1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-06224
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Andrew H. Henderson, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Ryan C. Nerney, Esquire
August 15, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On January 28, 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines F and E for Applicant.
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) (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
On February 14, 2015, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing with
attachments, and he requested a hearing in this case before an Administrative Judge.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on
December 9, 2015, and the hearing was convened, as scheduled, on January 27, 2016.
The Government offered Exhibits 1 through 6, which were admitted without objection.
Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits A and B, which were also
admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr) on
February 4, 2016. The record was kept open until February 5, 2016, to allow Applicant
2
to submit additional evidence. The documents that were timely received have been
identified and entered into evidence without objection as Exhibits C through P. Based
upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record discussed
above, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of
fact: 
Applicant is 50 years old. He is marred, and he has one adult daughter. He is a
high school graduate, employed as an Aircraft Electrician by a defense contractor, and
he seeks a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense
sector.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F -  Financial Considerations)
The SOR lists six allegations, 1.a. through 1.f., regarding financial difficulties,
specifically delinquent debts of Applicant. The allegations will be discussed in the same
order as they were listed on the SOR.
1.a. The SOR alleges that Applicant has an overdue debt for a judgment that was
entered against him in 2008 in the approximate amount of $11,604. Applicant admitted
this allegation in his RSOR. 
At the hearing, Applicant testified that this debt resulted when his daughter was
involved in an accident in a vehicle that he had purchased for her and she did not have
insurance. He had given her the responsibility to obtain insurance, but she failed to do
so. Applicant averred that his daughter has been making payment of $50 a month for
many years, although the Applicant did not know how long. He estimated that they
owed approximately $3,500 at this time. The first page of Exhibit A shows that Applicant
owed $4,250 as of January 30, 2015, but since Applicant testified that they have
continued making the monthly payment of $50 the total should be less. (Tr at 21-28.) I
find that Applicant is resolving this debt in a reasonable fashion. 
1.b. The SOR alleges that Applicant has an overdue medical debt for a collection
account in the approximate amount of $125. Applicant denied this allegation in his
RSOR. At the hearing, Applicant testified that he disputed this debt because he was not
sure of its origin. He attempted to contact the creditor to dispute the debt, but despite
his best effort, including going to the office address listed on the debt, and disputing the
debt through Equifax, he could not locate the creditor. Applicant testified that the dispute
was accepted and the debt was removed from his credit report. (Tr at 28-31.) I find that
Applicant has made a good-faith effort to resolve this debt.
1.c. The SOR alleges that Applicant has an overdue medical debt for a collection
account in the approximate amount of $81. Applicant admitted this allegation in his
3
RSOR. At the hearing, Applicant testified that he has paid off this debt. (Tr at 31-33.)
Exhibits A and E show that this debt has been paid. I find that this debt has been
resolved. 
1.d. The SOR alleges that Applicant has an overdue medical debt for a collection
account in the approximate amount of $259. Applicant admitted this allegation in his
RSOR. At the hearing, he testified that after forgetting about this bill for a period of time,
this bill has now been paid. (Tr at 33-36.) Exhibit D is a letter from the creditor showing
that this debt was paid in full on January 25, 2016. I find that this debt has been
resolved. 
1.e. The SOR alleges that Applicant has an overdue debt for a collection account
in the approximate amount of $6,047. Applicant denied this allegation in his RSOR. At
the hearing, he testified that he disputed this debt as he did not recall it and the social
security number listed on the debt was not his, nor that of any family member. He stated
that he contacted the collection agency for this debt, and explained the situation to them
and was told the debt would be removed from his credit report. (Tr at 36-40.) Exhibit B,
a letter from the collection agency, establishes that Applicant is not responsible for this
debt. I find that this debt has been resolved. 
1.f. The SOR alleges that Applicant has an overdue debt for a collection account
in the approximate amount of $94. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR. At
the hearing, he testified that this debt was paid in full in about February 2015.  (Tr at 40-
42.) Exhibit C, a letter from the collection agency, establishes that Applicant is not
responsible for this debt. I find that this debt has been resolved. 
Applicant testified that he and his wife now each take care of some of the bills,
and he follows up to make certain they are all paid. He also regularly checks on his
credit report, and as far as he knows, he always pays his bills in a timely fashion. (Tr at
74-75.) 
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct) 
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he engaged in conduct that exhibited questionable judgement, lack
of candor, dishonesty or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.
2.a. It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant failed to provide truthful and candid
answers to Questions asked under section 26 of an Electronic Questionnaires for
Investigations Processing (e-QIP), executed by him on July 1, 2013. (Exhibit 1.) The
questions asked whether in the last seven years Applicant had been over 120 days
delinquent on any debt. Applicant answered, “No,” to this question and listed no debts. It
is alleged that Applicant deliberately failed to disclose that information concerning his
finances and overdue debts as set forth in paragraph 1, above. Applicant admitted this
allegation in his RSOR. 
4
At the hearing, Applicant testified that he had not looked at his credit report for
several years, and he was unaware that he had any delinquent debt on his report. He
also testified that this was the first time he ever completed an e-QIP, and he received no
help from anyone in completing the form. He was also asked to hurry to complete the e-
QIP. Applicant explained that he only learned that he had delinquent debts from a
Government investigator, who questioned him about these debts, after he completed
the e-QIP. He credibly averred that he did not reveal his debts because he was not
aware that he had overdue debts. (Tr at 42-44.)  
Applicant also explained that his sister, who had raised him, had died just two
weeks prior to his completing the e-QIP, and he had just returned back to work so he
was not in a proper frame of mind to complete the form.  Applicant stated that  he would
certainly obtain a current credit report before he were to complete an e-QIP in the
future. (Tr at 44-48.) 
Upon questioning from Department Counsel, Applicant did concede that he had
been aware of the judgement listed as 1.a. on the SOR and he should have at least
included that debt. He stated that he did not include that debt because he made a
mistake. (Tr at 51-52.) 
Mitigation
Applicant submitted five extremely positive character letters on his behalf.
(Exhibit P.) Applicant also submitted a current Personal Financial Statement, dated
January 19, 2016. (Exhibit D.) It shows that Applicant’s monthly income is $6,680, his
expenses are $3,065, and his payments for debt total $1,482, leaving a net monthly
remainder of $2,133. Applicant also submitted his Performance Evaluations from his
current employer. (Exhibit I.) In 2015, his overall rating was: “Significantly Exceeds
Expectations.” Finally, Applicant submitted eight certificates and awards for
achievement that he has earned, including a Certificate of Achievement  for “Setting
Your Financial Goals and Creating a Budget” that he earned in December 2015. (Exhibit
H.) 
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, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s over-arching
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
“whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable
5
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.” In reaching this
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, 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 as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
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.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Paragraph 1 (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 notes several conditions that could raise security concerns and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not
6
meeting financial obligations” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant had accumulated significant delinquent debt. 
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties. I find that because Applicant has received counseling and he has been
paying off the first debt listed on the SOR and the other debts have all been resolved,
AG ¶ 20(c) and AG ¶ 20(d) are applicable as Applicant has been counseled and there
are “clear indications that the problem is . . . under control, and he has “initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.”  
I conclude that at this time Applicant has reduced or resolved his overdue debts,
and his current debts are being paid in a timely manner. Therefore, Applicant has
mitigated the financial concerns of the Government, and I resolve Guideline F for
Applicant.
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct)
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in
AG ¶ 15:  
      Conduct involving questionable judgement, 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.
         The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance
because he engaged in conduct that exhibited questionable judgement, lack of candor,
and dishonesty. In reviewing the disqualifying conditions under Guideline E, I conclude
that while Applicant should have been more careful in completing his e-QIP, there was
no “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any
personnel security questionnaire” by Applicant, because he testified credibly that he
was not aware of his delinquent debts when he completed the e-QIP. I find that any
incorrect information about his finances was due to mistakes in completing the form,
rather than a wilful desire to mislead the Government. I do not find disqualifying
condition ¶ 16(a) or any other disqualifying condition applies in this case against
Applicant. I, therefore, resolve Guideline E for Applicant.
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 the circumstances. The Administrative Judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
7
(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
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on all of the reasons cited
above as to why the mitigating conditions apply under Guidelines F and E, I find that the
record evidence leaves me with no significant questions or doubts as to Applicant’s
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance under the whole-person concept. For all
these reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns under the
whole-person concept. 
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a.-1.f.: For 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 clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge