1 
 
                                                              
                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 16-02152 
  )   
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Andrew H. Henderson, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
November 1, 2017 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge: 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On October 11, 2016, in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 
5220.6, as amended (Directive), the DoD issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons 
(SOR) alleging facts that raise security concerns under Guidelines F and E.1 (Item 1.) 
The SOR further informed Applicant that, based on information available to the 
government, DoD adjudicators could not make the preliminary affirmative finding it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security 
clearance. 
 
 On November 22, 2016, Applicant submitted a written reply to the SOR, and he 
requested that his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. (Item 1.)  
On January 6, 2017, Department Counsel issued the Department's written case. A 
                                                          
1 I considered the previous Adjudicative Guidelines, effective September 1, 2006, as well as the new 
Adjudicative Guidelines, effective June 8, 2017. My decision would be the same if the case was 
considered under the previous Adjudicative Guidelines, effective September 1, 2006. 
 
2 
 
complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant. In the 
FORM, Department Counsel offered five documentary exhibits. (Items 1-5.) Applicant 
was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, 
extenuation, or mitigation. A response was due on February 24, 2017. Applicant 
submitted one additional document, which has been identified and entered into 
evidence as Item A. The case was assigned to this Administrative Judge on October 1, 
2017. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to 
classified information is denied. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, and exhibits, I make the 
following findings of fact:  
 
Applicant is 34 years old. He is divorced and has two children. He completed 
some college courses. Applicant served in the United States Air Force and received an 
Honorable Discharge. He is employed as mechanic by a defense contractor, and he 
seeks a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense 
sector. (Item 2.) 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations  
 
 The SOR lists 15 allegations (1.a. through 1.o.) regarding financial difficulties, 
specifically concerning delinquent debts, under Adjudicative Guideline F. The debts total 
approximately $25,000. All of the debts were established by Items 4 and 5. The 
allegations will be discussed below in the order they were listed on the SOR: 
 
1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $8,404. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR, (Item 1.) No independent evidence 
has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.  
 
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $5,782. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 1.) No independent evidence 
has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
   
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $1,475. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 1.)  No independent evidence 
has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.  
   
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $431. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR, (Item 2.) No independent evidence 
has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.  
          
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $386. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 1.)  No independent evidence 
has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.  
   
 
3 
 
1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $234. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR. (Item 1.) No independent evidence 
has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
  
1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $229. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item1.) No independent evidence has 
been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
 
1.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $209. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 1.) No independent evidence has 
been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
  
1.i. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $174. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence 
has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
 
1.j. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $63. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 1.) No independent evidence has 
been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
 
1.k. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $767. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. He wrote that the two documents 
attached to the RSOR establish that this debt and 1.l., below were settled. (Item 1.) I do 
not find that the attached documents establish that this debt has been resolved or 
reduced. 
 
1.l. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $479. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 1.) (See 1.k., above.) No 
independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved 
or reduced. 
 
1.m. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the 
amount of $180. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 1.) No independent 
evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
 
1.n. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $804, with a total loan balance of $4,024. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. 
(Item 1.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has 
been resolved or reduced. 
 
1.o. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $3,093. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 1.) No independent evidence 
has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
 
Applicant provided a number of reasons for his delinquent debts on his RSOR, 
including his divorce, and confusion with some accounts. He also wrote that while 
working with a financial counselor, they came to the belief that Applicant may have been 
 
4 
 
the subject of credit fraud. He also added that he planned to work with the counselor to 
help resolve some of these debts. (Item 1.) No evidence was submitted to show that he 
had disputed any of the accounts as being part of identity theft, nor was any evidence 
submitted to show Applicant and his counselor had attempted to settle any of his 
delinquent debts.  
 
In Post-FORM Item A, dated February 23, 2017, Applicant wrote that he is now 
working with a bankruptcy attorney “to help alleviate the past debts that I have acquired 
over the past few years.” He also wrote that he “hoped to complete the first step of the 
process in the coming weeks.” No independent evidence was furnished about his 
planned bankruptcy.  
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct  
 
 The SOR lists one allegations (2.a.) regarding Personal Conduct, under 
Adjudicative Guideline E. 
 
2.a. The SOR alleges that Applicant deliberately falsified facts on an Electronic 
Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) that he executed on April 30, 
2015. (Item 1.) He was asked questions about his finances, including: In the last seven 
years, had any of his bills been turned over to a collection agency; had any account 
been suspended, charged off or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed, had he been 
over 120 days delinquent on any debt;  and, was he currently over 120 delinquent on 
any debt?   Applicant answered “Yes,” and he listed his child support, but he 
deliberately failed to list the all of the delinquent debts, as set forth under paragraph 1, 
above. (Item 1.) In his RSOR, Applicant indicated that he was not aware of some of 
these delinquent debts as they may have been as a result of identity theft. As discussed 
above, no evidence was ever furnished of identity theft or Applicant’s disputing any 
debts because of identity theft.  
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are 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(a), 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. 
 
 
5 
 
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.  
 
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, and has the 
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”  
 
 A person who applies for access to classified information 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 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 Executive Order (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 relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set 
out in AG ¶ 18: 
 
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 personnel 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. 
Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a 
security concern insofar as it may result from criminal activity, including 
espionage.  
 
6 
 
 
  The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under 
AG ¶ 19. Applicant has had many delinquent debts for several years. No independent 
evidence was introduced to establish that any of these debts have been resolved. The 
evidence is sufficient to raise disqualifying conditions (a) and (c) as potentially 
applicable in this case:   
 
(a) inability to satisfy debts; 
 
(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; 
 
(d) deceptive or illegal financial practices such as embezzlement, 
employee theft, check fraud, expense account fraud, mortgage fraud, filing 
deceptive loan statements and other intentional financial breaches of trust; 
 
(e) consistent spending beyond one's means or frivolous or irresponsible 
spending, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant 
negative cash flow, a history of late payments or of non-payment, or other 
negative financial indicators; 
 
(f) failure to file or fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local income 
tax returns or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as 
required; 
 
(g) unexplained affluence, as shown by a lifestyle or standard of living, 
increase in net worth, or money transfers that are inconsistent with known 
legal sources of income; 
 
(h) borrowing money or engaging in significant financial transactions to 
fund gambling or pay gambling debts; and 
 
(i) concealing gambling losses, family conflict, or other problems caused 
by gambling.  
 
 AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I considered 
all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 including: 
 
(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, a death, divorce or separation, 
 
7 
 
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; 
 
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; 
 
(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; 
 
(f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income; and 
 
(g) the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax 
authority to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those 
arrangements. 
 
 As reviewed above, no evidence was introduced to establish that any of 
Applicant's debts have been resolved or reduced. Therefore, I do not find that any of the 
mitigating factors under AG ¶ 20 are applicable in this case, and I find against Applicant 
under Guideline F. 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
 The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct 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 guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under 
AG ¶ 16. An Applicant may not be aware of every delinquent debt he has, but Applicant 
failed to cite any of the 15 debts listed on the SOR under Guideline F, and he provided 
no reasonable explanation for his failure to furnish honest answers. I find that the 
evidence is sufficient to raise disqualifying condition (a), in this case:   
 
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from 
any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or 
 
8 
 
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment 
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security 
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; 
 
(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or 
omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an employer, 
investigator, security official, competent medical or mental health 
professional involved in making a recommendation relevant to a national 
security eligibility determination, or other official government 
representative; 
 
(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is 
not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single 
guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-
person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, 
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and 
regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual may not 
properly safeguard classified or sensitive information; 
 
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any 
other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse 
determination, but which, when combined with all available information, 
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, 
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply 
with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the 
individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information. 
This includes, but is not limited to, consideration of: 
 
(1) untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of 
client confidentiality, release of proprietary information, 
unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or government 
protected information; 
 
(2) any disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior; 
 
(3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and 
 
(4) evidence of significant misuse of Government or other 
employer's time or resources; 
 
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct, 
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress by a 
foreign intelligence entity or other individual or group. Such conduct 
includes: 
 
(1) engaging in activities which, if known, could affect the 
person's personal, professional, or community standing; 
 
9 
 
 
(2) while in another country, engaging in any activity that is 
illegal in that country; 
 
(3) while in another country, engaging in any activity that, 
while legal there, is illegal in the United States; 
 
(f) violation of a written or recorded commitment made by the individual to 
the employer as a condition of employment; and 
 
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activity. 
 
 AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I considered 
all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17 listed below, but did not find that any of 
them are applicable 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; 
 
(f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable 
reliability; and 
 
(g) association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, 
has ceased, or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon 
the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to 
comply with rules and regulations. 
 
10 
 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s 
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the 
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(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), 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 E in my whole-person analysis.  
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with significant questions and doubts as 
to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the Financial Considerations and Personal 
Conduct security concerns under the whole-person concept.  
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of the Directive, are: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a.:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.b.:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.c.:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.d.:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.e.:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.f.:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.g.:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.h.:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.i.:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.j.:    Against Applicant 
 
11 
 
Subparagraph 1.k.:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.l.:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.m.:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.n.:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.o.:    Against Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a.:    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 national 
security eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information 
is denied. 
 
 
 
 
Martin H. Mogul 
Administrative Judge