DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 15-06532
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Andrew Henderson, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
November 30, 2016
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP), on June 21, 2012. (Government Exhibit 1.) He submitted a subsequent one on
October 27, 2015. (Applicant Exhibit E.) On May 1, 2016, the Department of Defense
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines
F (Financial Considerations) and E (Personal Conduct) concerning 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), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on June 3, 2016 (Answer), and requested
a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on July 14, 2016. This case was assigned to me on July 19, 2016. The Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on August 8, 2016. I
convened the hearing as scheduled on September 1, 2016. The Government offered
Government Exhibits 1 through 6, which were admitted without objection. Applicant
testified on his own behalf, and submitted Applicant Exhibits A through E, which were
1
also admitted without objection. Applicant asked that the record remain open for the
receipt of additional documents. Applicant submitted Applicant Exhibit F on September
14, 2016. The exhibit was admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of
the hearing (Tr.) on September 12, 2016. The record closed on September 14, 2016.
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 45, and separated from his third wife. He retired after a successful
career in the United States Marine Corps. (Applicant Exhibit F at 8; Tr. 29-30.) He is
employed by a defense contractor, and seeks to obtain a security clearance in
connection with his employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable,
untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant
denied allegations 1.a, 1.c, and 1.d in the SOR. He admitted the remaining two
allegations (1.b and 1.e). He also submitted additional information to support his request
for a security clearance.
Applicant was married to his second wife from 2000 through 2010. According to
Applicant, most of the financial issues were due to his second wife acquiring debts
without his knowledge while he was deployed overseas in the Marine Corps. His second
wife signed a notarized statement stating that she did mislead Applicant concerning
acquisition of various debts, the fact that she was paying their debts during the
marriage, and that she also mislead him about her taking responsibility for various debts
after their divorce. (Applicant Exhibit B; Tr.  26-28, 52-54.)  1
The SOR lists two foreclosures as being of security significance (SOR 1.a and
1.d). It also lists two delinquent debts, totaling approximately $16,056 (SOR 1.b and
1.c). The existence and amount of the debts is supported by credit reports dated June
26, 2012; July 10, 2015; and July 13, 2016. (Government Exhibits 4, 5, and 6.)
Applicant submitted his own credit report dated June 1, 2016. (Applicant Exhibit A.)
The current status of the debts is as follows:
1.a. Applicant denied that he had owed a past-due mortgage in the amount of
$15,954. The property was also alleged to be in foreclosure. According to Applicant, this
Applicant submitted a February 13, 2012 statement signed by Applicant and his second wife that allegedly1
divided the marital debts in their divorce. (Applicant Exhibit C.) However, Applicant admitted that the statement
had never been presented to the court and was not part of their divorce decree. (Tr. 43-45.) Accordingly, it
has no legal force and is not binding.
2
property became delinquent because of his second wife’s inaction in paying the
mortgage for several months. The house was eventually foreclosed on and sold in
approximately 2010. Applicant told a Government investigator in 2012 that he had to pay
additional taxes due to the foreclosure sale. (Government Exhibit 2; Tr. 34-42.) This debt
does not appear on the most recent credit reports in the record. (Government Exhibit 6;
Applicant Exhibit A.) Based on all the available information, I find this debt is resolved by
foreclosure.
1.b. Applicant admitted that he owed a credit union $12,819 for a past-due loan.
Applicant maintains, however, that his second wife is responsible for this debt, which is
for a travel trailer that was eventually repossessed. Applicant Exhibit C shows that the
second wife allegedly agreed to make payments on this debt, but according to Applicant
she did not do so. As stated, this agreement was not part of their divorce decree and not
enforceable in court. However, Applicant argues he relied on this agreement in not
attempting to resolve this debt himself. (Government Exhibit 6; Applicant Exhibits A, B,
and C; Tr. 42-44.) This debt is not resolved.
1.c. Applicant denied that he owed a past-due credit card debt in the amount of
$3,237. Applicant has continually stated that his second wife opened this account without
his knowledge. The debt appears on the 2015 credit report, but not the two reports from
2016. (Government Exhibits 2, 5, and 6; Applicant Exhibits A and B; Tr. 45-46.) This debt
is not resolved.
1.d. Applicant denied that he owed $20,294 for the second mortgage on the
property discussed under 1.a, above. Applicant had no knowledge as to the current
status of this debt, but he believed it to have been resolved when the house was
foreclosed upon and sold. The debt is not shown on the most recent credit reports in the
record. (Government Exhibits 2 and 6; Applicant Exhibits A and C; Tr. 46-47, 57-59.)
This debt is not resolved.
1.e. Applicant admitted that he had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief in 2000.
He filed this bankruptcy on his own after his first wife had filed a separate bankruptcy.
They were separated at the time, and he wished to protect himself from being made
solely liable for their marital debts. He was granted a discharge in February 2001.
(Government Exhibit 3; Tr. 47-52.) This bankruptcy has no current security significance.
Applicant states that his current financial situation is stable. He is able to pay his
monthly debts. (Applicant Exhibit A; Tr. 28-29.)
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance
because he has made false statements to the Department of Defense during the
clearance screening process. Applicant denied the single allegation under this
paragraph.
3
Applicant filled out an e-QIP on June 21, 2012. (Government Exhibit 1.) Section
26 of the e-QIP concerns Applicant’s financial record. One of the subsections under that
section is entitled, “Delinquency Involving Routine Accounts.” Applicant was asked
whether, in the past seven years, he had defaulted on a loan, had bills or debts turned
over to a collection agency, had a credit card suspended, whether he had been 120 days
delinquent on a debt, or whether he was currently 120 days delinquent on a debt.
Applicant responded, “No,” to this question. This was a false response. Applicant had
delinquent debts that were in collection, and a property in foreclosure, as set forth under
Paragraph 1, above, which fit the question. 
Applicant stated that at that time in 2012 he did not know the true extent of his
financial record because of the wrongful conduct of his second wife. However, Applicant
Exhibit C, the alleged agreement between Applicant and his second wife, was signed by
them on February 13, 2012, several months before Applicant filled out Government
Exhibit 1. It sets forth some of the debts of concern, and shows that he had knowledge of
them. He also stated that he simply did not put sufficient effort into filling out that e-QIP.
He went on to state that Applicant Exhibit E was filled out in greater detail in 2015, after
pulling his credit reports.  However, in Section 26 of that e-QIP Applicant discussed only
the first mortgage debt set forth under 1.a, above. In particular, he did not discuss the
debt in 1.b, which is found on every credit report. Applicant maintains that his second
wife agreed to pay that debt and he is not responsible for it.
Mitigation
As stated, Applicant had a successful career in the Marine Corps. He submitted
three letters of recommendation from former Marines who served with him. He is
described as someone who is “dedicated,” and “trusted.” All of the writers recommend
him for a position of trust. (Applicant Exhibit F at 5-7.)
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum. 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 to be used as appropriate 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 AG ¶ 2 describing 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 information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, in making a decision.  In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on
4
his or her own common sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the
ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that, “Any 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance 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. Security clearance decisions include, by necessity, consideration
of the possible risk that 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.
 Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “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.” 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. 
5
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying. 
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant, based on documentary and testimonial evidence, had two
delinquent accounts that he formerly could not resolve. There is also evidence of one
foreclosure, involving two mortgages, on his record. The evidence is sufficient to raise
these potentially disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), disqualifying conditions
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ In addition, AG ¶
20(b) states that disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where “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.”  
The evidence shows that both of the above mitigating conditions may apply to
Applicant, but are not controlling. There is some evidence that Applicant’s financial
problems began when his second wife established various accounts in his name without
his consent. The problem is that Applicant was, and is, very vague about his past
financial issues. During the hearing he was often confused about his past debt situation,
particularly with regard to the foreclosure in 1.d, and the $12,000 debt in 1.b. He seemed
to have the attitude that once he got his second wife to agree to handle a debt, he had
no further responsibility for it. That attitude is, of course, incorrect.
It is Applicant’s responsibility to set forth his financial situation in a sufficient way
so that I can make a finding that he has “initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” as required by AG ¶ 20(d). I am unable to do so in
this case. Given the state of the record, I cannot find that his current financial situation is
stable. I do not find that “there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or
is under control,” as required by AG ¶ 20(c). Paragraph 1 is found against Applicant.
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct)
The security concern relating to Personal Conduct is set out in AG ¶ 15:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty or
unwillingness to comply with rules or 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.
6
I have examined the disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 16 and especially
considered the following:  
(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.
Applicant maintains that he did not intentionally falsify his 2012 e-QIP about his
financial situation. Rather, he states that any falsification was unintentional and the result
of his doing a poor job on the questionnaire. The problem is that his 2015 e-QIP, while
better, was still far from complete in giving the Government an accurate picture of his
financial situation. At the very least, it is obvious that Applicant read Section 26 in a way
that meant he did not have to talk about his marital debts, which he knew or should have
known were delinquent. Under the particular facts of this case, I find that his answers
were intentionally false. I have reviewed the potential mitigating conditions set forth in
AG ¶ 17, and find none of them apply to the facts of this case. In particular, I have
examined the span of time, about four years, since the falsification. There is insufficient
evidence that Applicant currently shows good judgment or is trustworthy and reliable.
Paragraph 2 is found against 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 relevant circumstances. 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. The administrative judge must 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the
relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The discussion under
Guidelines F and E, above, applies here as well. Applicant’s financial situation is still
murky. In addition, he has not been forthcoming to the Government regarding his
financial situation. Based on the record, I cannot find that there have been permanent
behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I also cannot find that there is little
7
to no potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); or that there
is a low likelihood of recurrence (AG ¶ 2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
situation and personal conduct. Accordingly, the evidence supports denying his request
for a security clearance.
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.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against 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 denied.
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge
8