1 
 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
 DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: )
)
 ) ISCR Case No. 14-05606 
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Andrea Corrales, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Ryan C. Nerney, Esquire 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
HEINY, Claude R., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant is a Sudan born, naturalized U.S. citizen. His siblings are citizens and 
residents of Sudan. He rebutted or mitigated the government’s security concerns under 
foreign influence and also the personal conduct security concerns. However, he has 
collection accounts and a charged-off account totaling more than $33,000 on which he 
has made no payments nor has he had contact with his creditors. He has not mitigated 
the financial considerations security concern. Eligibility for access to classified 
information is denied. 
Statement of Case 
Acting under the relevant Executive Order and Department of Defense (DoD) 
Directive,1 the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of 
1 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 DoD on September 1, 2006. 
     10/31/2016
 2 
Reasons (SOR) on April 22, 2015, detailing foreign influence, financial considerations, 
and personal conduct security concerns. 
  
 On June 5, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing. On 
October 5, 2015, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice 
of Hearing for the hearing to be convened on October 20, 2015. The hearing was not 
held as orginially scheduled. On October 30, 2015, a Notice of Hearing was issued for 
the hearing convened on November 20, 2015. The hearing was held on November 20, 
2015. 
 
At the hearing, Government’s Exhibits (Ex) 1 through 5 and Applicant’s Exhibits 
A through J were admitted without objection. Applicant testified at the hearing. The 
record was held open to allow Applicant to submit additional information. One additional 
document marked by Applicant’s counsel as Ex. N,2 was admitted without objection. On 
December 2, 2015, DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.). 
 
Request for Administrative Notice 
 
Department Counsel submitted a formal request that I take administrative notice 
of certain facts relating to Sudan. The request and the attached documents were 
marked and admitted as Ex. 6. The facts administratively noticed are set out in the 
Findings of Fact, below.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied the factual allegations of the SOR. 
After a thorough review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following 
additional findings of fact. 
 
 Applicant is a 57-year-old mechanic who has worked for a defense contractor 
since March 2015, and is seeking to obtain a security clearance. From March 2010 
through February 2011, he was unemployed. (Ex. 1, Tr. 59) He was also unemployed 
from May 2014 until obtaining his current position in March 2015. (Tr. 37-38, 51) While 
unemployed, he received unemployment compensation, which was insufficient to meet 
all his financial obligations. (Tr. 51) His wife is a substitute teacher making $200 to $400 
per month. (Tr. 52) His annual salary is approximately $78,000, and his wife’s income is 
an additional $2,400, for an annual household income of more than $80,000. (Tr. 84)  
 
 Friends, family, and coworkers who have known Applicant for long periods of 
time state he is honest, responsible, reliable, capable, trustworthy, dedicated, hard-
working, meticulous, helpful, and he works well with other team members. (Ex. A) He 
has received numerous awards and certificates of appreciation for exceptional duty 
performance (Ex. F, J) He is dedicated to his family. (Tr. 20)  
                                                          
2 Applicant’s attorney marked the document as “N” even though Ex. K through M were never received or 
made part of the record. 
  
 3 
Applicant was born and grew up on a farm in the Sudan. In 1996, he came to the 
United States, and in 2002, he became a naturalized U.S. citizen. (Ex. 1, Ex. B, Tr. 39) 
Applicant’s wife is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Their five children are U.S. citizens having 
been born in the United States after Applicant became a naturalized U.S. citizen. The 
youngest of his children is 10 years old. (Tr. 53, 59) He is the owner of property in 
Sudan worth between $5,000 and $10,000. He has given his brother a power-of-
attorney over the property and no longer considers it his property. He stated that he had 
“gifted” the property to his brother. (Tr. 44) He asserts he has no control over the 
property, and his brother can sell the property should his brother chose to do so.  
 
Applicant’s mother died in September 2014 and his father died in 1968. (SOR 
Response, Ex. 5, Tr. 39) Both his parents-in-law were citizens and residents of Sudan 
prior their deaths. His four brothers, two sisters, and his mother-in-law are citizens and 
residents of Sudan. His brothers work as an airport luggage manager, a manager for a 
contractor,3 a tax accountant, and a pharmacist. (Ex. 5) One sister is unemployed and 
the other was a telephone switchboard operator, but is no longer employed. (Ex. 5, Tr. 
85) His father-in-law died in 2013, and he does not know if his mother-in-law is 
employed or by whom if she is employed. (Ex. 5, Tr. 42)  
 
In his SOR Response, he asserts he has once-a-month contact with one brother 
and infrequent contact with his other siblings and in-laws. He talks with his other siblings 
one to four times a year and talks to his mother-in-law once or twice a year. (SOR 
Response) At the hearing, he stated he talks with his brothers and sisters, on average, 
twice a year with a maximum of three times a year. (Tr. 40, 41) In June 2008, from 
November 2008 through May 2009, June 2012 through August 2012, and June 2015 
through August 2014,4 he visited Sudan with his family. (Ex. 5, Tr. 67, 68, 69) During his 
2014 trip, he purchased seven airline tickets at $1,200 each for the trip to Sudan. (Tr. 
79, 80) During a May 2013 Personal Subject Interview (PSI), Applicant stated he would 
not renounce his Sudanese citizenship if asked because there was no reason to do so 
because he still had family in Sudan. (Ex. 5)  
 
 In April 2013, Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP). He answered “no” when questioned about delinquent 
accounts. Prior to completing the form, he did not consult his credit report. He did not 
list the delinquent accounts because he was unaware of them. (Tr. 50) Throughout the 
hearing, he had little recollection of his delinquent accounts or about his finances. He 
has one charged-off account (SOR 1.c, $7,634) and eight collection accounts totaling 
approximately $26,000. In his SOR Response, he acknowledges owing two of the SOR 
debts (SOR 1.b, $146 and SOR 1.i, $188). In his May 2013 PSI, he was asked about 
each of the nine delinquent SOR accounts. (Ex. 5)  
                                                          
3 Applicant does not know the name of the company employing this brother. (Ex. 6) 
 
4 At the time of Applicant’s visit his mother was sick, which was part of the reason for the trip. Applicant 
returned to the United States in August 2014, and his mother died in September 2014. (Tr. 87) He 
returned alone to Sudan after his mother’s death to attend her funeral and stayed for four weeks. (Tr. 88, 
89)  
 4 
 Applicant’s April 2015 credit report lists two adverse accounts including the 
delinquent account listed in SOR 1.b ($146). (Ex. E) Applicant’s June 2015 personal 
financial statement (PFS) indicates his net monthly remainder (monthly income less 
monthly expenses). That PFS indicated his monthly expenses were $1,378 more than 
his monthly income. (Ex. F) That PFS listed his monthly income as $4,320. At the 
hearing, he stated his monthly salary was $6,500 and was sufficient to satisfy his 
financial obligations. (Tr. 53) However, he also stated at the hearing that he did not 
know how much income he had left after paying his monthly obligations. (Tr. 79) His 
wife handles the household finances. (Tr. 80)  
 
 Approximately three weeks prior to the hearing, Applicant entered into an 
agreement with a financial and investment service to help him make corrections to his 
credit report. (Ex. H, I, Tr. 47) He did not engage the service earlier because he had to 
save the company’s $9005 fee. (Tr. 81, 90) He had received the April 22, 2015 SOR 
sometime prior to May 20, 2016, but waited until three weeks before the hearing to start 
addressing his delinquent accounts. Prior to the October 2015 meeting with the financial 
and investment service, he had not contacted any of his creditors. (Tr. 75) There is 
nothing in the record showing Applicant had any contact with his creditors at any time. 
 
 Although Applicant admitted owing the delinquent medical accounts listed in 
SOR 1.b ($146) and the telephone service bill listed in SOR 1.i ($188), he chose not to 
pay them. The medical bill and another telephone service delinquent debt (SOR 1.a, 
$177) were deleted from one of the three major credit reports through the actions of the 
financial and investment service. (Ex. I) Two other accounts were also deleted, but no 
information was provided linking them to any of the delinquent SOR debts. If the credit 
counseling service tells Applicant the debt is valid, Applicant intends to pay the debt. 
(Tr. 49) 
 
 Applicant’s May 2013 credit report lists an account (SOR 1.c, $7,634) charged off 
in March 2007. It lists eight accounts that were satisfactorily being paid, five collection 
accounts with a zero balance, and eight collection accounts with amounts owing. Those 
collection accounts are the delinquent obligations listed as SOR 1.a ($177, with an 
activity date of February 2008), SOR 1.b ($146, with an activity date of June 2011), 
SOR 1.d ($4,074), SOR 1.e ($1,480), SOR 1.f ($1,191), SOR 1.g ($10,639, with activity 
date of February 2007), SOR 1.h ($8,174, with activity date of September 2006), and 
SOR 1.i ($188, with activity date of October 2008). (Ex. 5)  
 
 Applicant’s May 2014 credit report lists two collection accounts, which total $323. 
(Ex. 3) The collection accounts are the delinquent medical debt listed in SOR 1.b ($146) 
and the telephone service collection listed in SOR 1.a ($177). His September 2015 
credit report lists four collection accounts, which total $900, which includes SOR 1.b 
($146) and three other non-SOR collection accounts. (Ex. 2)  
 
                                                          
5 As of the hearing, Applicant had paid the company $300 and agreed to pay $300 per month for the next 
two months. (Tr. 90)  
 5 
 As of the hearing date, Applicant had paid nothing on his delinquent accounts nor 
was any documentation received following the hearing showing he had made payment 
on his delinquent accounts. On November 25, 2015, Applicant received an internet 
credit counseling session. (Ex. N) How long the session lasted, what was discussed, or 
what Applicant learned from the session is not in evidence. Applicant has a debit card, 
but does not have any credit cards. (Ex. 5) His vehicle’s value is less than $12,000. His 
401(k) retirement fund has less than $3,000 in it, and he owns no real estate in the 
United States. There is no indication he is not current on his rent, vehicle payments, or 
that he is receiving calls or letters from creditors. 
 
Sudan 
 
I take administrative notice of the following facts. The Northern government in 
Sudan is hostile to the United States. The Southern government is not. Sudan had 
seventeen years of civil war between 1955 and 1972. A peace agreement was signed in 
1972 and lasted until January 1983, when civil war started again. In January 2005, a 
Comprehensive Peace Agreement was signed, establishing a new Government of 
National Unity and the interim Government of Southern Sudan. 
 
A rebellion in Darfur resulted in the death of tens of thousands of persons and led 
to an estimated two million internally displaced persons in Sudan and 234,000 refugees 
in Chad. The Sudanese Government is complicit with the bombing, murder, and rape of 
innocent civilians in Darfur.  
 
In August 1993, Sudan was designated by the U.S. Secretary of State as a state 
sponsor of terrorism. Sudan remains on the list even though it has aggressively pursued 
terrorist operations directly involving threats to U.S. interests and U.S. personnel in 
Sudan. The U.S. Government has received indications of terrorist threats aimed at 
American and Western interests in Sudan, to include suicide operations, bombings, or 
kidnappings. Sudan is under a partial U.S. embargo, with extensive trade restrictions on 
exports to Sudan. The U.S. Department of State warns U.S. citizens against all travel to 
Sudan. 
 
The Government of Sudan’s human rights record has remained poor, and there 
are numerous serious problems including genocide, extrajudicial and unlawful killings, 
torture, beating, rape, cruel and inhumane treatment by security forces, arbitrary arrest 
and detention, executive interference with the judiciary, denial of due process, 
infringement of rights to privacy, freedoms of speech, press, assembly, association, 
religion, and movement, the trafficking of persons, violence and discrimination against 
women and ethnic minorities, and forced labor. Government security forces continue to 
torture, beat, and harass political opponents. The government continues to arbitrarily 
arrest and detain people under the National Security Act.  
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition 
 6 
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 common sense 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 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 
 
Foreign Influence  
 
Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the individual has 
divided loyalties or foreign financial interests, may be manipulated or induced to help a 
 7 
foreign person, group, organization, or government in a way that is not in U.S. interests, 
or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any foreign interest. Adjudication under this 
guideline can and should consider the identity of the foreign country in which the foreign 
contact or financial interest is located, including, but not limited to, such considerations 
as whether the foreign country is known to target United States citizens to obtain 
protected information and/or is associated with a risk of terrorism. (AG & 6) 
 
Applicant siblings and mother-in-law are citizens and residents of Sudan. In July 
1996, Applicant came to the United States. In March 2002, he became a naturalized 
U.S. citizen. 
 
Having considered all of the Foreign Influence disqualifying conditions, applicable 
conditions that could possibly raise a security concern are AG & 7(a) “contact with a 
foreign family member, business or professional associate, friend, or other person who 
is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of 
foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion” and AG & 7(b) 
“connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that create a potential 
conflict of interest between the individual=s obligation to protect sensitive information or 
technology and the individual=s desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by 
providing that information,” apply. 
 
In every case where siblings live overseas, there is a risk of pressure on these 
relatives and through them upon the holder of a security clearance. Under the facts of 
this case, a heightened risk for exploitation, inducement, manipulation pressure, or 
coercion is substantiated because of the problems in the Sudan. However, Applicant 
has strong ties to the U.S. and few ties to Sudan. While his siblings live in Sudan, he 
lives with his wife and five children in the U.S. He has limited financial or property 
interests in Sudan. His brother has a power-of-attorney over the property Applicant 
owns in Sudan. His brother is free to sell the property. Applicant no longer considers the 
property to be his property. 
 
Applicant’s wife is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Their five children are U.S. citizens 
having been born after Applicant became a naturalized U.S. citizen. His ties with the 
U.S. are stronger than his ties with Sudan. 
 
The heightened risk because he has siblings in Sudan has been mitigated under 
AG & 8(a) “the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in which 
these persons are located, or the positions or activities of those persons in that country 
are such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of having to choose 
between the interests of a foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the 
interests of the U.S.” and AG & 8(b) “there is no conflict of interest, either because the 
individual=s sense of loyalty or obligation to the foreign person, group, government, or 
country is so minimal, or the individual has such deep and longstanding relationships 
and loyalties in the U.S., that the individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of 
interest in favor of the U.S. interest.” He has monthly contact with one brother. His 
contacts with his other brothers, sister, and mother-in-law are one to four times a year.  
 
 
 
 
 
8 
None of Applicant’s siblings are involved with organizations which seek to harm 
the United States. The Government of Sudan’s human rights record has remained poor, 
and there are numerous serious problems including genocide, extrajudicial and unlawful 
killings, torture, beating, rape, cruel and inhumane treatment by security forces, and 
arbitrary arrest and detention.  
 
There is little likelihood that Applicant will be placed in a position of having to 
choose between the interests of the U.S. and a foreign entity. Likewise, because of his 
ties and loyalty to the U.S., he would resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the 
United States. 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18 articulates the security concerns relating to 
financial problems: 
 
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. 
 
Additionally, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, negligent, or careless in properly handling and 
safeguarding classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect 
of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life. 
 
A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
upon terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an 
applicant with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a position of risk 
that is inconsistent with holding a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances to meet his financial obligations. 
 
 Applicant owes more than $33,000 on charged-off and collection accounts. Three 
of the delinquent obligations were less than $200 each. Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 
19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not 
meeting financial obligations” apply.  
 
 Five Financial Considerations 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 
 
 
 
 
9 
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’s household income is more than $80,000. He has known of the 
Government’s concern about his finances since his May 2013 interview when he was 
confronted about each of the SOR delinquent obligations. In April 2015, the SOR 
reasserted the Government’s concern about his delinquent obligations. He has paid 
none of the debts even though three of them are less than $200 each. He took no action 
on his debts until three weeks prior the hearing when he contacted a company to assist 
him in addressing his debts. He asserts he waited so long after receiving the SOR 
because he did not have sufficient funds to pay the company’s fee. At the time of the 
hearing, he had paid the company only $300 of the $900 fee and had agreed to make 
two monthly payments of $300 each. Having taken six months to save up $300, there is 
little to provide confidence that he will be able to address the remainder of the SOR 
delinquent obligations. 
 
In more than two and a half years since first learning of the Government’s 
concern about his delinquent accounts he has paid nothing on his debts. During that 
time he did not contact his creditors. He appeared to have little knowledge about his 
finances and the payment of his debts. Although his wife manages the household’s 
finances, he did not act reasonably when he failed to take more active participation in 
those finances in preparation for the hearing.  
 
None of the mitigating factors for financial considerations fully extenuate the 
security concerns. By failing to pay his delinquent obligations, he has failed to act 
responsibly under the circumstances. He has had some periods of unemployment in the 
past, but has had sufficient opportunity to address his financial delinquencies. Failing to 
pay the debts casts doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. 
In November 2015, he received financial counseling, but provided no information about 
the nature of the counseling, the amount of time involved in the counseling, or what he 
 
 
 
 
10 
learned from that counseling. There are no repayment plans in place to address the 
delinquent debts. The mitigating conditions listed in AG ¶¶ 20(a) through (d) do not 
apply.  
 
The mitigating condition listed in AG ¶ 20(e) does not apply because Applicant 
did not dispute the obligations. When questioned during his May 2013 interview, he 
stated he did not recognize the accounts or know anything about the accounts. He has 
had no contact with his creditors. AG ¶ 20(e) requires not only a debt be disputed, but 
there must also be documentation substantiating the basis of the dispute or providing 
evidence of action to resolve the debt, and Applicant has failed to provide that evidence. 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
Under Guideline E for personal conduct, the concern is that 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 protest classified information. In addition to those general matters, 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. 
A statement is false when it is made deliberately (knowingly and willfully). An omission 
of relevant and material information is not deliberate if, for example, the person 
genuinely forgot about it, inadvertently overlooked it, misunderstood the question, or 
genuinely thought the information did not need to be reported. 
 
On Applicant’s April 2013 e-QIP, he answered “no” when questioned about 
delinquent obligations. He stated he had not reviewed his credit report before he 
completed his e-QIP. Had he checked his May 2013 credit report, it would have 
revealed the delinquent SOR debts. However, by May 2014 his credit report listed only 
two delinquent accounts totaling just over $300. Having observed Applicant, I believe he 
was not attempting to hide or misrepresent his adverse financial record. Applicant has 
refuted the allegation that he intentionally failed to disclose requested financial 
information on his 2013 e-QIP. 
 
Whole Person Concept 
 
Protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Security clearance 
decisions are not intended to assign guilt or to impose further punishment for past 
transgressions. Rather, the objective of the adjudicative process is the fair-minded, 
commonsense assessment of a person=s trustworthiness and fitness for access to 
classified information. In reaching this decision, I have considered the whole person 
concept in evaluating Applicant=s risk and vulnerability in protecting our national 
interests. I considered the totality of Applicant’s family ties to the Sudan and the heavy 
burden an Applicant carries when he has family members in the Sudan. (did you want to 
mention the other concerns? Or just the foreign influence issue here?)  
 
 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 
 
 
 
 
11 
conduct and all the 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. 
 
Applicant’s communications with his siblings living in the Sudan are very limited. 
While danger certainly exists for all who go to or reside in Sudan, Applicant’s siblings 
and mother-in-law are in no greater danger than any other individual living and working 
in Sudan. I find that there is little potential for Applicant to be pressured, coerced, or 
exploited because of his siblings living in Sudan.  
 
Applicant’s annual household income is approximately $80,000. He has made no 
payment on his delinquent obligations even those three which were less than $200 
each. He has been aware of the Government’s concern about his delinquent debts 
since his May 2013 interview when he was specifically confronted about each of his 
delinquent accounts now listed in the SOR. Additionally, the April 2015 SOR put him on 
notice of the Government’s concern about his delinquent accounts. He has not 
contacted his creditors. He provided no information regarding his past efforts to address 
his delinquent debt and has failed to establish repayment agreements to address the 
delinquent debts.  
 
Applicant’s response to the delinquent accounts is that he does not recognize 
them or know anything about them. The only action he has taken was three weeks 
before he hearing, he contacted a financial and investment company to assist him with 
the delinquent accounts. He showed little knowledge of what the company is to do for 
him. He has also attended financial counseling in November 2015, but failed to provide 
any information as to the extent of this counseling or what was learned from the 
counseling. 
 
Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial 
considerations. His lack of knowledge about his finances lends credence to his 
declaration that he did not deliberately fail to disclose information about his finances. 
The personal conduct security concerns are mitigated.  
 
The issue is not simply whether all his debts are paid—it is whether his financial 
circumstances raise concerns about his fitness to hold a security clearance. See AG & 
 
 
 
 
12 
2(a)(1). Applicant appears to a have little knowledge about his finances. Overall, the 
record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and 
suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant did not 
mitigate the security concerns arising from his delinquent financial obligations, but did 
mitigate the foreign influence and personal conduct security concerns. 
 
This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot 
or will not attain the state of true reform and rehabilitation necessary to be eligible for a 
security clearance. The determination of an individual’s eligibility and suitability for a 
security clearance is not a once in a lifetime occurrence, but is based on applying the 
factors, both disqualifying and mitigating, to the evidence presented. Under Applicant=s 
current circumstances, a clearance is not warranted. In the future, if Applicant has paid 
his delinquent obligations, established compliance with a repayment plan, or otherwise 
substantially addressed his past-due obligations, he may well demonstrate persuasive 
evidence of his security worthiness.  
 
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, Foreign Influence: FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.e: For Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline F:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a – 2.i: Against Applicant 
 
Paragraph 3, Personal Conduct: FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 3.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. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
CLAUDE R. HEINY II 
Administrative Judge