1 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
           DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-05561 
  )   
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Andrew Henderson, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
June 1, 2017 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On January 13, 2015, Applicant submitted a signed Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP.) On April 19, 2016, the Department of Defense issued 
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under 
Guidelines F for Financial Considerations, and J for Criminal Conduct. The action was 
taken under Executive Order (EO) 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 September 1, 2006.  
 
Applicant answered the SOR on May 31, 2016 (Answer), and requested a 
hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on August 17, 
2016. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing 
on August 31, 2016, scheduling the hearing for September 19, 2016. The hearing was 
convened as scheduled. The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 6, which 
were admitted without objection. Despite the undersigned keeping the record open until 
 
2 
 
October 19, 2016, to enable Applicant to submit documentation in support of his 
contentions, Applicant offered no exhibits. However, Applicant did testify on his own 
behalf. The record was closed October 19, 2016. DOHA received the transcript of the 
hearing (TR) on September 28, 2016. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is 33 years old. He has been employed by a government contractor as 
a “DRIVER” for four years. (GX 1 at pages 5 and 10.)  He does not hold a security 
clearance.  (GX 1 at pages 29~30.) He is divorced and avers he has no children on his 
e-QIP.  (GX at pages 17~18.)1  
 
 Under Guideline F of the SOR, Applicant was alleged to be delinquent on 39 
debts, in a total exceeding $30,000. Applicant denied the SOR allegations in ¶¶ 
1.a.~1.c., 1.g.~1.l., 1.n.~1.s., 1.u.~1.x., and 1.g.~1.gg, but admitted the rest. His debts 
are identified in the credit reports entered into evidence. (GXs 2 and 3.) Under Guideline 
J, as to the alleged criminal conduct, Applicant admits all the allegations, except for ¶¶ 
2.a. and 2.e., with explanations. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, 
exhibits, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact. 
 
Guideline F – Financial Considerations  
 
 Applicant attributes his alleged financial delinquencies (and to the admitted 
criminal conduct, which will be examined separately), to being “young and 
irresponsible.”  (TR at page 38 lines 6~23.)  He is also taking “a financial education 
class.”  (TR at page 39 lines 17~25.) 
 
 1.a.~1.c. Applicant denies these three alleged past-due debts, totaling about 
$1,356, and avers that they have been paid. (TR at page 27 line 20 to page 29 line 5.)  
As these debts appear on the Government’s most recent March 2016, credit report 
(CR); and as Applicant has offered no documentation in support of his averment, I find 
that these debts are still past due.  (GX 3 at page 2.) 
 
 1.d. and 1.e. Applicant admits these two alleged past-due debts, totaling about 
$704, and again avers that they have been paid.  (TR at page 29 lines 6~23.)  As these 
debts appear on the Government’s most recent March 2016 CR; and as Applicant has 
offered no documentation in support of his averment, I again find that these debts are 
still past due.  (GX 3 at page 6.) 
 
 1.f. Applicant denies this alleged past-due “CHILD SUPPORT” debt, totaling 
about $8,865, and avers that was paid “roughly six months ago.”  (TR at page 29 line 24 
to page 30 line 9.)  As this debt appears on the Government’s most recent March 2016 
CR; and as Applicant has offered no documentation is support of his averment, I find 
that this debts is still past due.  (GX 3 at page 7.) 
                                                          
1 This averment is suspect as allegation 1.f., which Applicant admits, involves “CHILD 
SUPPORT.” 
 
3 
 
 1.g. and 1.h. Applicant denies these two alleged past-due debts, totaling about 
$118, and avers that they have been paid.  (TR at page 30 lines 10~18.)  As these 
debts appear on the Government’s most recent March 2016 CR; and as Applicant has 
offered no documentation in support of his averment, I find that these debts are still past 
due.  (GX 3 at pages 7 and 8.) 
 
 1.i. Applicant denies this alleged past-due debt, totaling about $1,886, and avers 
that it has been paid.  (TR at page 30 line 19 to page 31 line 3, and at page 41 line 23 to 
page 42 line 9.)  As this debt appears on the Government’s January 2015 CR; and as 
Applicant has offered no documentation in support of his averment, I find that this debt 
is still past due.  (GX 2 at page 3.) 
 
 1.j. Applicant denies this alleged past-due debt, totaling about $9,404, and avers 
that he is “still trying to resolve” it.  (TR at page 31 line 4 to page 32 line 4.)  As this debt 
appears on the Government’s January 2015 CR; and as Applicant has offered no 
documentation in support of his averment, I find that this debt is still past due.  (GX 2 at 
page 5.) 
 
 1.k. and 1.l. Applicant denies these two alleged past-due debts, totaling about 
$3,655, and avers that they have been paid.  (TR at page 32 lines 5~24.)  As these 
debts appear on the Government’s January 2015 CR; and as Applicant has offered no 
documentation in support of his averment, I find that these debts are still past due.  (GX 
2 at page 5.) 
 
 1.m. Applicant admits this alleged past-due debt, totaling about $737, and avers 
that it has been paid.  (TR at page 32 line 25 to page 33 line 7.)  As this debt appears 
on the Government’s January 2015 CR; and as Applicant has offered no documentation 
in support of his averment, I find that this debt is still past due.  (GX 2 at page 6.) 
 
 1.n.~1.r. Applicant denies these five alleged past-due debts, totaling about 
$2,227, and avers that they have been paid.  (TR at page 33 line 8 to page 35 line 12.)  
As these debts appear on the Government’s January 2015 CR; and as Applicant has 
offered no documentation in support of his averment, I find that these debts are still past 
due.  (GX 2 at pages 6 and 7.) 
 
 1.t.  Applicant admits this alleged past-due debt, totaling about $199, and avers 
that it has been paid.  (TR at page 35 lines 3~16.)  As this debt appears on the 
Government’s January 2015 CR; and as Applicant has offered no documentation in 
support of his averment, I find that this debt is still past due.  (GX 2 at page 7.) 
 
 1.u.~1.x. Applicant denies these four alleged past-due debts, totaling about $662, 
and avers that they have been paid or are in error.  (TR at page 35 line 17 to page 36 
line 16.)  As these debts appear on the Government’s January 2015 CR; and as 
Applicant has offered no documentation in support of his averment, I find that these 
debts are still past due.  (GX 2 at pages 7 and 8.) 
 
 
4 
 
 1.y.  Applicant admits this alleged past-due debt, totaling about $105, and avers 
that it has been paid.  (TR at page 36 lines 17~19.)  As this debt appears on the 
Government’s January 2015 CR; and as Applicant has offered no documentation in 
support of his averment, I find that this debt is still past due.  (GX 2 at page 8.) 
 
 1.z. Applicant denies this alleged past-due debt, totaling about $80, and avers 
that it has been paid.  (TR at page 36 lines 20~23.)  As this debt appears on the 
Government’s January 2015 CR; and as Applicant has offered no documentation in 
support of his averment, I find that this debt is still past due.  (GX 2 at page 9.) 
 
 1.aa.~1.ee. Applicant denies these five alleged past-due debts, to the same 
creditor as the result of writing “bad checks,” totaling about $317, and avers that they 
have been settled.  (TR at page 36 line 24 to page 37 line 9.)  As these debts appear on 
the Government’s January 2015 CR; and as Applicant has offered no documentation in 
support of his averment, I find that these debts are still past due.  (GX 2 at pages 9 and 
10.) 
 
 1.ff. and 1.gg.  Applicant denies these two alleged past-due debts, totaling about 
$99, and avers that they have been paid.  (TR at page 37 lines 120~19)  As these debts 
appear on the Government’s January 2015 CR; and as Applicant has offered no 
documentation in support of his averment, I find that these debts are still past due.  (GX 
2 at page 10.) 
 
 1.hh.~1.mm. Applicant admits these six alleged past-due debts, to the same 
creditor, totaling about $192, and avers that he is “waiting for an itemized bill.”  (TR at 
page 37 line 20 to page 38 line 5.)  As these debts appear on the Government’s 
January 2015 CR; and as Applicant has offered no documentation in support of his 
averment, I find that these debts are still past due.  (GX 2 at pages 10 and 11.) 
 
Guideline J – Criminal Conduct 
 
 Under Guideline J the SOR alleges Applicant committed 12 crimes from October 
of 2005 until September of 2012. Applicant admits to all, except for SOR allegations 2.a. 
and 2.e. 
 
 2.a., 2.c. and 2.e. In October of 2005, Applicant was arrested and charged with 
Check Forgery, a misdemeanor, in State A.  (TR at page 17 line 19 to page 19 line 4.)  
He forged a “friend’s” name on that person’s check in the amount of “around $2,500.” 
(Id.)  Applicant kept missing his court date; and in May of 2008, he was rearrested and 
the offense was raised to the level of a felony.  (TR at page 20 line 12 to page 22 line 
8.)  Applicant then took a job in State B, were he was arrested in February of 2009 on a 
warrant from State A as a Fugitive from Justice.  (TR at page 42 line 12 to page 43 line 
5.)  The Forgery charge was again reduced to a misdemeanor, and Applicant was fined, 
and ordered to pay restitution.  (GXs 4 and 5.) 
 
 2.b., 2.d. and 2.k.  In March of 2008, Applicant was arrested and charged with 
Theft by Check, a misdemeanor, in State A.  (TR at page 19 line 15 to page 20 line 11.)  
 
5 
 
He bounced a check for “a couple of hundred dollars.” (Id.) Again, Applicant kept 
missing his court date; and in January of 2009, he was rearrested for the Theft.  (TR at 
page 20 line 12 to page 22 line 8.)  In June of 2010, Applicant was also arrested in 
State B, on a warrant from State A, as a Fugitive from Justice as to the Theft. (TR at 
page 42 line 12 to page 43 line 5.)  Applicant was fined, and ordered to pay restitution.  
(GXs 4 and 5.) 
 
 2.f.~2.j.  From April of 2009 to March 2010, Applicant admits that he received five 
traffic citations, all for Driving with a Suspended License, and on three of those five 
times, also for not having Liability Insurance.   (TR at page 22 lines 9~25.) 
 
 2.k. This allegation has been discussed, above. 
 
 2.l.  Finally, in September of 2012, Applicant admits that he was arrested and 
charged with Theft for a second time. (TR at page 23 line 22 to page 24 line 9.)  He was 
sentenced to 30 days in jail, and placed on probation for two years. (Id.)  
    
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the 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 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, administrative judges apply 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 “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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The 
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance 
decision. 
  
 
6 
 
 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 EO 10865 provides that adverse 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 
 
Guideline F - Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18, as 
follows:       
 
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.  
 
 AG ¶ 19 describes two conditions that could raise security concerns and may be 
disqualifying in this case:  
 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
 Applicant has a history of financial indebtedness documented by the credit 
reports in evidence, which substantiate all allegations. He failed to provide proof that he 
resolved any of the delinquencies. The evidence raises security concerns under both 
disqualifying conditions, thereby shifting the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or 
mitigate those concerns.  
 
  
 
 
 
7 
 
The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security 
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:  
 
(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 
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 financial problems are ongoing. He has a long history of 
delinquencies. He has not demonstrated that future financial problems are unlikely. 
Mitigation under AG ¶ 20(a) has not been established. 
 
 Applicant avers that he is taking a “financial education class,” but it is unclear as 
to whether this class will provide Applicant with any financial lessons on avoiding debt in 
the future. Further, there are no clear indications that his financial problems are being 
resolved or are under control. Mitigation under AG ¶¶ 20(b), (c), (d) or (e) has not been 
established. 
 
Guideline J - Criminal Conduct 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Criminal Conduct is set out in 
AG ¶ 30: 
 
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and 
trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability 
or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations. 
 
  
 
 
8 
 
 AG ¶ 31 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying. The following are potentially applicable:  
 
(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses; and 
 
(c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the 
person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted; and  
 
Applicant has a recent history of multiple criminal arrests and convictions that 
stretch from 2005 to 2012. These offenses give rise to concerns about Applicant’s 
judgment and reliability, because of both the nature and the number of criminal 
offenses. The aforementioned disqualifying conditions have been established.  
 
Four Criminal Conduct mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 32 are potentially 
applicable:  
 
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it 
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur 
and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or 
good judgment; 
 
(b) the person was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those 
pressures are no longer present in the person’s life; 
 
 (c) evidence that the person did not commit the offense; and 
 
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited 
to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or 
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or 
constructive community involvement. 
  
 Applicant’s criminal past continues to cast doubt on his trustworthiness and 
judgment. His offenses are recent and he failed to present evidence to show that similar 
criminal conduct is unlikely to recur. AG ¶ 32(a) does not provide full mitigation. 
 
 Applicant failed to present evidence to show that he was pressured into criminal 
acts. He admitted each of the allegations. Neither AG ¶¶ 32(b) nor 32(c) provide 
mitigation. 
 
 Applicant failed to introduce evidence of rehabilitation. He presented nothing to 
show a good employment record, or constructive community involvement. AG ¶ 32(d) 
does not provide full mitigation. 
 
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 
 
9 
 
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 
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. I have incorporated my comments under 
Guidelines F and J in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) were 
addressed under that guideline, but some warrant additional comment. 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 failed to 
mitigate the Financial Considerations and Criminal Conduct security concerns.  
 
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 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a.~mm.   Against Applicant 
   
Paragraph 2, Guideline J:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a.~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. 
 
 
________________________ 
Richard A. Cefola 
Administrative Judge