1 
 
 
                                                              
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
            DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
          
             
 
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
-----------------------  )       ISCR Case No. 15-03515 
 ) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Candace L. Garcia, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
May 31, 2017 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge: 
 
On May 1, 2013, Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP). (Item 3.) On November 1, 2015, the Department of 
Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DoD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement 
of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial 
Considerations). 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 (Answer) on November 24, 2015, and 
requested his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. On March 3, 
2016, Department Counsel submitted the Department=s written case. A complete copy 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
of the file of relevant material (FORM), consisting of Items 1 to 7, was provided to 
Applicant, who received the file on March 8, 2016.1  
 
 Applicant was given 30 days from receipt of the FORM to file objections and 
submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant submitted additional 
information on April 1, 2016. Department Counsel had no objection and the additional 
material is admitted into the record as Applicant Exhibit 1. The case was assigned to me 
on September 13, 2016. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility 
for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is 43 and married. 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. In addition, 
Applicant has had income tax issues. 
 
 Applicant admitted allegations 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, 1.h, 1.i, and 1.j in the SOR under 
this Paragraph. Those admissions are findings of fact. He denied the remaining 
allegations (1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.k, and 1.l). 
 
 SOR subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c concern Applicant’s income tax issues:  
 
 Subparagraph 1.a alleged that Applicant had failed to file his Federal income tax 
return for tax year 2009. He submitted evidence with his Answer, and Applicant Exhibit 
1 at Attachment C, from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) showing that he had 
subsequently filed a Form 1040 for that year. This allegation is found for Applicant. 
 
 Subparagraph 1.b alleged that Applicant owed $949 in delinquent taxes for tax 
year 2006. Attached to his Answer is an “Installment Agreement Activity” statement from 
the IRS as of July 13, 2015. That document shows Applicant had a zero balance for the 
2006 tax year. This allegation is found for Applicant. 
                                            
1 Department Counsel submitted seven Items in support of the SOR allegations.  Item 4 is inadmissible. It 
will not be considered or cited as evidence in this case. It is the summary of an unsworn interview of 
Applicant conducted by an interviewer from the Office of Personnel Management on May 29, 2013. 
Applicant did not adopt the summary as his own statement, or otherwise certify it to be accurate. Under 
Directive ¶ E3.1.20, this Report of Investigation summary is inadmissible in the absence of an 
authenticating witness. In light of Applicant’s admissions, it is also cumulative. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 Subparagraph 1.c alleged that Applicant owed approximately $9,000 in 
delinquent taxes for tax years 2008 through 2010. Documentation from the IRS 
attached to Applicant’s Answer and Applicant Exhibit 1 at Attachments A and C, shows 
that all of his tax debts were resolved in March 2016. This allegation is found for 
Applicant. 
 
 Subparagraph 1.d alleged that Applicant’s wages were being garnished by a 
finance company and that he still owed $6,387 as of the date of the SOR. Applicant 
admitted this allegation in his Answer, but stated the amount owed was approximately 
$2,392 and would be paid off in 2016. Applicant Exhibit 1 at Attachment B shows 
Applicant paid this debt off in March 2016. This allegation is found for Applicant. 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.e through 1.l are all consumer debts. The total amount of 
money Applicant owes on those debts is approximately $3,005. The existence and 
amount of the debts is supported by credit reports dated May 10, 2013; and March 26, 
2015. (Items 5 and 6.) In general, Applicant stated in his e-QIP that he could not satisfy 
some of his debts because, “Only one working – One income.” (Item 3 at Section 26.) 
 
  1.e. Applicant admitted that he was indebted to a cable television company in 
the amount of $623. He stated in his Answer, “[Cable company] will be contacted to 
return unused equipment or reimburse cost in an attempt to satisfy debt.” Applicant 
Exhibit 1 does not show any further efforts to satisfy this debt other than to say in 
general that he is “reaching out to creditors for balance pay-offs.” No further information 
was provided. This debt is not resolved. 
 
 1.f. Applicant admitted that he was indebted for a past-due account in the amount 
of $457. Applicant Exhibit 1 does not show any efforts to satisfy this debt other than to 
say in general that he is “reaching out to creditors for balance pay-offs.” No further 
information was provided. This debt is not resolved. 
 
 1.g. Applicant admitted that he was indebted to a telephone company in the 
amount of $417. He stated in his Answer, “Contact will be made with [telephone 
company] in an effort to satisfy the balance.” Applicant Exhibit 1 does not show any 
further efforts to satisfy this debt other than to say in general that he is “reaching out to 
creditors for balance pay-offs.” No further information was provided. This debt is not 
resolved. 
 
 1.h. Applicant admitted that he was indebted to a credit union in the amount of 
$250.2 Applicant Exhibit 1 does not show any efforts to satisfy this debt other than to say 
in general that he is “reaching out to creditors for balance pay-offs.” No further 
information was provided. This debt is not resolved. 
 
                                            
2 It is noted that in Section 26 of Item 3 Applicant states that the amount of this debt is $25,000. However, 
the two credit reports in the record state the balance owed as being $250, and that is the amount that will 
be used in this decision. 
 
 
 
 
 
4 
 1.i. Applicant admitted that he owed a past-due medical debt in the amount of 
$247. He stated in his Answer, “Contact will be made in an effort to satisfy the balance.” 
Applicant Exhibit 1 does not show any further efforts to satisfy this debt other than to 
say in general that he is “reaching out to creditors for balance pay-offs.” No further 
information was provided. This debt is not resolved. 
 
 1.j. Applicant admitted that he owed a past-due debt in the amount of $464. He 
stated in his Answer, “Contact will be made in an effort to satisfy the balance.” Applicant 
Exhibit 1 does not show any further efforts to satisfy this debt other than to say in 
general that he is “reaching out to creditors for balance pay-offs.” No further information 
was provided. This debt is not resolved. 
 
 1.k. Applicant denied that he owed a past-due medical debt in the amount of 
$352. He stated in his Answer, “A credit report has been requested. Upon receipt of the 
report, the charges will be disputed.” Applicant Exhibit 1 does not show any evidence 
that Applicant took any action to dispute this debt. It is not resolved. 
 
 1.l. Applicant denied that he owed a past-due debt in the amount of $195. He 
stated in his Answer, “A credit report has been requested. Upon receipt of the report, 
the charges will be disputed.” Applicant Exhibit 1 does not show any evidence that 
Applicant took any action to dispute this debt. It is not resolved. 
 
 Applicant did not submit any evidence concerning the quality of his job 
performance. He submitted no character references or other evidence tending to 
establish good judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability. 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 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, the administrative judge applies the guidelines in 
conjunction with the factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The 
administrative judge=s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and 
commonsense decision. According to AG & 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious 
scrutiny of a number of variables known as the Awhole-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, AAny 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.  
 
According to 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. 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.  
 
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.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
6 
 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 evidence, had eleven delinquent 
accounts that he could not resolve. In addition, as of the date the SOR was issued, he 
had not filed his income tax return for 2009. The return was eventually filed, albeit late. 
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 neither of the above mitigating conditions apply to 
Applicant. Applicant did resolve his tax issues, and paid off the large judgment against 
him. However, Applicant did not submit any information showing that he had paid, was 
paying, or was legitimately disputing, the debts in subparagraphs 1.e through 1.l. Even 
though they are relatively small debts, his failure to submit any information about them 
is a negative factor for security clearance purposes. It is Applicant’s responsibility to set 
forth his financial situation in sufficient detail to support 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. 
 
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 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
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 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s financial irresponsibility is 
recent, voluntary, and occurred when he was a mature adult. Rehabilitation was not 
demonstrated, nor was unlikelihood of recurrence. Overall, the record evidence as 
described above leaves me with questions and substantial doubts as to Applicant=s 
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance at the present time. For all these 
reasons, I conclude Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns arising under the 
guideline for Financial Considerations.  
 
 
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:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraphs 1.e through 1.l:   Against 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. 
 
 
 
 
                                                   
WILFORD H. ROSS 
Administrative Judge