1 
 
 
 
               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
    )    ISCR Case No. 16-00444 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Erin Thompson, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Kristin Turner, Personal Representative 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
Curry, Marc E., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant did not falsify his 2014 security clearance application when he failed to 
disclose information, as required, about his finances. There are no personal conduct 
security concerns. Although medical problems and a marital separation contributed to 
Applicant’s financial difficulties, it is too soon to conclude that he has mitigated the financial 
considerations security concerns, given the lack of substantiated progress at debt 
reduction. Clearance is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On June 6, 2016, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the security 
concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations, and Guideline E, personal conduct, 
explaining why it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the national interest to grant 
security clearance eligibility for him. The DOD CAF took the action under Executive Order 
(EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as 
amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review 
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines for 
 
2 
 
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG) effective within the DOD on 
September 1, 2006. 
 
On July 21, 2016, Applicant answered the SOR allegations, admitting the Paragraph 
1 allegations and denying the Paragraph 2 allegations, and requested a hearing. The case 
was assigned to me on December 6, 2016. On February 1, 2017, DOHA issued a notice of 
hearing, scheduling Applicant’s case for March 15, 2017. The hearing was held as 
scheduled. I received five Government exhibits (GE 1 – GE 5), and four Applicant’s exhibits 
(AE A – AE D). At the close of the record, I left open, at Applicant’s request, to allow him to 
submit additional exhibits. Within the time allotted, he submitted one additional exhibit that 
I incorporated into the record, without objection, as AE E. The transcript (Tr.) was received 
on March 23, 2017. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
  Applicant is a 54-year-old married man with one child, a teenager. He has been 
separated from his wife since 2014. A previous marriage ended in divorce in 2000. (Tr. 52) 
Applicant has a high school education. He has been working for a defense contractor as a 
mailroom clerk since 2006. (GE 1 at 16; Tr. 24, 30)) Applicant is highly respected on the 
job. According to his supervisor, his service skills are excellent and he “goes over and 
beyond [in] helping customers.” (AE A at 2) 
 
 The SOR alleges approximately $20,000 of delinquent debt, including the deficiency 
on a repossessed car, totaling $13,292 (subparagraph 1.a), delinquent rental payments, 
totaling $6,305 (subparagraph 1.b), delinquent medical bills, totaling $500 (subparagraphs 
1.c – 1.f), a delinquent car insurance payment, totaling $136 (subparagraph 1.g), and 
delinquent state income taxes, prompting the issuance of a tax lien in 2008, totaling $1,453 
(subparagraph 1.h). All of the debts except subparagraph 1.h stem from Applicant’s marital 
separation in 2014. Applicant and his ex-wife were dependent on both incomes to make 
ends meet. By 2013, Applicant had satisfied the tax lien through a wage garnishment. (AE 
E) The other delinquencies remain outstanding. For the past “couple months” Applicant 
has been working with a credit counselor. (AE E at 6)              
 
 Generally, Applicant’s discretionary income is minimal given that his expenses often 
exceed his income. He does not own a car, and much of his expenses cover copayments 
for treatment of a chronic condition. (Answer at 4)  
 
 Applicant failed to list relevant information about his delinquent finances and his 
2008 tax lien in response to Section 26 of his 2014 security clearance application. 
Applicant contends that his omissions were not intentional, and attributes them to 
“confusion.” (Tr. 26) Throughout Applicant’s childhood, he received special education 
services for learning disabilities. (AE B at 1)  Per a neurologist who evaluated him in 
January 2015, he has borderline verbal intelligence and semantic fluency, and difficulty 
writing sentences and following conversations. (AE B at 1-3) 
 
 
3 
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  emphasizing 
that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 
U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, 
the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be considered 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 overall 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. 
 
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. 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 to obtain 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 
that 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. 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). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 The security concerns about financial considerations are set forth 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. 
 
 Applicant’s financial problems trigger the application of disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 
19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting 
financial obligations.” 
 
 The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable:  
 
AG ¶ 20(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;  
 
AG ¶ 20(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; and 
 
AG ¶ 20(d), the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts.  
 
 Most of Applicant’s financial problems stems from his marital separation, as he was 
dependent on the additional income from his estranged wife to help make ends meet. He 
has recently begun working with a credit counselor to help him address his financial 
problems. AG ¶ 20(b) applies. 
 
  Applicant satisfied the 2008 tax lien. I resolve subparagraph 1.h in his favor. 
Conversely, he has neither satisfied nor begun making payments towards any of the other 
SOR debts. Under these circumstances, AG ¶ 20(c) and AG ¶ 20(d) do not apply. On 
balance, the satisfaction of the tax lien listed in subparagraph 1.h is insufficient for me to 
conclude that Applicant has mitigated the financial considerations security concerns, in 
light of the delinquencies that remain outstanding.   
 
 
 
 
5 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 Under this guideline, “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.” (AG ¶ 
15) Moreover, “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.” (Id.) 
 
 Appellant’s omission of relevant financial information from his 2014 security 
clearance application raises the issue of whether AG ¶ 16(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,” applies.  Given Applicant’s history of 
learning disabilities and the neurologist’s diagnosis of his current cognitive difficulties, I 
conclude that Applicant’s explanation that the financial questions on the security clearance 
application confused him, was credible. There are no personal conduct security clearance 
concerns. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the totality 
of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative 
process factors in AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows: 
 
(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. 
 
 In reaching my conclusion, I considered Applicant’s solid character reference, and I 
also considered that he has nominal discretionary income, if any, to begin satisfying his 
debts. However, he satisfied none of the debts other than the garnishment, despite the fact 
that two of the bills were under $100. It is commendable that Applicant is seeking financial 
assistance to organize his finances, but it is currently too soon to conclude that he has 
mitigated the security concern. 
 
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: 
6 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.g:     Against Applicant 
 
Subparagraph 1.h:     For Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline E:    FOR APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 2.a – 2.b:    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. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Marc E. Curry 
Administrative Judge