1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 12-10436
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant has more than $50,000 of delinquent debt. He provided no evidence of
any steps to address them. Clearance is denied. 
 Statement of the Case
On August 16, 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 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 September 1, 2006. On October 7, 2015, Applicant
answered the SOR, admitting the allegations set forth in SOR subparagraphs 1.a
through 1.e. As for SOR subparagraphs 1.f and 1.g,  he answered “I don’t know.” In
response to SOR subparagraph 2.a, an allegation of falsifying a security clearance
application by not disclosing relevant financial information regarding financial
2
 
delinquencies, Applicant answered, “I didn’t know at that time, so I said ‘no.’ ” I construe
these responses as denials. Applicant requested a decision on the record rather than a
hearing.
On December 4, 2015, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant
Materials (FORM). Applicant received the FORM on March 4, 2016. He submitted no
response. On April 22, 2016, the case was assigned to me.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 60-year-old married man with one adult child. He is a high school
graduate, and he has been working as a blaster for a federal contractor since 1990.
(Item 3 at 10)
As of June 2015, Applicant was two months behind on his mortgage payment, as
alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.e. In addition, by June 2015, he had incurred additional
delinquent debt totalling approximately $50,000. Approximately $45,000 of these
delinquent debts constitute student loans (SOR subparagraphs 1.f and 1.g). The
remainder consists of a delinquent loan totalling approximately $2,500 (SOR
subparagraph 1.a), and three telecommunications bills totalling approximately $550
(SOR subparagraphs 1.b through 1.d). Applicant submitted no evidence in mitigation.
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.
3
 
Analysis
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.” Applicant provided no evidence regarding the cause of his
financial delinquencies, nor any evidence of what, if anything, he has been doing to
satisfy them. Under these circumstances, none of the 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) Applicant’s omission of relevant financial information from his
security clearance application raises the issue of whether AG ¶ 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.
Applicant did not know that the debts alleged to have been intentionally omitted
from his security clearance application were delinquent when he completed the
application. Under these circumstances, the omissions were not intentional. I conclude
there are no personal conduct security concerns.
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.
4
 
Applicant provided no evidence explaining the circumstances surrounding the
incurrence of his delinquencies, nor did he provide evidence of a plan to address his
debt. Under these circumstances, Applicant has not carried the burden. 
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-1.g: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: 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 Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge