1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
       ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-01689 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Ross Hyams, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Sterling DeRamus, Esquire 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
RICCIARDELLO, Carol G., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guidelines E, personal 
conduct, F, financial considerations, and J, criminal conduct. Applicant’s eligibility for a 
security clearance is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On September 25, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications 
Facility (DOD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security 
concerns under Guidelines J, criminal conduct, 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; DOD Directive 
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 
1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the 
DOD on September 1, 2006. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on October 13, 2015, and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to another judge, and he 
 
2 
 
 
proceeded with the hearing on April 18, 2016. At the hearing, Applicant requested a 
continuance so he could hire an attorney. His request was granted. The case was 
reassigned to me on June 6, 2016. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on June 22, 2016. I convened the hearing as 
scheduled on July 19, 2016. The Government offered exhibits (GE) 1 through 10, which 
were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified and offered Applicant 
Exhibit (AE) A. After the record closed, Applicant submitted an additional document, 
which was marked as AE B and was admitted into evidence without objection.1 DOHA 
received the hearing transcripts (Tr.) on April 22, 2016, and July 27, 2016.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant admitted the allegations SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.f, 2.a, 2.c, 2.d, 2.e, and 
3.a. He denied the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 2.b, 3.b and 3.c. After a thorough and careful 
review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact. 
 
 Applicant is 48 years old. He earned an associate’s degree in 2012 and is 
pursuing a bachelor’s degree. He was married from 1993 to 2000 and from 2003 to 
2014. He has five children, ages 32, 23, 17, 15, and 12. He has joint custody of the two 
youngest children, who physically live with him. He pays child support for the 17-year-
old who is from a previous relationship. Applicant served in the military from 1987 to 
2009 and had three combat tours. He was honorably discharged in the paygrade E-7. 
Applicant has worked for his current employer, a federal contractor, since July 2014.2 
 
 Applicant attributes his financial difficulties to a reduction in pay when he retired 
from the military and frequent moves to seek employment.3 The debts alleged in the 
SOR are supported by credit reports from July 2014 and February 2015.  
 
Applicant completed a security clearance application (SCA) in July 2014. Section 
26 asked if any of the following things happened in the past seven years:  
 
You had any possessions or property voluntarily or involuntarily repossessed or 
foreclosed? 
 
You defaulted on any type of loan?  
 
You had 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? 
 
                                                          
1 Hearing Exhibit I is Department Counsel’s email memorandum. 
 
2 Tr. 18-23. 
 
3 Tr. 23-24. 
 
3 
 
 
You have been over 120 days delinquent on any debt not previously entered?  
 
You are currently over 120 days delinquent on any debt? 
 
In response to all of these questions, Applicant answered “no.” He also responded “no” 
to Section 22, which asked if he had ever been charged with any felony offense. 
 
Applicant was interviewed by a government investigator in September 2014. On 
his SCA he indicated that in the past seven years he did not have any property either 
voluntarily or involuntarily repossessed. When he was questioned by the investigator, 
he changed his answer to “yes.” He explained to the investigator that when he retired 
from the military in August 2009, he could not afford to make two car payments and a 
motorcycle payment. He contacted the creditor for one of his vehicles and voluntarily 
returned it in 2008. He was aware he still owed a balance on the vehicle. During his 
interview he acknowledged the account was charged off (SOR ¶ 1.a-$22,519). He 
indicated that he wanted to pay the balance, but was unable at that time. He indicated 
he intended to begin paying the debt because he was working again, and he did not 
intend to have future financial difficulties. Applicant explained to the investigator that the 
reason he did not disclose this debt on his SCA was due to an oversight, and he did not 
think he needed to because he had discussed the debt with the creditor bank.4 At 
Applicant’s hearing, he confirmed he was unable to pay the car note, and he still owed 
the debt. However, he stated he disputed the amount of the debt with the credit bureau 
and the creditor. His dispute was based on what he believed the car was sold for and 
the deficiency he owed. He testified he disputed it orally, and he had an attorney who 
assisted him. He did not provide any documents. He acknowledged he did not pay the 
debt and still owes it, but indicated the debt is not listed on his most recent credit report. 
There is no evidence this debt was sent to a collection agency or Applicant was advised 
of such.5 
 
Applicant was asked during his interview if he had any other financial issues that 
were not included on his SCA, and he responded “no.” He was confronted with the debt 
in SOR ¶ 1.b ($16,127). He acknowledged he purchased a vehicle in March 2008 for 
approximately $21,000. He immediately attempted to return the vehicle, but the car 
dealer would not accept it. Applicant made a payment on the vehicle and drove it for a 
month and a half. The car was repossessed later in 2008. Applicant attempted to 
negotiate a settlement with the dealer, but was unsuccessful. Applicant told the 
investigator that he intended to make payments to resolve the debt. He explained the 
reason he did not disclose this debt on his SCA was due to an oversight, and he did not 
think he had to list it because the car was repossessed. He also stated that he did not 
receive any correspondence from the creditor. At his hearing, Applicant stated that he 
disputed the debt with the creditor, but did not do it in writing. The debt is not resolved. 
                                                          
4 GE 2. 
 
5 Tr. 26-33, 90-93; GE 9; AE A. Applicant provided different dates for when he purchased the vehicle. The 
credit report supports it was purchased in March 2008. 
 
4 
 
 
The 2014 credit report lists this debt as in collection. There is no evidence Applicant 
was made aware the debt was in collection.6  
 
Applicant was again asked by the investigator if he had any other financial 
issues, and he responded “no.” He was then confronted with the charged-off debt in 
SOR ¶ 1.c ($3,444). He acknowledged this was a personal loan from the creditor that 
he obtained in 2005 to purchase furniture. He made payments on the loan for a period, 
but after he retired from the military in 2009, he was unable to continue the payments. 
He told the investigator that he intended to resume payments because he was working 
again. In addition, the reason he did not disclose this debt on his SCA was due to an 
oversight, and he thought he did not have to list it because he had discussed the debt 
with the creditor bank. At his hearing, Applicant testified that he forgot about the debt. 
He stated that his income tax refund was used to pay some of the debt, but there is still 
a balance that is not paid.7 There is no evidence that this debt was turned over to a 
collection agency or that Applicant was made aware of this information.  
 
I find Applicant deliberately failed to disclose on his SCA that he had debts that 
were over 120 days delinquent, debts that had been charged off, and property that was 
repossessed. I did not find his explanations for his failure to disclose the required 
information credible. I do not find that he intentionally falsified the question that asked if 
he had bills or debts that had been turned over to a collection account.8  
 
The debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d ($853), 1.e ($503), and 1.f ($75) were incurred 
after Applicant completed his SCA. They have been paid or settled and are resolved.9  
 
While serving on active duty in February 1999, Applicant received nonjudicial 
punishment under Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, for submitting a 
false and fraudulent travel claim. He was reduced in grade, forfeited pay, and received 
extra duties. The claim involved Applicant claiming his family had moved with him, 
thereby permitting him to receive additional government benefits, when they in fact had 
not moved.10 
 
Applicant was arrested in June 1999 and charged with driving while his license 
was suspended. He testified he drove his car without insurance at the time. He was 
                                                          
6 Tr. 33-39, 93-99; AE A. 
 
7 Tr. 39-42; AE A. 
 
8 I will not consider this information for disqualifying purposes. I will consider it for the limited purpose of 
analyzing Applicant’s credibility, in mitigation to determine rehabilitation and reform, and in my whole 
person analysis.  
 
9 Tr. 43-53, 98-99; Answer to SOR with attachments. 
 
10 Tr. 75; GE 3, 6. 
 
 
5 
 
 
found guilty and paid the fine.11 In July 1999 Applicant was charged with two counts of 
criminal trespass. He was found guilty of one charge and received six months of 
probation.12 In August 1999 Applicant was arrested and charged with felony aggravated 
assault and aggravated stalking. The charges were nolle prossed.13 He credibly testified 
that he did not know the charges against him were a felonies and believed he only had 
to report criminal arrests from the past seven years.14  
 
In 2007 Applicant was charged with burglary 1st degree, assault 4th degree 
domestic violence minor injury, and wanton endangerment. Applicant had an altercation 
with his estranged wife and her boyfriend. He pled guilty to wanton endangerment. He 
was placed on probation for two years and completed its terms.15  
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are 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 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 “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.” 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 not drawn 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, an “applicant is 
                                                          
11 GE 7, 8. 
. 
12 GE 3, 7. 
 
13 GE 3. 
 
14 Tr. 63-74, 76-90, 99-114. 
 
15 Tr. 53-63. 
 
6 
 
 
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel and has the 
ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain 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 safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation of 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 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern 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.  
 
This concern is broader than the possibility that an individual might knowingly 
compromise classified information in order to raise money. It encompasses concerns 
about an individual’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting 
classified information. An individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handing and safeguarding classified 
information.16 
 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. I have 
considered all of the disqualifying conditions under AG & 19, and the following two are 
potentially applicable: 
 
                                                          
16 See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App.Bd. May 1, 2012). 
 
7 
 
 
 (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
 
 (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
 Applicant has a history of delinquent debts beginning in 2008 that remain unpaid. 
The above disqualifying conditions apply.  
 
The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate security concerns 
arising from financial difficulties. The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are 
potentially applicable: 
 
(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 has been aware since approximately 2009 that he has several large 
delinquent debts as alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c. He indicated to the government 
investigator in 2014 that he was unable to pay the debts at the time they were due 
because he had been discharged from the service and was having financial difficulties. 
He told the investigator that he was working, and he intended to pay the debts. He did 
not. He is relying on the fact that two of them are no longer listed on his credit report to 
avoid paying them. Although they may no longer be enforceable because they are more 
than seven years past due, his behavior casts doubt on his current reliability, 
trustworthiness, and good judgment. AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply.  
 
 Applicant attributed his financial problems to underemployment because of a 
decrease in his income when he was discharged from the service in 2009. This was a 
condition beyond his control. For the full application of AG ¶ 20(b), Applicant must have 
 
8 
 
 
acted responsibly under the circumstance. Applicant has not made payments towards 
resolving the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b, despite his promise to do so. He indicated 
that his tax refund was applied to the debt in SOR ¶ 1.c, but did not provide 
documentary proof. He has paid the smaller debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.e, and 1.f. However, 
Applicant did not submit evidence that he acted responsibly in resolving the financial 
delinquencies. AG ¶ 20(b) partially applies. 
 
 There is no evidence Applicant received financial counseling. There is insufficient 
evidence to conclude that his financial problems are under control. AG ¶ 20(c) does not 
apply. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(d) applies to the recently resolved smaller delinquent debts alleged in 
SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.e, and 1.f. Applicant indicated he disputed the balances owed on certain 
debts, but did not do it in writing. He did not provide documentary evidence to 
substantiate the basis of his dispute or evidence of action he has taken to resolve the 
issues. AG ¶ 20(e) does not apply. 
 
 Despite evidence of some mitigation under this guideline, it is insufficient to 
mitigate the financial considerations security concerns.  
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern for 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 conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying. I find the following 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; and 
 
(e) personal conduct, concealment of information about one’s conduct, 
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such 
as engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s personal, 
professional, or community standing. 
 
 
 
9 
 
 
Applicant went to an Article 15 nonjudicial punishment hearing in 1999 for filing a 
false and fraudulent claim. In the same year, he was arrested for driving with a 
suspended license, was found guilty, and paid a fine. In 1999 he was charged with 
felony aggravated assault and aggravated stalking. The charges were nolle prossed. In 
1999 he was charged with two counts of criminal trespass and was convicted of one 
and placed on probation. In 2007 he was arrested and charged with burglary 1st degree, 
assault 4th degree domestic violence minor injury, and wanton endangerment. He was 
found guilty of wanton endangerment and was placed on probation for two years. 
Applicant’s criminal conduct (SOR ¶¶ 2.a through 2.e) was cross-alleged under the 
personal conduct guideline (SOR ¶ 3.a). AG ¶ 16(e) applies to Applicant’s conduct. 
 
There is no evidence that the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.c, which were charged-
off, had been transferred to a collection agency, as is alleged in SOR ¶ 3.b. Regarding 
the debt in SOR ¶ 1.b, which is listed in the credit report as a collection account, there is 
no evidence that Applicant was aware “that it had been turned over to a collection 
agency,” as alleged. Therefore based on the allegation as written, the Government’s 
evidence is insufficient. I find in favor of Applicant for SOR ¶ 3.b.  
 
I considered Applicant’s testimony regarding his failure to disclose that he had 
been charged with a felony in 1999. Applicant was credible in explaining he knew he 
was arrested and charged with offenses, but did not know any of the charges were 
felonies. I also believe he was confused when he thought he only had to disclose 
charges that were within the past seven years. I find his failure to disclose the felony 
charges was not deliberate. I find Applicant refuted the allegation in SOR ¶ 3.c. 
 
The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate security concerns 
arising from personal conduct. I have considered the following mitigating condition 
under AG ¶ 17: 
 
(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; and 
 
(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. 
 
I have found for Applicant regarding the falsification allegation in SOR ¶ 3.b 
because it was not alleged properly. However, I found that Applicant was aware of the 
delinquent debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c and that he had property that had been 
repossessed when he completed his SCA, and he deliberately failed to disclose them. I 
did not find his testimony credible. He was aware he had two vehicles that were 
repossessed. He was aware that he had charged-off debts that were unpaid. He was 
aware that he had defaulted on a loan. He was aware that he was over 120 days 
 
10 
 
 
delinquent on debts. Although this conduct was not alleged, and I did not consider it for 
disqualifying purposes, I have considered Applicant’s falsifications for the limited 
purpose of analyzing the above mitigating conditions regarding the criminal conduct that 
was cross-alleged under the personal conduct guideline in SOR ¶ 3.a. Applicant’s 
failure to be truthful and honest on his SCA, during his interview and at his hearing, 
shows a continuing pattern of personal conduct that involves questionable judgment, 
lack of candor, and dishonesty. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that he has 
acknowledged his behavior, and it is unlikely to recur. I cannot find that his criminal 
offenses are minor or mitigated by the passage of time because of his recent 
falsifications.17 The above mitigating conditions do not apply. 
 
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct 
 
AG ¶ 30 sets out the security concern relating to criminal conduct:  
 
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person=s judgment, reliability, and 
trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person=s ability 
or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations. 
 
I have considered the disqualifying conditions under criminal conduct AG ¶ 31 
and the following two are potentially applicable: 
 
(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; and 
 
(c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the 
person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted. 
 
 Applicant went to an Article 15 nonjudicial punishment hearing in 1999 for filing a 
fraudulent claim. In the same year, he was arrested for driving with a suspended 
license, was found guilty, and paid a fine. In 1999 he was charged with felony 
aggravated assault and aggravated stalking. The charges were nolle prossed. In 1999 
he was charged with two counts of criminal trespass and was convicted of one and 
placed on probation. In 2007 he was arrested and charged with burglary 1st degree, 
assault 4th degree domestic violence minor injury, and wanton endangerment. He was 
found guilty of wanton endangerment and was placed on probation for two years. I find 
the above disqualifying conditions apply. 
 
 I have also considered all of the mitigating conditions for criminal conduct under 
AG ¶ 32 and the following two are potentially applicable: 
 
                                                          
17 See 18 U.S.C. § 1001, which provides that “whoever . . ., knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies, conceals, 
or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or 
fraudulent statement or representation, or (3) makes or uses any false writings or documents knowing the 
same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this 
title, imprisoned not more than 5 years . . . .” 
 
11 
 
 
 (a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it 
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur 
and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or 
good judgment; and 
 
 (d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited 
to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or 
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or 
constructive community involvement. 
 
 Applicant has a history of criminal conduct that began in 1999 and his last arrest 
and conviction was in 2007. Although he has not been arrested in the last nine years, 
and the specific falsifications were not properly alleged and are not considered for 
disqualifying purposes, his failure to be honest on his SCA is considered when for the 
limited purposes of analyzing the mitigating conditions under this guideline. The same 
analysis provided under the personal conduct guideline applies under this guideline. I 
conclude that AG ¶ 32(a) is inapplicable because an insufficient time has elapsed since 
his most recent criminal behavior, and I cannot conclude his behavior is unlikely to 
recur. I have considered that it appears Applicant has been steadily employed for 
several years. AG ¶ 32(d) has minimal application. Despite some mitigation, it is 
insufficient to mitigate the criminal conduct security concerns.  
 
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 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments 
under Guidelines J, E and F in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 
2(a) were addressed under those guidelines, but some warrant additional comment.  
 
12 
 
 
Applicant is 48 years old. He is retired from the military. He has a history of 
criminal activity dating back to 1999 and financial difficulties dating back to at least 
2009. Although, some of the debts alleged in the SOR may no longer be enforceable, 
Applicant did not provide evidence that he paid or resolved them, except for the smaller 
ones in SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.e, and 1.f. In 2014 he told the government investigator he would 
begin making payments on these debts, but did not, and now is relying on the fact they 
may be unenforceable. He has a poor track record of being fiscally responsible. Despite 
providing some evidence in mitigation, it is insufficient. I have considered Applicant’s 
falsifications when analyzing the whole person and conclude his conduct raises 
questions about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Overall, the record 
evidence leaves me with serious questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and 
suitability for a security clearance. I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the security 
concerns under the personal conduct, financial considerations, and criminal conduct 
guidelines.  
 
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.c:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraphs 1.d-1.f:   For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline J:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a-2.e:   Against Applicant 
   
 Paragraph 3, Guideline E    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 3.a:    Against Applicant  
  Subparagraph 3.b:    For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 3.c:    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 a security clearance. 
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
                                                     
_____________________________ 
Carol G. Ricciardello 
Administrative Judge