1 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02516 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Pamela Benson, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se ___________ Decision ___________ HARVEY, Mark, Administrative Judge: Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of resolution of his financial issues, and financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. He failed to disclose his repossessed vehicle and debts in collection on his December 18, 2015 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) or security clearance application (SCA). Personal conduct security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On December 18, 2015, Applicant completed and signed his SCA. (Government Exhibit (GE) 1) On October 11, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued a statement of reasons (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, effective on September 1, 2006 (Sept. 1, 2006 AGs). The SOR detailed reasons why the DOD CAF did not find under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security 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. Specifically, the 2 SOR set forth security concerns arising under the financial considerations and personal conduct guidelines. On November 8, 2016, Applicant responded to the SOR, and he requested a hearing. (HE 3) On March 31, 2017, Department Counsel was ready to proceed. On April 24, 2017, the case was assigned to me. On April 24, 2017, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing, setting the hearing for May 5, 2017. (HE 1) Applicant waived his right to 15 days of notice of the date, time, and location of his hearing. (Tr. 11-12) Applicant’s hearing was held as scheduled. During the hearing, Department Counsel offered four exhibits; Applicant offered two exhibits; there were no objections; and all proffered exhibits were admitted into evidence. (Tr. 10, 15-17; GE 1-4; Applicant Exhibits (AE) A-B) On May 15, 2017, DOHA received a copy of the hearing transcript. While this case was pending a decision, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) issued Security Executive Agent Directive 4, establishing in Appendix A the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AGs), which he made applicable to all covered individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position. The new AGs supersede the Sept. 1, 2006 AGs and are effective “for all covered individuals” on or after June 8, 2017. Accordingly, I have evaluated Applicant’s security clearance eligibility under the new AGs.1 Findings of Fact2 In Applicant’s SOR response, he admitted the SOR allegations in ¶¶ 1.a through 1.z, and he denied the allegation in SOR ¶ 2.a. Applicant’s admissions are accepted as findings of fact. Additional findings of fact follow. Applicant is 29 years old, and he has been employed as a warehouse specialist for a DOD contractor from October 2014 through March 2015 and from December 2015 to October 2016. (Tr. 5, 18-21; GE 1) In 2006, he graduated from high school. (Tr. 6) He served in the Marine Corps from 2007 to 2009. (Tr. 6) He received an other than honorable discharge from the Marine Corps Reserve because he failed to attend several drills. (Tr. 6, 25-26) He completed some college courses; however, he has not received a degree. (Tr. 7) In July 2014, Applicant married, and his children are ages eight months, two years, and eight years. (Tr. 26-28) He adopted the two-year-old child. (Tr. 28) His spouse is a housekeeping supervisor, and she is paid $13 an hour. (Tr. 29) 1 Application of the AGs that were in effect as of the issuance of the SOR would not change my decision in this case. The new AGs are available at http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/5220-6 R20170608.pdf. 2 Some details were excluded to protect Applicant’s right to privacy. Specific information is available in the cited exhibits. 3 Financial Considerations After Applicant received the SOR, he was not allowed to go on base. (Tr. 19-21) His salary, when he was able to go on base, was about $19 an hour. (Tr. 21-22) After he was laid off because he lacked a security clearance, he obtained temporary employment at two companies. (Tr. 23) One company paid $10.50 an hour, and the other paid $12.50 to $15.00 an hour. (Tr. 22-23) Applicant’s SOR alleges 26 delinquent debts as follows: ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b are debts for $494 and $1,980 owed to the same creditor; ¶ 1.c is a debt for $195 owed to a utility company (Tr. 38); ¶ 1.d is a debt for $5,132 owed to a company as a result of a repossessed vehicle (Tr. 41-42); ¶¶ 1.e, 1.f, and 1.j are debts for $81, $237, and $272 owed to the same telecommunications company (Tr. 42-44); ¶ 1.g is a debt for $1,476 owed to a telecommunications company (Tr. 43); ¶¶ 1.h and 1.i are debts for $1,532 and $2,932 owed to the same state student loan company (Tr. 34-36); ¶ 1.k is a debt for $3,586 owed to a apartment rental company (Tr. 45-47); ¶ 1.l is a debt for $1,010 owed to a university (Tr. 47); ¶ 1.m is a debt for $163 owed to a telecommunications company (Tr. 47); ¶ 1.n is a debt for $1,179 owed to a university (Tr. 47); and ¶¶ 1.o through 1.z are 12 student loans past due for $239, $76, $140, $570, $538, $72, $53, $124, $128, $31, $497, and $46 (Tr. 48-49). Applicant said he thought the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d for his repossessed vehicle was resolved. (Tr. 41) The collection company sold the repossessed vehicle, and he said, “I didn’t owe the amount because I’m still paying taxes on the amount,” and “I’m still paying taxes on a car I don’t have. I paid the taxes for the past two years.” (Tr. 41) He tried to stop the taxes; however, the creditor said “maybe the clerk’s office lost your information.” (Tr. 42) He conceded the SOR amount of $5,132 was the deficiency remaining after the vehicle was sold. (Tr. 42) Applicant said the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.e, 1.f, and 1.j all originated from the same telecommunications account. Applicant said there was only one account. (Tr. 42-44) He is credited with mitigation of the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.f as duplications. Applicant said he made several payments to the state student loan creditor in SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.i in 2014. (Tr. 35-36) When he stopped making payments, the two state student loans went into collections. (Tr. 35-36) His federal income tax refund of approximately $2,250 was intercepted and used to address the two state student loans. (Tr. 51) He said he may have reduced the two state student loans debts to $2,500. (Tr. 38) The apartment rental debt in SOR ¶ 1.k for $3,586 resulted from Applicant being late with his apartment rent, and the landlord added charges. (Tr. 45-46) The landlord also wanted Applicant to pay for repairs and replacement of items. Applicant did not believe some of the charges were fair. (Tr. 46-47) Applicant’s January 18, 2017 credit report showed he owed 14 delinquent student loan debts totaling $45,381 as follows: $3,125; $1,633; $2,460; $932; $1,272; $810; 4 $3,892; $2,163; $542; $1,296; $2,018; $7,787; $8,455; and $8,896. (Tr. 49-50; GE 3) The first two debts are state student loans, and the remainder are student loans assigned to the U.S. Government as collection accounts from the creditors listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.o through 1.z. (GE 3) Applicant lived paycheck-to-paycheck, and he had periods of unemployment. (Tr. 38) He said he was unable to address the SOR debts. (Tr. 38-52) He successfully paid off his non-SOR vehicle debt. (Tr. 44) He used his available funds over the last two years to pay his expenses and to make his $400 monthly car payment. (Tr. 51) He has not received financial counseling. (Tr. 45) He is current on his taxes. (Tr. 51) He planned to use his tax refunds to pay his student loans, and to save money, which he could then use to pay his debts. (Tr. 52) Personal Conduct Applicant’s December 18, 2015 SCA asked him in the past seven years have you had property repossessed or bills turned over to a collection agency? Applicant responded, no, to these two questions. The debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, and 1.e through 1.n were placed for collection, and the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d resulted from repossession of his vehicle.3 Applicant did not disclose any debts turned over to a collection agency or that his vehicle was repossessed. He did not disclose any negative financial information on his December 18, 2015 SCA. During his April 22, 2016 Office of Personnel Management personal subject interview (OPM PSI), Applicant volunteered that he had one delinquent non-SOR credit card, and he owed about $1,000. (Tr. 32; GE 4) He told the OPM investigator that his student loans were in deferment. (GE 4) He said he was not aware of any other delinquent 3 Applicant’s December 18, 2015 SCA also asked Applicant about debts more than 120 days delinquent or whether he defaulted on any loan. Applicant’s SOR does not allege he failed to disclose debts over 120 days delinquent or his debts in default. Applicant’s SOR alleges 14 delinquent student loan debts; however, most of the debts were not alleged to be in collections and the total is less than $10,000. His most recent credit report shows the delinquent student loans total $45,381 and 12 of them are in collections. In Applicant’s April 22, 2016 Office of Personnel Management personal subject interview (OPM PSI), Applicant did not fully disclose his financial problems before being confronted with the information on his credit report. His SOR does not allege he was not candid during his April 22, 2016 OPM PSI. In ISCR Case No. 03-20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006), the Appeal Board listed five circumstances in which conduct not alleged in an SOR may be considered stating: (a) to assess an applicant’s credibility; (b) to evaluate an applicant’s evidence of extenuation, mitigation, or changed circumstances; (c) to consider whether an applicant has demonstrated successful rehabilitation; (d) to decide whether a particular provision of the Adjudicative Guidelines is applicable; or (e) to provide evidence for whole person analysis under Directive Section 6.3. Id. (citing ISCR Case No. 02-07218 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 15, 2004); ISCR Case No. 00-0633 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 24, 2003)). See also ISCR Case No. 12-09719 at 3 (App. Bd. April 6, 2016) (citing ISCR Case No. 14-00151 at 3, n. 1 (App. Bd. Sept. 12, 2014); ISCR Case No. 03-20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006)). These allegations will not be considered except for the five purposes listed above. 5 accounts. (GE 4) The reason he revealed one debt was delinquent was because of his frequent contacts with the collection company about payment. (Tr. 32) Applicant said he did not pay attention to his debts and credit reports. (Tr. 34, 37) He was unaware his student loans were in default. (Tr. 34) He believed his student loans might be in deferment. (Tr. 35) He said he did not understand what it meant when a debt went into collections or was being rehabilitated. (Tr. 36) Applicant purchased a used vehicle in 2011 or 2012. (Tr. 39-40) He made payments for two years to the company that financed the vehicle. (Tr. 40) The creditor repossessed the vehicle and sold it for about $2,000. (Tr. 40) When he completed his SCA, he said it slipped his mind that the vehicle was repossessed because he had another vehicle at the time he completed his SCA. (Tr. 40) He said, “it just didn’t ever cross my mind that it’s those correlating things.” (Tr. 50) Character Evidence An Army specialist, who has known Applicant for three years, described Applicant as diligent, goal oriented, reliable, and helpful. (Tr. A) Another Army specialist, who has known Applicant for a year, described him as “an uplifting spirit,” generous, loyal, and responsible. (AE B) 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. 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 6 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, Secretary of Defense, and DNI 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). 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 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 or sensitive information. . . . An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. . . . The Appeal Board explained the scope and rationale for the financial considerations security concern in ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012) (citation omitted) as follows: This concern is broader than the possibility that an applicant might knowingly compromise classified information in order to raise money in 7 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. AG ¶ 19 includes three disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability to satisfy debts;” “(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so;” and “(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.” In ISCR Case No. 08-12184 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 7, 2010), the Appeal Board explained: 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. (internal citation omitted). The record establishes the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a), 19(b), and 19(c) requiring additional inquiry about the possible applicability of mitigating conditions. Five financial considerations mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable in this case: (a) the behavior happened so long ago,4 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, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; (c) the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; 4 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)). 8 (d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;5 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. The DOHA 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). None of the mitigating conditions fully apply; however, Applicant presented some mitigating information. He had some periods of unemployment and underemployment. These circumstances beyond his control adversely affected his finances; however, he did not prove that he acted responsibly under the circumstances. He did not prove he could not have done more to address his delinquent debts once he became employed. He did not provide evidence of his changes in income over the last three years such as would be shown by his IRS Form 1040s. 5 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)). 9 Applicant is credited with mitigation of the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.f because they are duplications of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.j. Applicant is credited with paying his taxes, his current expenses, and paying off the debt on his vehicle. The evidence against mitigation of financial considerations security concerns is more substantial. Applicant said he made several payments to the state student loan creditor in SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.i in 2014. When he stopped making payments, the two state student loans went into collections. His federal income tax refund of approximately $2,250 was intercepted and used to address the two state student loans. He said he may have reduced the two state student loans debts to $2,500. He is not credited with mitigating these two debts because he did not prove the current balances of the debts, and he did not provide proof of any voluntary monthly payments to address these two debts. Applicant did not provide enough details about what he did to address the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.d and 1.g through 1.z over the last three years. He did not provide sufficient documentation relating to these 24 SOR debts such as: (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;6 (3) copies of credible debt disputes sent to the creditor and/or credit reporting company 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 for disputing his debts 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 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 or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to 6 “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. 10 cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. 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. . . .” Applicant admitted that he failed to disclose his debts in collection and his repossessed vehicle on his December 18, 2015 SCA. The questions are clear, and he admitted he had knowledge of his repossessed vehicle at the time he completed his SCA. AG ¶ 16(a) is established. AG ¶ 17 provides six conditions that could mitigate security concerns in this case: (a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; (b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully; (c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; (d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur; (e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress; and (f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability. Applicant’s statement that he forgot or was unaware of the debts in collections or of his repossessed vehicle is not credible. Applicant had an opportunity to fully disclose his financial problems during his OPM PSI; however, he only disclosed one delinquent credit card debt. Falsification of his December 18, 2015 SCA was recent, serious, and intentional. Personal conduct security concerns are not mitigated. 11 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(d): (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), “[t]he ultimate determination” of whether to grant a security clearance “must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines” and the whole-person concept. My comments under Guidelines F and E are incorporated in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under those guidelines but some warrant additional comment. Applicant is 29 years old, and he has been employed as a warehouse specialist for a DOD contractor from October 2014 through March 2015 and from December 2015 to October 2016. In 2006, he graduated from high school. He served in the Marine Corps from 2007 to 2009. He completed some college courses; however, he has not received a degree. In July 2014, Applicant married, and his children are ages eight months, two years, and eight years. His spouse is a housekeeping supervisor, and she is paid $13 an hour. Two Army specialists provided character statements supporting approval of Applicant’s security clearance. The financial evidence against granting Applicant’s security clearance is more substantial. He provided insufficient corroborating or substantiating documentary evidence of payments and established payment plans for the SOR debts in ¶¶ 1.a through 1.d and 1.g through 1.z. His January 18, 2017 credit report showed he owed 14 delinquent student loan debts totaling $45,381. He has not made any monthly payments to address his student loans or any other SOR debts in at least a year. He did not provide a detailed plan about how he intended to resolve his delinquent SOR debts. His actions show lack of financial responsibility and judgment and raise unmitigated questions about his reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. See AG ¶ 18. More documented information about his inability to pay debts, financial history, credible debt disputes, or documented financial progress is necessary to mitigate security concerns. Applicant admitted that he did not disclose his debts in collection or his repossessed vehicle on his December 18, 2015 SCA. He admitted that he was aware of his vehicle repossession. His falsification of his SCA was in a security context, and it raises a serious security concern. The protection of national security relies on applicants 12 to self-report conduct that jeopardizes security, even when that disclosure might damage the applicant’s career. Applicant cannot be trusted to disclose potentially derogatory information. He did not establish his reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. 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. Financial consideration and personal conduct security concerns are not mitigated. It is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security 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 through 1.d: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.e and 1.f: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.g through 1.z: Against Applicant Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant Conclusion In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. _________________________ Mark Harvey Administrative Judge