Item 2.1
1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-02323
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Carroll J. Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s debts were discharged in a 2005 Chapter 7 bankruptcy, but he
incurred more delinquent debt over the next decade despite continuous employment.
He also failed to file his Federal and state income tax returns for 2011, 2012, and 2013.
He demonstrated neither sufficient explanation for these issues, nor the ability to avoid
recurring financial problems. 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 (SF-86) on July 24, 2014.1
On October 30, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility
(DoD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security
Item 1.2
Item 1.3
Department Counsel submitted six Items in support of the SOR allegations. Item 3 is the summary of an4
interview from the OPM Report of Investigation. It was neither attested to nor adopted by Applicant, and no
witness authenticated the document. Accordingly, it is inadmissible per Directive ¶ E3.1.20 and will not be
considered in determining Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. There is no information contained in
Item 3, which is not repeated in AE A, that would reasonably support mitigation of the financial issues alleged
in the SOR. The relevant adverse information in Item 3 is cumulative with the information contained in Items
1, 2, and 4 through 6. 
Item 2; AE A.5
2
concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).  The action was taken under2
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 that came into effect in the Department of
Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted a written response to the SOR on November 25, 2015, 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 on3
February 1, 2016. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was4
received by Applicant on February 11, 2016, 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 submitted additional material in response to the
FORM on February 29, 2016, but did not object to consideration of any Item contained
therein. Department Counsel had no objection to consideration of the information
Applicant provided in response to the FORM, which is admitted as exhibit (AE) A. Items
1, 2, and 4 through 6 in the FORM are also admitted into evidence. I received the case
assignment on May 12, 2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 53 years old. He has worked full time for a defense contractor as a
consultant and production manager since 2009, and was previously employed by the
same company from 1988 to 1998. He worked as a city firefighter/paramedic from 1998
to 2009, and reported no periods of unemployment on his SF-86. While working as a
firefighter, he also performed part-time contract consulting work for the defense
contractor. He never served in the military. He held a security clearance during his
previous employment with the defense contractor. He recently married for the third time
and has a baby daughter. He also has two adult stepchildren from his second
marriage.  5
Item 1.6
Item 4; Item 5.7
Item 1; Item 2; AE A.8
Item 1; Item 4; Item 6; AE A. The record has no evidence showing the total amount of discharged debt.9
Item 1; Item 2; Item 4; AE A.10
3
In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations with
explanations. His admissions are incorporated in the following findings.  The allegations6
in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.s are also supported by record credit reports dated August 20,
2014; and February 26, 2015.  7
Applicant’s first marriage lasted two and a half years, ending in divorce in
November 1992. He married his second wife in March 1998, when her two children
were 12 and 6 years old. Shortly after their marriage, his second wife relapsed into
regular drug abuse, a problem of which he says he was previously unaware. He said
that he “stuck to” this marriage until the children were old enough to survive on their
own, despite his wife’s multiple periods of incarceration and rehabilitation for drug
addiction, because of his desire not to see them suffer, be homeless, or be placed in
foster care. This marriage ended in divorce in 2013, at which time the stepchildren were
27 and 22 years old. Applicant attributes his financial problems to his second wife’s
diversion and theft of the family’s funds, and her misuse of his credit, to support her
drug addiction during their 15-year marriage.   8
SOR ¶ 1.a: Applicant filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in March 2005 due to
excessive indebtedness despite his regular employment. He claims that his second
wife’s drug addiction, theft of family funds, use of credit cards, and “forging cash
advances” caused him to file this bankruptcy. His debts were discharged in August 2005
through this proceeding.9
SOR ¶¶ 1 b through 1.d: Applicant failed to file his Federal and state income tax
returns for tax years 2011, 2012, and 2013 when required. He claimed that he failed to
file them due to his ex-wife’s drug addiction, but that they had been filed by the time he
responded to the SOR. He provided no evidence to document that the returns have
been filed. He owes approximately $40,000 to the IRS and his state for unpaid taxes
during those years. He is also indebted on a judgment that was obtained against him in
2014  for unpaid taxes in the amount of $21,574. He provided a letter from a company,
dated February 23, 2016, stating that he has hired them to represent him in negotiations
with the IRS and the state tax authorities. However, no evidence of any progress toward
resolution of his tax delinquencies was provided.10
SOR ¶¶ 1.e, 1.g, 1.i, 1.o, 1.p, and 1.r: Applicant said that he was trying to make
arrangements to repay these consumer credit and medical debts, totaling $8,717. He
provided no documentation concerning these efforts, or of any payments toward them.
Item 1; Item 4; Item 5; AE A.11
AE A.12
Item 1; AE A.13
4
SOR ¶ 1.f: Applicant documented that he made payments totaling $1,400
between April 2014 and February 2016 toward this $1,207 judgment debt that he
originally owed to a dentist. He still owed $475 in accrued interest and fees as of the
close of the record. 
SOR ¶ 1.h: Applicant said that he has been making $100 monthly payments to
the credit union that charged off this $2,281 account, which became delinquent in
February 2011. He provided a letter saying that he had a payment arrangement with the
credit union, but no evidence indicating that it involved this account, how much had
been paid, or what he still owes on the debt.11
SOR ¶¶ 1.j through 1.n, and 1.s: Applicant provided receipts showing that, during
November and December 2015, he repaid these six delinquent debts, totaling $916.12
SOR ¶ 1.q: Applicant said that he made contact with the creditor and paid this
$150 medical debt, but submitted no documentation to prove the payment.13
Applicant provided no evidence establishing his current income or household
budget. He offered no evidence of financial counseling, of savings or retirement
investments, or of other indicators of financial responsibility. The record lacks any
evidence concerning the quality of Applicant’s 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,
the guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the
adjudicative process. The objective 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.
5
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
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 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: “Any 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 three Guideline F DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; and
6
(g) failure to file annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns as
required or the fraudulent filing of the same.
Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief in 2005, and obtained a discharge
of the debts incurred up to that point that he could not pay. He subsequently incurred
more than $70,000 in additional delinquent debt. These delinquencies arose despite his
continuous employment. He also failed to timely file required Federal and state income
tax returns for tax years 2011, 2012, and 2013. This pattern and history of financial
irresponsibility raise security concerns under DCs 19(a), (c), and (g), and shift 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 irresponsibility:
(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.
Mitigation under AG ¶¶ 20(a), (b), or (c) was not established. Applicant incurred
numerous delinquent debts over the past ten years, many of which remain unresolved.
He claims that his second wife’s drug addiction caused his financial problems, but he
became aware of that issue shortly after their marriage in 1998 and remained married to
her for 15 years while the financial issues continued to worsen. He demonstrated no
reasonable link between her drug addiction and his failure to file or pay his income
taxes for 2011 through 2013. He submitted no evidence of financial counseling, or of a
budget showing that his finances are under control going forward. He repaid six small
debts after receiving the SOR, providing some mitigation for those allegations under AG
¶ 20(d). He admitted the truth of all SOR allegations, so AG ¶ 20(e) has no application.
7
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
and experienced adult, who is responsible for the voluntary choices and conduct that
caused the financial problems underlying the security concerns expressed in the SOR.
His delinquent debts and tax problems arose over the past fifteen years, and he
demonstrated little evidence of financial responsibility until he paid a few small debts
after receiving the SOR. He enjoyed continuous employment throughout the time
involved. 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
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.
8
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 through 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.g through 1.i: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.j through 1.n: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.o through 1.r: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s: 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.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge