applicant owes two years of state taxes totaling $2,441 for tax liens entered in 
December 2012 for $2,144 and in December 2013 for $297. His Answer states he paid 
$2,582.07 on December 27, 2013, to resolve these liens. His Response contains three 
documents showing three payments were made on December 27, 2013, with a credit 
card Applicant does not identify. These payments for were state income taxes and 
totaled $2,182.07, which is less than the taxes owed and less than he claimed he paid. 
He, in effect, transferred the debt from his state tax account to one of his credit cards. 
The status of payment on those amounts is not disclosed. The debts to the state are 
partially paid. (Items 2, 4, 5) 
 
As part of his Response, Applicant’s wife submitted a statement that she “feels 
extremely sick” for causing her husband trouble with his security clearance. She claims 
she made the financial mistakes and hid everything from him. She lost her job of 10 
years and that caused her “terrific strain.” Applicant also states that his wife’s father and 
a friend of hers died and her mother had a stroke, leaving her disabled. He further 
states his wife lost her job and spent several thousand dollars on a lawsuit against her 
former employer, only to lose the case. Applicant claimed in this document that his wife 
became disabled and cannot work full-time anymore. Applicant did not submit any 
documents to demonstrate objectively the veracity of any of these statements. He did 
not relate them in a chronological order to his failure to pay his debts.  (Response) 
 
 Applicant’s Response also claims he paid off the loan on a car owed to a bank 
that is listed in Item 4 on page 2 as debt number 6. The amount shown is $10,837. That 
car debt is not alleged in the SOR. The credit report that is Item 4 shows that debt as 
paid.  Applicant also states a mortgage is transferred but it is not alleged in the SOR. He 
does not further identify the debt, and its relevance to the SOR debts. In his Response 
he again blames his wife for his financial delinquencies. (Items 2, 4, 5, Response) 
 
 Applicant answered Section 26 of the e-QIP pertaining to delinquent debts in the 
past seven years in the negative. He denied having debts turned over to a collection 
agency, and denied having any account suspended, cancelled, or charged off. He also 
denied being over 120 days delinquent on any debt. Therefore, he did not disclose the 
first three debts listed in the SOR. He claims in his Response he was not aware of the 
financial delinquencies alleged in SOR Paragraph 1. In his Answer he blames his wife’s 
spending habits. At the end of the e-QIP he signed the document attesting to the 
contents as “true, complete, and correct to the best of [his] knowledge and belief and 
are made in good faith.” (Items 1 and 2)  
 
 
 
 
 
4 
 Applicant’s Response also lists the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under 
Guidelines F and E while interspacing them with his denials and arguments that he did 
nothing wrong to merit the denial of his security clearance. He also states in each 
mitigating condition explanation why a favorable view of his actions should be taken. He 
asserts he is a good employee who safeguards information. Applicant’s statements are 
of a general and non-specific content unsupported by objective documents pertaining to 
any repayments. His explanations as to why he denied any financial delinquencies in 
Section 26 of the e-QIP are short and unpersuasive. (Response) 
 
     Applicant did not submit any documentation that he has participated in credit 
counseling or budget education. He provided no evidence concerning the quality of his/ 
job performance. He submitted no character references or other evidence tending to 
establish good judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability. 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 and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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, the administrative judge applies the guidelines 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(c), the entire process is a conscientious 
scrutiny of a number of variables known as the Awhole-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[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to 
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.@ In reaching this 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on 
the evidence contained in the record.  
 
According to Directive & E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to 
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive & E3.1.15, an 
“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.”  
 
 
 
 
 
5 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters 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. See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set 
out in AG & 18:       
 
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.  
 
The guideline at AG & 19 contains nine disqualifying conditions that could raise 
security concerns. From these nine conditions, two conditions are applicable to the facts 
found in this case: 
 
 (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and   
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
 From 2009 to the present, Applicant accumulated five delinquent debts, totaling 
$38,507 that remained unpaid or unresolved when the SOR was issued. These debts 
were delinquent before Applicant completed his 2012 e-QIP. AG ¶ 19 (a) and (c) are 
established. The evidence raises the above security concerns, thereby shifting the 
burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those concerns.  
 
AG ¶ 20 provides six conditions that could mitigate security concerns: 
 
(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 
 
 
 
 
 
6 
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; 
 
(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; and 
 
(f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income. 
  
 Applicant’s financial delinquencies continue to this day. He paid money on his 
state tax liens, but his calculations do not match the amounts listed on the credit 
reports. He submitted documents that he paid a substantial portion of his state tax liens, 
but never explained why he did not pay them when they were  due. His financial 
delinquencies are not infrequent, but part of a pattern since 2009. He did not 
demonstrate any mechanism to show the same problem will not recur in the future. AG 
¶ 20 (a) is not established. 
 
AG ¶ 20 (b) would apply if the loss of his wife’s employment were shown by 
Applicant to have a substantial effect on his ability to repay his debts. He did not submit 
any documents pertaining to her lost income and why his income was insufficient to pay 
his debts. Applicant did not demonstrate that he acted responsibly in the situation 
because he allowed the delinquencies to continue without checking that his debts were 
being paid based on the changed circumstances of his wife’s lost income. He failed to 
meet his burden of proof on that issue. 
 
Applicant did not submit any information that he was undergoing financial 
counseling. He also made statements about settlement agreements and other aspects 
of his financial delinquencies, but none of them were supported by any objective 
documents to prove his self-serving statements. Applicant’s financial problems are not 
under control. AG ¶ 20 (c) is not established. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
Applicant claims he is investigating the SOR-listed debts or paying them as part 
of a settlement. Yet he does not provide any evidence of such action. He has not 
resolved any debts except his two tax liens that are alleged in Subparagraphs 1.d and 
1.e in the SOR. AG ¶ 20 (d) is partially applicable to those two allegations, as he has 
made a limited effort to resolve them.  
 
Applicant has not shown he has any legal basis to dispute these debts or 
provided documented proof to substantiate any basis of any dispute of them. He has not 
provided any evidence beyond the tax lien payments to show he resolved the 
delinquent debts. AG ¶ 20 (e) is only partially established as it pertains to his state tax 
liens.  
 
Finally, there is no discussion or evidence of any affluence from a legal source of 
income. Applicant does not disclose his annual income and whether it is sufficient to 
resolve his delinquent debts. AG ¶ 20 (f) is not established.  
 
Guideline E, 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 seven conditions that could raise a security concern and may 
be disqualifying. Two conditions may apply: 
 
(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; and 
 
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct, 
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such 
as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person's 
personal, professional, or community standing, or (2) while in another 
country, engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country or that is 
legal in that country but illegal in the United States and may serve as a 
basis for exploitation or pressure by the foreign security or intelligence 
service or other group; 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
Applicant did not disclose his financial delinquencies in Section 26 of the 2012 e-
QIP as alleged in SOR Paragraph 2. He disclaims any intentional action in doing so. 
However, Applicant is responsible for knowing his financial status before he completes 
the e-QIP and signs it stating the answers to all sections are true and correct to the best 
of his knowledge. The first three delinquent debts listed in the SOR became so before 
2012. Applicant also claims his wife lost her job, had to take care of her disabled 
mother, became disabled herself, and had to suffer the stress of her father’s death and 
that of a friend in 2007. She submitted a statement that not paying the debts was all her 
fault. However, Applicant is the responsible party seeking a security clearance. There is 
no evidence to verify any of his claims against his wife.  
 
Furthermore, if his debts and their magnitude were known, it would create a 
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. Applicant sought to not disclose his 
debts when asked about any financial problems in Section 26 of the e-QIP. So the fact 
he deliberately hid his debts from the U.S. Government after incurring them, and then 
blames his wife for the delinquencies, makes him vulnerable as he may try to keep the 
truth from anyone now or in the future.  
 
Applicant’s actions demonstrate questionable judgment, lack of candor, 
dishonesty, and an unwillingness to follow rules and regulations that create doubt about 
his ability, reliability, and trustworthiness to protect classified information. AG ¶ 16 (a) 
and (e) are established.  
 
 AG ¶ 17 provides seven mitigating conditions. None of them apply to Applicant. 
While Applicant’s Response contains his reasoning why some or all of the mitigating 
conditions should apply to him, just as he argues none of the disqualifying conditions 
apply to him, I conclude that none of the mitigating conditions apply to Applicant. He did 
not make prompt efforts to correct his answers in Section 26 of the e-QIP, as required in 
AG ¶ 17 (a). There is no evidence of improper or inadequate advice from authorized 
personnel or an attorney, which is required in AG ¶ 17 (b). The falsification is not minor 
or unique, it does not have any other qualities set forth in AG ¶ 17 (c); there is no 
evidence of counseling of any type or acknowledgement of his falsifying behavior, nor 
any evidence of steps to reduce his vulnerability, so AG ¶ 17 (d) and (e) do not apply. 
The information is substantiated, so AG ¶ 17 (f) does not apply. There are no criminals 
involved so AG ¶ 17 (g) does not apply. Therefore, none of the mitigating conditions 
apply to Applicant’s deliberate falsification of his financial history on his e-QIP.  
 
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): 
 
 
 
 
 
 
9 
(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 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant was an adult when he 
incurred the debts. He has not taken sufficient verifiable action to resolve his three 
major delinquent debts. This inaction leaves him vulnerable to pressure, coercion, 
exploitation, or duress based on the magnitude of his financial obligation. His lack of 
action continues to this day, and is obviously voluntary. His inaction will continue based 
on his past performance. Applicant displayed a lack of good judgment incurring the 
debts.   
 
Applicant did not pay his delinquent debts, and falsified his answer on the e-QIP 
about them. While he blamed his wife for his financial problems, the cannot blame her 
for his falsification. His argument, claiming complete ignorance of his debts, is not a 
credible position for any adult who has these debts and other debts listed on his credit 
reports, especially for a person holding a security clearance.  
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and substantial doubts as 
to Applicant=s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns arising under the guideline for 
Financial Considerations. He did not mitigate the security concerns under the guideline 
for Personal Conduct.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
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 
 
           Subparagraphs 1.a to 1.c:   Against Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.d and 1.e:  For 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. 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
_________________ 
PHILIP S. HOWE 
Administrative Judge