1 
 
                                                              
                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 16-03114 
  )   
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
March 21, 2018 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge: 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On November 19, 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 
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. 
 
Applicant replied to the SOR on January 11, 2017, and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. (RSOR.) The case was assigned to me on April 3, 2017. 
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on 
                                                          
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 
 
April 20, 2017, setting the hearing for June 8, 2017. The hearing was convened as 
scheduled on that date.  
 
At the hearing, the Government offered Exhibits 1 through 4, which were 
admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and presented 
documents, which were identified and entered into evidence without objection as 
Exhibits A through C. The record was left open until June 23, 2017, for receipt of 
additional documentation. Additional documents that were timely received have been 
identified and entered into evidence without objection as Exhibits D through I. DOHA 
received the transcript of the hearing (Tr) on June 16, 2017. Based upon a review of the 
pleadings, exhibits, and the testimony of Applicant, 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 32 years old. He is married to his second wife and they have two 
sons. He graduated high school and completed some college courses. Applicant served 
in the United States Navy from 2005 to 2013, and he received an Honorable Discharge. 
He is currently employed as a Senior Marine Technical Analyst Electrician by a defense 
contractor, and he seeks a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in 
the defense sector. (Tr at 22-25, 31.)  
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations  
 
 The SOR lists nine allegations (1.a. through 1.i.) regarding financial difficulties, 
specifically overdue debts, under Adjudicative Guideline F. SOR allegations 1.a. 
through 1.h. were admitted by Applicant on his RSOR; he did not address 1.i. on his 
RSOR.  
 
At the hearing, Applicant testified that he and his wife filed for a Chapter 13 
Bankruptcy in January 2017. At the time of the hearing, Applicant and his wife had 
begun paying a trustee of the bankruptcy $1,001 for the months of February through 
May 2017, for a total of $4,004. Applicant testified that all of the debts were listed on the 
bankruptcy with the exception of 1.e. and 1.h., both of which Applicant contended had 
already been paid. (Tr at 20-22, 25-27.) The debts 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 mortgage account in 
the amount of $7,798 with a total loan balance of approximately $333,689. Applicant 
testified that this debt is for the home in which he still lives. It has not yet been 
determined if this debt will be resolved in the bankruptcy. (Tr at 39-43.) This debt was 
listed on Exhibit G. However, since the status of the bankruptcy is not known, it has not 
been established that that this debt has been resolved or reduced.    
 
 
3 
 
 1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $27,002. This debt was for a timeshare, which Applicant purchased in 2013, and he 
surrendered after he could no longer make payments. (Tr at 43-46.) This debt was listed 
on Exhibit G. However, since the status of the bankruptcy is not known, it has not been 
established that 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 $3,123. This debt was listed on Exhibit G. However, since the status of the 
bankruptcy is not known, it has not been established that 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 $2,345. This debt was listed on Exhibit G. However, since the status of the 
bankruptcy is not known, it has not been established that that this debt has been 
resolved or reduced.    
            
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account. The amount 
was not identified in the SOR. As discussed above, Applicant contended that this debt, 
which Applicant stated was in the amount of $2,000, was paid through a garnishment 
out of his tax return around April 2015. (Tr at 25-26.) Applicant had not documentation 
at the hearing to establish this debt had been resolved. Applicant's submitted post-
hearing Exhibit I, to show that part of his tax return for 2014 was used to pay this debt. 
While the document does establish that some of his tax return was used to satisfy a 
debt, it does not show that it was used to pay this debt. No evidence has been 
submitted to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.   
 
1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account. The amount 
was not identified in the SOR. This debt was listed on Exhibit G. However, since the 
status of the bankruptcy is not known, it has not been established that that this debt has 
been resolved or reduced.    
  
 1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account. The amount 
was not identified in the SOR. Applicant testified that this creditor, a car company, was 
not willing to be part of the bankruptcy because the debt was for the purchase of a 
relatively new vehicle. (Tr at 55-56.) No evidence has been submitted to establish that 
this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
 
1.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account. The amount 
was not identified in the SOR. As discussed above, Applicant contended that this debt, 
was paid around August 2011, in the amount of approximately $700 through his 
checking account. (Tr at 26-27.) Applicant had no documentation at the hearing to 
establish this debt had been resolved, nor was any post-hearing evidence submitted 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 $1,751. Applicant testified that this was to the same creditor as that listed on 1.b. 
above, but he was not certain if it was a duplicate or another bill from this creditor. (Tr at 
 
4 
 
54-55.) This debt was listed on Exhibit G. However, since the status of the bankruptcy is 
not known, it has not been established that that this debt has been resolved or reduced.    
  
At the hearing, Applicant testified that he and his wife were able to meet their 
financial responsibilities while they were both on active duty. It was in 2012 that they 
purchased a house. Unfortunately, in 2013, Applicant was injured, which resulted in him 
being medically discharged from the Navy. As a result of the reduced income, he found 
himself having to juggle the different debts each month, not being able to pay them all, 
especially the mortgage and car payments. In 2016, Applicant's wife also was medically 
discharged from the military and this further reduction in their income was the final 
condition that convinced them to file for bankruptcy. Applicant's wife is currently 
unemployed, but she plans to begin receiving her education to become a dental 
assistant under the GI Bill, during which she will also begin also earing $2,300 a month. 
(Tr at 29-32, 41.)   
   
Guideline E, Personal Conduct  
 
 The SOR lists one allegation (2.a.) regarding Personal Conduct, under 
Adjudicative Guideline E. 
 
2.a. The SOR alleges that Applicant deliberately falsified material facts on an 
Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) that he executed on 
May 28, 2015. 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 whether he was currently over 120 
delinquent on any debt. Applicant answered “No,” and the SOR alleged that he 
deliberately failed to list the all of the delinquent debts, as set forth under subparagraph 
1.a through 1.i., above. Applicant did not address this allegation in his RSOR.    
 
At the hearing, Applicant testified that he could not explain why he answered “no” 
to the series of questions about his finances. While his financial situation was not as 
bad at the time he completed the e-QIP as it later became, he did understand that he 
was behind on some of his debts. Applicant did concede that he should have answered 
“yes” to these questions, but he denied that he failed to include these debts because he 
thought it could potentially hurt his opportunity to receive a security clearance. (Tr at 32-
33.) Upon further examination, Applicant did indicate that he thought some of these bill 
were not overdue, and some he did not recall. He also testified that his wife was using a 
credit service to help pay the bills, but he did not have any information or documents 
about the name of the company. (Tr at 63-67.) However, no evidence was introduced to 
establish that Applicant made a good-faith effort to ascertain the status of these debts 
that he knew had been pending for several years before he completed his e-QIP.  
 
Mitigation  
 
 Applicant offered into evidence several mitigating documents. They included two 
laudatory letters of recommendation (Exhibits A and H.); two Certificates of Counseling 
 
5 
 
confirming that Applicant and his wife took a credit counseling course pursuant to their 
filing bankruptcy (Exhibit D); Applicant's DD Form 214, confirming Applicant served in 
the United States Navy from 2005 to 2013 and received two Good Conduct Medal, a 
National Defense Service Medal, a Global War on Terrorism Service Medal and a Navy 
Marine Corps Overseas Service Medal, and finally that he received an Honorable 
Discharge. (Exhibit E.) Applicant also submitted two years of Evaluation Reports and 
Counseling Records, including the one for 2015 and 2016, for which he was “Ranked 
Number 1 of 25 highly competitive Third Class Petty Officers” and “someone who 
excelled in his demanding role.”  (Exhibit F.) Finally, Applicant submitted Schedule D of 
his bankruptcy with a list of unsecured creditors. (Exhibit G.) 
  
 While Applicant did submit several documents in mitigation, a request had been 
made at the hearing for Applicant to submit a post-hearing letter from his bankruptcy 
attorney explaining the status of the bankruptcy, any documents his wife had received 
from the company that she hired to help resolve their debts, and a personal financial 
statement to furnish more information about Applicant's current financial status. None of 
these documents were offered into evidence, nor was any explanation given as to why 
they were not submitted. Applicant also did not furnish any documentation to show that 
SOR allegation 1.h. had been paid. 
 
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. 
 
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 
 
6 
 
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.  
 
  Applicant. Applicant has incurred several debts over several years. While there is 
evidence that most of the debts are now being addressed in bankruptcy, no evidence 
has been introduced to establish the status of the bankruptcy. The guideline notes 
several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 19: 
 
(a) inability to satisfy debts; 
 
(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; 
 
7 
 
 
(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.  
 
The evidence is sufficient to raise disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19 (a) and (b) as 
applicable in this case.  
   
 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, 
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; 
 
8 
 
 
(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, evidence was introduced to establish that Applicant’s 
financial problem were largely beyond the person's control, specifically the loss of 
employment of him and his wife. And using the legal remedy of bankruptcy can be 
considered a responsible way of resolving the financial problems. Therefore, AG ¶ 20(b) 
could be applicable. However, no evidence was introduced to establish the status of the 
bankruptcy, specifically whether the bankruptcy will be accepted and the debts will be 
discharged. Also, Applicant testified that one of the creditors, a car company listed as 
1.d., above, has rejected having its debt resolved in bankruptcy, and his mortgage, 
listed as 1.a., above, also may not be resolved in bankruptcy. These are Applicant's two 
largest delinquent debts and it is not clear even if the bankruptcy is accepted that these 
two debts can be resolved. Finally, since no evidence has been introduced to establish 
that any of the SOR debts have been resolved, I find that no other 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: 
 
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from 
any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or 
 
9 
 
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; 
 
10 
 
 
(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 
 
Because Applicant failed to include any information on his e-QIP about his 
significant delinquent debts, and he failed to provide a reasonable explanation at 
the hearing for this omission, I find that the evidence is sufficient to raise 
disqualifying condition AG ¶ 16(a) in this case.   
 
 AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I considered 
all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17 listed below: 
 
(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 
 
 
11 
 
(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. 
 
 I do not find that any mitigating factors under AG ¶ 17 are applicable in this case, 
and I find against Applicant under Guideline E. 
 
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 r Applicant 
 
12 
 
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 
 
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