1 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02357 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Tara R. Karoian, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se ___________ Decision ___________ HARVEY, Mark, Administrative Judge: Applicant’s statement of reasons (SOR) alleges 34 delinquent debts totaling $126,882. He did not provide documentation showing resolution of 25 SOR debts totaling $73,523. He did not intentionally fail to disclose his delinquent student loans on his August 6, 2015 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) or security clearance application (SCA). Personal conduct security concerns are refuted and mitigated; however, financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On August 6, 2015, Applicant completed and signed his SCA. (Item 3) On October 11, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued an SOR to Applicant under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, February 20, 1960; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), January 2, 1992; and the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG), which became effective on September 1, 2006. The SOR detailed reasons why the DOD CAF did not find under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for him, and recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. (Item 1) Specifically, the 2 SOR set forth security concerns arising under the financial considerations and personal conduct guidelines. On October 26, 2016, Applicant provided a response to the SOR, and he requested a decision without a hearing. (Item 2) On November 28, 2016, Department Counsel completed the File of Relevant Material (FORM). On December 7, 2016, Applicant received the FORM. On February 20, 2017, Applicant provided a response to the FORM. On March 23, 2017, the case was assigned to me. The case file consisted of seven exhibits. (Items 1-6 and Applicant’s FORM response) There were no objections to any exhibits. Findings of Fact1 In Applicant’s SOR response, he admitted the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.g, 1.i through 1.q, 1.aa, 1.cc, 1.gg, and 1.hh. (Item 2) He also provided extenuating and mitigating information. Applicant’s admissions are accepted as findings of fact. Additional factual findings follow. Applicant is 59 years old, and a government contractor has employed him since August 2015.2 He was unemployed from November 2014 to August 2015. From April 2009 to May 2013, a DOD contractor employed Applicant. In 2006, he received a bachelor’s degree, and he has taken some courses towards a master’s degree. He served in the Army from 1983 to 1989. In 1981, he married, and in 1989, he divorced. In 1995, he married, and in 2000, he divorced. In 2006, he married, and in 2015, he divorced. His children were born in 1981, 1985, 1992, and 2001. Applicant deployed to Afghanistan five times and once to Africa while employed by a government contractor. There is no evidence that he violated security rules, committed any crimes, abused alcohol, or used illegal drugs. There is no evidence of employer performance evaluations. Financial Considerations Applicant’s history of delinquent debt is documented in his credit reports, OPM PSI, SOR response, and FORM response. The status of his SOR debts is as follows.3 SOR ¶ 1.a alleges a charged-off debt for $16,778. Applicant admitted the debt, and he explained that the debt resulted from a joint purchase by Applicant and his former wife. The vehicle was repossessed after she moved out, and Applicant lost his employment. 1 Some details have been excluded to protect Applicant’s right to privacy. Specific information is available in the cited exhibits. 2 Unless stated otherwise, the source for the information in this paragraph is Applicant’s September 15, 2015 Office of Personnel Management personal subject interview. (Item 6) 3 Unless stated otherwise, the source for the information about the status of his SOR debts is Applicant’s response to the statement of reasons. 3 SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.l, 1.m, 1.aa, and 1.cc, allege five Department of Education debts placed for collection for $9,537, $3,637, $3,025, $5,729, and $2,885. Applicant admitted the five debts and explained the five debts were in a repayment program offered by the collection company. He did not provide any documentary evidence that the five debts were in a repayment program. SOR ¶ 1.c alleges a NAVIENT charged-off student loan for $9,007. Applicant admitted the debt and explained he is in a repayment program offered by the collection company. He provided documentation from NAVIENT that this debt is in a repayment program. (FORM response) SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, 1.i, 1.k, 1.p, and 1.q allege eight USA Funds debts placed for collection for $8,327, $8,127, $7,547, $7,523, $5,380, $4,926, $1,290, and $1,232. Applicant admitted these eight debts and explained the eight debts are in a repayment program offered by the collection company. He provided documentation from NAVIENT that the USA Funds debts are in a NAVIENT repayment program. (FORM response) SOR ¶ 1.h alleges a student loan debt (UP) placed for collection for $6,695. Applicant denied this debt; he stated the balance was zero; and the debt is in a repayment program offered by the collection company. Applicant’s June 20, 2016 credit report, the most recent credit report of record, states the current balance is $6,695. (Item 4 at 2) SOR ¶¶ 1.j and 1.n allege two student loan debts owed to NSL placed for collection for $5,326 and $2,814. Applicant admitted these two debts and explained the two debts are in a repayment program offered by the collection company. SOR ¶ 1.o alleges a telecommunications debt placed for collection for $2,108. Applicant admitted this debt and said it was a debt with his former spouse, and “is being work[ed] on. [T]he resolution is to be deferment.” SOR ¶¶ 1.r, 1.s, 1.t, 1.u, 1.v, 1.w, 1.x, 1.ff, 1.gg, and 1.hh allege ten medical debts placed for collection or delinquent for $1,115, $794, $585, $335, $329, $290, $115, $315, $171 and $60. Applicant denied these ten debts and explained he was currently disputing the debts with his insurance company because he had medical insurance, except for the medical debt in SOR ¶ 1.ff. He denied the debt in SOR ¶ 1.ff because he had no knowledge of the debt. SOR ¶ 1.y alleges a judgment for $1,455. Applicant denied the debt because he “had no knowledge of this debt [and] debtor.” SOR ¶ 1.z alleges a 2010 state tax lien for $5,377. Applicant denied this debt because he “was under [the] impression that all [of his] tax debts were satisfied with [his] tax returns.” SOR ¶ 1.bb alleges a bank debt placed for collection for $3,171. Applicant denied this debt because he had “no knowledge of the account. Must belong to my ex-wife.” 4 SOR ¶ 1.dd and 1.ee allege two miscellaneous debts placed for collection for $562 and $315. Applicant denied these two debts because he had no knowledge of them. On February 20, 2017, the creditor in SOR ¶ 1.c, NAVIENT ($9,007), wrote Applicant that eight student loans were now in good standing.4 The eight student loans were taken out from November 9, 2004, to May 10, 2007. The eight debts ranged from $1,123 to $8,021. NAVIENT is the servicer of student loans for national and state guarantee agencies. (FORM response at 4) The eight USA Funds debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, 1.i, 1.k, 1.p, and 1.q are described in the NAVIENT correspondence as being in good standing. (FORM response at 17) As of February 1, 2017, he owed $46,431 to NAVIENT and more than $1,000 is being charged annually for interest. (FORM response at 4) From January 2015 to January 2017, Appellant made 14 $5 monthly payments, which were sufficient to bring the NAVIENT student loans to current status. (FORM response at 6) He did not make any payments from August 2015 to June 2016. (FORM response at 6) Notwithstanding these payments, interest charges over two years exceeded $2,000. (FORM response) Aside from the NAVIENT information, and Applicant’s uncorroborated statements, there is no documentary evidence that Applicant paid, arranged to pay, settled, compromised, or otherwise resolved any of the delinquent SOR accounts. He did not describe financial counseling or present a budget. The record lacks corroborating or substantiating documentation and sufficiently detailed explanations of the causes for his financial problems and other mitigating information. The FORM noted that Applicant had 30 days from the receipt of the FORM “in which to submit a documentary response setting forth objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation, as appropriate. If you do not file any objections or submit any additional information . . . your case will be assigned to an Administrative Judge for a determination based solely” on the evidence set forth in this FORM. (FORM at 4) Personal Conduct SOR ¶ 2.a alleges that Applicant failed to disclose his delinquent student loan debts on his August 6, 2015 SCA. Section 26 of his SCA asks whether Applicant is currently delinquent on any Federal debt. Applicant answered, “No.” On September 15, 2015, an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator interviewed Applicant about his finances. (Item 6) Applicant volunteered that his spouse handled the family finances and was not paying their bills. (Item 6) He also volunteered that a vehicle was repossessed resulting in a large delinquent debt. (Item 6) Applicant’s August 6, 2015 SCA had numerous errors such as failure to list marriages and overseas deployments. (Item 6) I note several pages were missing from Applicant’s August 6, 2015 SCA. (Item 3) In his SOR response, Applicant said that he did not realize that some of his student loans were federal debts. He said he did not intentionally provide false information on his 4 The source for the information in this paragraph is Appellant’s FORM response. 5 SCA. Applicant did not disclose any delinquent debts on his SCA; however, the SOR did not allege he failed to disclose delinquent debts except for his student loans. Policies The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security emphasizing, “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended. Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. 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 about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, nothing in this decision should be construed to suggest that it is based, in whole or in part, on any express or implied determination about applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism. It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996). 6 Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b). Analysis Financial Considerations AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concern for 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. In ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012) (citation omitted), the Appeal Board explained the scope and rationale for the financial considerations security concern as follows: This concern is broader than the possibility that an applicant might knowingly compromise classified information in order to raise money in satisfaction of his or her debts. Rather, it requires a Judge to examine the totality of an applicant’s financial history and circumstances. The Judge must consider pertinent evidence regarding the applicant’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting the national secrets as well as the vulnerabilities inherent in the circumstances. The Directive presumes a nexus between proven conduct under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s security eligibility. In ISCR Case No. 08-12184 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 7, 2010) (internal citation omitted), the Appeal Board concluded that a credit report is sufficient to establish the government’s initial burden of proof that a debt is delinquent stating: It is well-settled that adverse information from a credit report can normally meet the substantial evidence standard and the government’s obligations under [Directive] ¶ E3.1.14 for pertinent allegations. At that point, the burden shifts to applicant to establish either that [he or] she is not responsible for the debt or that matters in mitigation apply. 7 AG ¶ 19 provides two disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;” and “(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.” Applicant’s history of delinquent debt is documented in his credit reports, OPM PSI, and SOR response. The Government established the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) requiring additional inquiry about the possible applicability of mitigating conditions. Five mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable: (a) the behavior happened so long ago,5 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;6 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. 5 A debt that became delinquent several years ago is still considered recent because “an applicant’s ongoing, unpaid debts evidence a continuing course of conduct and, therefore, can be viewed as recent for purposes of the Guideline F mitigating conditions.” ISCR Case No. 15-06532 at 3 (App. Bd. February 16, 2017) (citing ISCR Case No. 15-01690 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2016)). 6 The Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a “good faith” effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts: In order to qualify for application of [the “good faith” mitigating condition], an applicant must present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or some other good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does not define the term “good-faith.” However, the Board has indicated that the concept of good- faith “requires a showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.” Accordingly, an applicant must do more than merely show that he or she relied on a legally available option (such as bankruptcy) in order to claim the benefit of [the “good faith” mitigating condition]. (internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004) (quoting ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)). 8 The Appeal Board concisely explained Applicant’s responsibility for proving the applicability of mitigating conditions as follows: Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the Government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The standard applicable in security clearance decisions is that articulated in Egan, supra. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b). ISCR Case No. 10-04641 at 4 (App. Bd. Sept. 24, 2013). Applicant described divorce and his spouse’s failure to pay their debts while he was deployed. He was unemployed from November 2014 to August 2015. These circumstances beyond his control adversely affected his finances. Applicant did not provide sufficient details about how these circumstances beyond his control negatively affected his finances, and he did not show he acted reasonably under the circumstances to address his delinquent debts. Applicant is credited with mitigation of the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, 1.i, 1.k, 1.p, and 1.q, as NAVIENT has indicated these student loans are in good standing. After crediting Applicant with mitigating the nine SOR debts, 25 delinquent SOR debts totaling $73,523 remain to be resolved. Applicant did not provide enough details about what he did to address his SOR debts over the last four years. He did not provide documentation relating to any of his 25 SOR debts: (1) proof of payments, such as checking account statements, photocopies of checks, or a letter from the creditor proving that he paid or made any payments to the creditors; (2) correspondence to or from the creditors to establish maintenance of contact;7 (3) credible debt disputes indicating he did not believe he was responsible for the debts and why he held such a belief; (4) more evidence of attempts to negotiate payment plans, such as settlement offers or agreements to show that he was attempting to resolve these debts; or (5) other evidence of progress or resolution. Applicant failed to establish mitigation under AG ¶ 20(e) because he did not provide documented proof to substantiate the existence, basis, or the result of any debt disputes. There is insufficient evidence about why Applicant was unable to make greater progress resolving his SOR debts. There is insufficient assurance that his financial 7 “Even if Applicant’s financial difficulties initially arose, in whole or in part, due to circumstances outside his [or her] control, the Judge could still consider whether Applicant has since acted in a reasonable manner when dealing with those financial difficulties.” ISCR Case No. 05-11366 at 4 n.9 (App. Bd. Jan. 12, 2007) (citing ISCR Case No. 99-0462 at 4 (App. Bd. May 25, 2000); ISCR Case No. 99-0012 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 1999); ISCR Case No. 03-13096 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2005)). A component is whether he or she maintained contact with creditors and attempted to negotiate partial payments to keep debts current. 9 problems are being resolved, are under control, and will not recur in the future. Under all the circumstances, he failed to establish that financial considerations security concerns are mitigated. Personal Conduct AG ¶ 15 explains why personal conduct is a security concern stating: 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 one condition that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case, “(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire . . . used to conduct investigations, . . . determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness. . . .”8 Section 26 of Applicant’s August 6, 2015 SCA asks whether Applicant is currently delinquent on any Federal debt. Applicant answered, “No.” On September 15, 2015, Applicant volunteered that he had delinquent debts to an OPM investigator. In his SOR response, Applicant said that he did not realize that some of his student loans were federal debts. He said he did not intentionally provide false information on his SCA. Applicant was very careless, and he made numerous mistakes on his SCA. His errors and omissions on his SCA do not establish AG ¶ 16(a). Applicant refuted the allegation that he intentionally failed to disclose his delinquent student loans on his SCA with intent to deceive. AG ¶ 17(a) (stating “the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts) and AG ¶ 17(f) (stating “the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability”) are also applicable. Personal conduct security concerns are mitigated. 8 The Appeal Board has cogently explained the process for analyzing falsification cases, stating: (a) when a falsification allegation is controverted, Department Counsel has the burden of proving falsification; (b) proof of an omission, standing alone, does not establish or prove an applicant’s intent or state of mind when the omission occurred; and (c) a Judge must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence concerning the applicant’s intent or state of mind at the time the omission occurred. [Moreover], it was legally permissible for the Judge to conclude Department Counsel had established a prima facie case under Guideline E and the burden of persuasion had shifted to the applicant to present evidence to explain the omission. ISCR Case No. 03-10380 at 5 (App. Bd. Jan. 6, 2006) (citing ISCR Case No. 02-23133 (App. Bd. June 9, 2004)). 10 Whole-Person Concept Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): (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 have incorporated my comments under Guidelines F and E in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) were addressed under those guidelines, but some warrant additional comment. Applicant is 59 years old, and the government contractor has employed him since June 2015. In 2006, he received a bachelor’s degree, and he has taken some courses towards a master’s degree. He served in the Army from 1983 to 1989. In 2006, he married, and in 2015, he divorced. Applicant deployed to Afghanistan five times and once to Africa while employed by a government contractor. There is no evidence that he violated security rules, committed any crimes, abused alcohol, or used illegal drugs. Applicant’s finances were adversely affected by divorce, his former spouse’s negligent handling of his finances while he was deployed overseas, and unemployment. Applicant did not provide sufficient details about how these circumstances beyond his control negatively affected his finances. He did not prove he acted reasonably under the circumstances after his divorce and his employment resumed. NAVIENT placed Applicant’s student loans in good standing after he made 14 $5 payments over a two-year period. Notwithstanding these payments, interest charges over those two years exceeded $2,000. I have credited Applicant with mitigating the nine SOR debts assumed by NAVIET. Applicant did not provide documented resolution of 25 delinquent SOR debts totaling $73,523. Applicant provided insufficient corroborating or substantiating documentary evidence of payments and established payment plans for these 25 SOR debts. He did not provide a detailed plan about how he intended to resolve his 25 delinquent SOR debts. His actions show lack of financial responsibility and judgment and raise unmitigated questions about Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. See AG ¶ 18. More information about inability to pay debts, financial history, or documented financial progress is necessary to mitigate security concerns. 11 It is well settled that once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or renewal of a security clearance. See Dorfmont, 913 F. 2d at 1401. Unmitigated financial considerations security concerns lead me to conclude that grant of a security clearance to Applicant is not warranted at this time. This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot or will not attain the state of reform necessary for award of a security clearance in the future. With more effort towards documented resolution of his past-due debts, and a track record of behavior consistent with his obligations, he may well be able to demonstrate persuasive evidence of his security clearance worthiness. I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Egan, Exec. Or. 10865, the Directive, and the AGs, to the facts and circumstances in the context of the whole person. I conclude that personal conduct security concerns are refuted and mitigated; however, financial consideration security concerns are not mitigated. It is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant security clearance eligibility at this time. 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 and 1.b: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.c through 1.g: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.l through 1.o: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.p and 1.q For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.r through 1.hh: Against Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant Conclusion In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. _________________________ MARK HARVEY Administrative Judge