1 
      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
 DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
)       ISCR Case: 16-02412 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
October 20, 2017 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant owes more than $25,000 in unresolved consumer and medical debt. 
Resulting security concerns under financial considerations were not mitigated. She did 
not intentionally fail to disclose her delinquent debt on her security clearance application 
(e-QIP), and as a result no valid security concerns arose under personal conduct. Based 
upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, national security eligibility is denied.  
Statement of Case 
On September 29, 2015, Applicant submitted an e-QIP. (Item 3.) On October 5, 
2016, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DoD CAF) issued 
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), detailing security concerns under Guideline F, 
Financial Considerations; and Guideline E, Personal Conduct. (Item 1.) The action was 
taken under Executive Order 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 Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, 
effective within the DoD after September 1, 2006.  
 
 
2 
 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on October 24, 2016, and requested that her case 
be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing. (Item 2.) 
On November 14, 2016, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case. 
A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), containing six Items, was 
mailed to Applicant on November 14, 2016, and received by her on November 21, 2016. 
The FORM notified Applicant that she had an opportunity to file objections and submit 
material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of her receipt of the FORM. 
Applicant did not submit additional information in response to the FORM, did not file any 
objection to its contents, and did not request additional time to respond beyond the 30-
day period she was afforded. Items 1 through 6 are admitted into the record. 
 
The SOR in this case was issued under the adjudicative guidelines that came into 
effect within the DoD on September 1, 2006. Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) 
4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), implements new 
adjudicative guidelines, effective June 8, 2017. All national security eligibility decisions1 
issued on or after June 8, 2017, are to be decided using the new National Security 
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or 
Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AG), as implemented in Appendix A of SEAD 4. I 
considered the previous adjudicative guidelines, as well as the new AG, in adjudicating 
Applicant’s national security eligibility. My decision would be the same under either set of 
guidelines, although this decision is issued pursuant to the new AG promulgated in SEAD 
4. 
 
Findings of Fact  
 
 Applicant is 46 years old and married. She left high school prior to graduation due 
to an injury. She reported three adult children and two minor children. She also has three 
step-children. She has worked for her current employer since January 2015. She worked 
full time for another employer from June 2000 to January 2015, and reported no 
unemployment. (Item 3; Item 5.) 
 
 In her answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a 
through 1.n, with some explanations, and denied the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b. 
(Item 2.) Her delinquent debts are documented in a record credit bureau report from 
November 2015. (Item 4.)  
 
 SOR ¶ 1.a alleged Applicant was indebted on a judgment filed against her in March 
2012 in the amount of $2,582. As of Applicant’s November 2015 credit report, this debt 
remained delinquent. (Item 4 at 2.) Applicant asserted that her wages were being 
garnished to resolve this debt. (Item 3.) An incident history report also reflects the wage 
garnishment but does not specify the creditor. (Item 6.) Without additional information 
about the creditor, the payments made on this debt, and the cause for its delinquency, 
                                                 
1 SEAD 4 ¶ D.7 defines “National Security Eligibility” as, “Eligibility for access to classified information or 
eligibility to hold a sensitive position, to include access to sensitive compartmented information, restricted 
data, and controlled or special access program information.” 
 
 
3 
 
 
the record does not support a finding that Applicant is acting in good faith with respect to 
this debt or that it is resolved.  
 
 SOR ¶ 1.b alleged Applicant was indebted on a judgment filed against her in March 
2011 in the amount of $13,016. She claimed that this debt is the same debt as the debt 
referenced in SOR ¶ 1.c. However, while both debts relate to an automobile loan, the 
account numbers do not match. As of Applicant’s November 2015 credit report, this debt 
remained delinquent. It is unresolved. (Item 4 at 3.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.c alleged Applicant was indebted on a charged-off auto loan in the amount 
of $11,288. As of Applicant’s November 2015 credit report, this debt remained delinquent. 
It was charged off in March 2010. However, Applicant presented a letter from this creditor 
that shows this debt was paid in full as of October 2016. It is resolved. (Item 3; Item 4 at 
2.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.d alleged Applicant was indebted on a collection account in the amount 
of $6,835. As of Applicant’s November 2015 credit report, this debt remained delinquent. 
(Item 4 at 9.) Applicant claimed to be making payments on this debt, but produced no 
documentation to substantiate her claim. This debt is unresolved. (Item 3.)  
 
 SOR ¶ 1.e alleged Applicant was indebted on a medical debt in the amount of 
$1,071. As of Applicant’s November 2015 credit report, this debt remained delinquent. 
(Item 4 at 9.) Applicant claimed to be making payments on this debt, but produced no 
documentation to substantiate her claim. This debt is unresolved. (Item 3.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.f alleged Applicant was indebted on a collection account in the amount of 
$681. As of Applicant’s November 2015 credit report, this debt remained delinquent. (Item 
4 at 10.) Applicant claimed to be making payments on this debt, but produced no 
documentation to substantiate her claim. This debt is unresolved. (Item 3.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.g alleged Applicant was indebted on a medical debt in the amount of 
$399. As of Applicant’s November 2015 credit report, this debt remained delinquent. (Item 
4 at 10.) Applicant claimed to be making payments on this debt, but produced no 
documentation to substantiate her claim. This debt is unresolved. (Item 3.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.h alleged Applicant was indebted on a medical debt in the amount of 
$395. As of Applicant’s November 2015 credit report, this debt remained delinquent. (Item 
4 at 10.) Applicant claimed to be making payments on this debt, but produced no 
documentation to substantiate her claim. This debt is unresolved. (Item 3.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.i alleged Applicant was indebted on a medical debt in the amount of $313. 
As of Applicant’s November 2015 credit report, this debt remained delinquent. (Item 4 at 
10.) Applicant claimed to have paid this debt in full, but produced no documentation to 
substantiate her claim. This debt is unresolved. (Item 3.) 
 
 
 
4 
 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.j alleged Applicant was indebted on a medical debt in the amount of $160. 
As of Applicant’s November 2015 credit report, this debt remained delinquent. (Item 4 at 
10.) Applicant claimed to have paid this debt in full, but produced no documentation to 
substantiate her claim. This debt is unresolved. (Item 3.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.k alleged Applicant was indebted on a medical debt in the amount of $63. 
Applicant admitted this debt, but claimed to have contacted this creditor and “they show 
no balance of $63 on record.” (Item 3.) This debt is not identified on her November 2015 
credit report. (Item 5.) There is no documentation to support this allegation, other than 
her qualified admission. (Item 3.) This debt is resolved in Applicant’s favor.  
 
 SOR ¶ 1.l alleged Applicant was indebted on a medical debt in the amount of $129. 
As of Applicant’s November 2015 credit report, this debt remained delinquent. (Item 4 at 
11.) Applicant claimed to have paid this debt in full, but produced no documentation to 
substantiate her claim. This debt is unresolved. (Item 3.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.m alleged Applicant was indebted on a medical debt in the amount of 
$96. As of Applicant’s November 2015 credit report, this debt remained delinquent. (Item 
4 at 11.) Applicant claimed to have paid this debt in full, but produced no documentation 
to substantiate her claim. This debt is unresolved. (Item 3.) 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.n alleged Applicant was indebted on a medical debt in the amount of $83. 
As of Applicant’s November 2015 credit report, this debt remained delinquent. (Item 4 at 
11.) Applicant claimed to have paid this debt in full, but produced no documentation to 
substantiate her claim. This debt is unresolved. (Item 3.) 
 
 The SOR, in ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b, also alleged that Applicant failed to disclose her 
delinquent judgments and collection accounts in Section 26 of her e-QIP. While her e-
QIP omits any disclosure of financial delinquencies, she reported difficulties with the 
computer system while completing her e-QIP. She “thought that she listed some known 
financial accounts,” which she promptly and voluntarily disclosed to an investigator while 
participating in her security clearance interview. I find no willful omission. (Item 5.)  
 
 Applicant did not document any financial counseling or provide budget information 
from which to predict her future solvency. She offered no evidence to support findings 
concerning her character or trustworthiness, the quality of her professional performance, 
the level of responsibility her duties entail, or her track record with respect to handling 
sensitive information and observation of security procedures. I was unable to evaluate 
her credibility, demeanor, or character in person since she elected to have her case 
decided without a hearing. 
  
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the 
administrative judge must consider the pertinent adjudicative guidelines. In addition to 
 
 
5 
 
 
brief introductory explanations of the security concern, the guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an 
applicant’s national security eligibility. 
 
 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s 
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The entire 
process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context 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 national security 
eligibility will be resolved in favor of the 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. I have not drawn inferences based on mere speculation or 
conjecture.  
 
 Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an “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 applying for national security eligibility seeks to enter 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 national 
security eligibility. 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 or sensitive information.  
 
 Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “[a]ny 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 Executive Order 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information.) 
 
  
 
 
6 
 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F: Financial Considerations 
 
 The security concerns relating to the guideline for financial considerations are set 
out in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:       
 
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. Financial distress can also be 
caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other 
issues of personal security concern such as excessive gambling, mental 
health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An 
individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to 
engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. 
 
 AG ¶ 19 describes three conditions that could raise security concerns 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. 
 
Applicant was alleged to be delinquent on 14 accounts. She was unable or 
unwilling to document resolution of 12 of her alleged delinquencies. SOR ¶ 1.k was not 
supported by the record evidence and was found in Applicant’s favor. She presented 
documentation that she resolved ¶ 1.c. Her financial issues date back to 2010, and 
continue to date. She has not documented that she has payment arrangements with her 
remaining 12 creditors or otherwise resolved these debts, despite full employment since 
2000. These facts establish prima facie support for the foregoing disqualifying conditions, 
and shift the burden to Applicant to mitigate the resulting security concerns. 
  
 The guideline includes four conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate the 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, 
 
 
7 
 
 
unexpected medical emergency, or 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; and 
 
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
Applicant continues to owe more than $25,000 for debts that became delinquent 
beginning in 2012.2 She claimed, but did not document, that she had resolved numerous 
other debts or was making payments on them. Her bare averments do not meet the 
required burden of proof. She offered no reasonable basis to conclude that such problems 
will not recur, so mitigation was not established under AG ¶ 20(a).  
 
Applicant neither asserted nor documented that her delinquent debts arose from 
conditions that were beyond her control, or that she acted responsibly under the 
circumstances on her remaining 12 debts, as required for mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b). 
She did resolve ¶ 1.c in good faith. She also failed to provide evidence of financial 
counseling or efforts to resolve the debts that could establish mitigation under the 
provisions of AG ¶¶ 20(c) or 20(d). 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 15: 
 
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 
cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security 
investigative or adjudicative processes. The following will normally result in 
an unfavorable national security eligibility determination, security clearance 
action, or cancellation of further processing for national security eligibility: 
 
(a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or 
cooperate with security processing, including but not limited 
to meeting with a security investigator for subject interview, 
completing security forms or releases, cooperation with 
                                                 
2 She resolved the 2010 judgment. 
 
 
8 
 
 
medical or psychological evaluation, or polygraph 
examination, if authorized and required; and 
 
(b) refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful 
questions of investigators, security officials, or other official 
representatives in connection with a personnel security or 
trustworthiness determination. 
 
Based on Applicant’s alleged deliberate falsification of her e-QIP, the following 
disqualifying condition could apply: 
 
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 national security eligibility 
or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities. 
 
Applicant denied intentionally falsifying her e-QIP. When a falsification allegation 
is controverted, the Government has the burden of proving it. An omission, standing 
alone, does not prove falsification. An administrative judge must consider the record 
evidence as a whole to determine an applicant’s state of mind at the time of the omission.3 
An applicant’s level of education and business experience are relevant to determining 
whether a failure to disclose relevant information on a security clearance application was 
deliberate.4  
 
In this case, Applicant reported difficulties using the electronic e-QIP system. She 
has no high school diploma or expertise in computers. Her claims that she thought she 
has identified at least some of her debts on the e-QIP are credible given the challenges 
she faced inputting information into the e-QIP system. Further, she voluntarily disclosed 
her omitted delinquencies to the investigator when being interviewed. I find Applicant had 
no intent to falsify her e-QIP. AG ¶ 16 (a) does not apply in this instance. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s national security eligibility 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(d):  
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
                                                 
3 See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2004). 
 
4 ISCR Case No. 08-05637 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2010). 
 
 
 
9 
 
 
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.  
 
 According to AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant national 
security eligibility must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the applicable guidelines and the whole-person concept. 
 
    I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a mature adult, who 
is accountable for her choices. She continues to owe more than $25,000 in delinquent 
debt that she has accumulated since 2012. The potential for pressure, exploitation, or 
duress from her financial situation remains undiminished. However, she did not 
intentionally omit her delinquencies or judgments from her e-QIP. Overall, the evidence 
creates significant doubt as to Applicant’s judgment, eligibility, and suitability for a security 
clearance. She failed to meet her burden to 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 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.b:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.c:    For Applicant 
  Subparagraphs 1.d through 1. j:  Against Applicant   
  Subparagraph 1.k:    For Applicant 
  Subparagraphs 1.l through 1. n:  Against Applicant   
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline E:        FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a:    For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.b:    For Applicant 
 
  
 
 
10 
 
 
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 national security eligibility 
and a security clearance. National security eligibility is denied. 
 
                                                   
 
Jennifer I. Goldstein 
Administrative Judge