1 
                                                            
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 ------------------------ )  ISCR Case No. 11-07487 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
 
Appearances 
 
  For Government: John Bayard Glendon, Esquire, Department Counsel 
     For Applicant: Greg F. Greiner, Esquire 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge: 
 
                                        Statement of the Case 
 
On March 11, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated 
Adjudication Facility (CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing 
security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial 
Considerations).1 In a June 23, 2015, response, Applicant answered the allegations and 
requested a hearing before a Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 
administrative judge. The government amended the SOR twice, on February 24, 2016, 
and on November 28, 2016, respectively. In the interim, I was assigned the case on 
June 29, 2016.  
 
                                                          
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 
(AG) effective within the DOD on or after September 1, 2006. Subsequently amended, the AG applied 
here are applicable for any adjudication on or after June 8, 2017. 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
A hearing originally scheduled for December 6, 2016, was cancelled to give 
Applicant more time to consider the latest amendments to the SOR. A January 11, 
2017, notice setting the hearing for February 7, 2017, was cancelled at the request of 
Applicant. The matter was again rescheduled on January 23, 2017, with a hearing date 
of February 14, 2017. The hearing was convened as scheduled.  
 
The Government offered 16 documents, accepted into the record without 
objection as exhibits (Exs.) 1-16. Applicant offered testimony and offered 18 exhibits, 
accepted without objection as Exs. A-R. Upon request by Applicant, the record was held 
open through February 28, 2017, so that additional materials could be submitted along 
prescribed guidelines. The transcript (Tr.) was received on February 23, 2017. On 
March 8, 2017, Department counsel forwarded six additional exhibits,2 accepted as Exs. 
S-Y, and the record was closed. Based on the testimony, materials, and record as a 
whole, I find Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns. 
 
     Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is the 42-year-old Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of his own 
company. He has served in those capacities since 1993, when he was a teen. In the 
interim, he was homeschooled and finished his education early in his youth. He was 
then recruited by a company, where he completed its executive management program. 
At age 22, he joined the United States Marine Corps, where he served for four years, 
and then was an inactive reservist for another four years. (Tr. 28) After being honorably 
discharged, he devoted his efforts to his fledgling company, which is now a multimillion 
dollar venture. (Tr. 32) Applicant is presently enrolled in two doctoral programs. (Tr. 15) 
He is divorced and has four children, ranging in age from 15 to seven.    
 
 On or about November 19, 2008, Applicant completed a security clearance 
application (SCA). It was not the first SCA he had completed. (Tr. 35) He addressed 
"Section 11: Your Employment Activities - Provide a detailed entry for each of your 
employment activities for the past 7 years. You should list all full-time work, part-time 
work, military service, temporary military duty locations over 90 days, self-employment, 
other paid work, and all periods of unemployment. The entire 7-year period must be 
accounted for without breaks, but you need not list employments before your 16th 
birthday.” [SOR allegation 1.a] In answering this question, Applicant did not disclose a 
position with a defense contractor held from November 19, 2004, through December 20, 
2005. When asked whether he purposefully excluded this information, he conceded he 
did so out 
 of “insecurity and fear.” (Tr. 38-39) He also noted that he “thought it was a waste of 
time to fill out the paperwork.”  (Tr. 38-39)   
 
          On that same 2008 SCA, Applicant answered “no” in response to ''Section 22: 
Your Employment  Record - Answer the following question:  Has any of the following 
happened to you in the past 7 years?   1. Fired from a job.  2. Quit a job after being told 
                                                          
2 The exhibits were pre-marked Exs. S-V and Exs. X-Y. No Ex. W was offered.  
 
 
 
 
 
3 
you would be fired.  3. Left a job by mutual agreement following allegations of 
misconduct.  4. Left a job by mutual agreement following allegations of unsatisfactory 
performance. 5. Left a job for other reasons under unfavorable circumstances.'' By 
answering “no,” Applicant failed to disclose that he left the job noted above by mutual 
agreement following an involuntary termination, which he contested, and allegations of 
conflict of interest. (SOR allegation 1.b)  
 
          When asked specifically whether an involuntary termination was involved in his 
departure, Applicant stated: “there was for a time a way of looking at it that way, but it 
was unwound, like pro tunc. . . .  should never have happened. . . . And the official 
record [now] states that it didn’t happen.” (Tr. 43) He showed a positive letter of 
recommendation from that company’s vice-president giving the impression that he 
departed on good terms. (Tr. 43-44; Ex. N) However, it is clear that his departure was 
initiated under a cloud, which should have resulted in a “no” to this SCA query.  
 
          In addition, "Section 17: Your Foreign Activities - Answer the following question . . 
. . c. Have you ever had any contact with a foreign government, its establishments 
(embassies or consulates), or its representatives, whether inside or outside the U.S., 
other than on official U.S. Government business? (Does not include routine visa 
applications and border crossing contacts)” was posed. In response, Applicant 
answered “No.” As a result, he failed to disclose that during a trip to Pakistan in or about 
August 2004, he had contact with Pakistani government and/or provincial or local 
officials for the purpose of soliciting business from such officials. [SOR allegation 1.c] 
Applicant explained that he answered in the negative because he did not specifically 
remember any of the foreign individuals and did not have any on-going contact with 
them. (Tr. 45) Therefore, he concluded he had “nothing significant to report.”  (Tr. 45) 
 
          This failure was followed by his answer to "Section 18: Foreign Countries You 
Have Visited - List foreigni (sic) countries you have visited, except on travel under 
official Government orders, working back 7 years. . . .  1. Indicate the purpose of your 
visit . . . . Additional Comments." There, Applicant disclosed a business trip to Bahrain 
and the UAE in the January 2007 to May 2007 period. He then added under “Additional 
Comments”:  "Was asked by an [entity] based out of [the United States] to provide IT 
services to their branch offices in Bahrain and UAE.” The Government asserts that 
Applicant knew this response was untrue because he knew that the [entity] had sent 
him on a five-month business trip to Bahrain to bid on a proposal to the Bahrain 
government to provide integrated cyber security services to the government. [SOR 
allegation 1.d] Applicant responded by noting that his answer was correct because the 
foreign-owned business was located in the United States. (Tr. 47) Therefore, his answer 
was technically correct. (Tr. 48) 
 
          In addition, Applicant again answered “no” to a question in that 2008 SCA. 
Specifically, in response to "Section 29: Public Record Civil Court Actions - Answer the 
following question. In the last 7 years, have you been a party to any public record civil 
court actions not listed elsewhere on this form?'' In truth, however, he was a defendant 
in a lawsuit brought by a company in a state county circuit court in or about 2006. [SOR 
 
 
 
 
4 
allegation 1.e] Applicant denies his answer was false, however, because the suit, 
brought by a former friend and colleague, never went to trial. (Tr. 49-50) He now argues 
that because the action did not go to trial, he had no need to disclose the matter. (Tr. 
51) The question, however, does not ask whether an applicant has gone to trial, but 
whether he had been a party to a public record civil court action. Applicant’s answer 
obscured the truth. 
 
          Later, in about August 2011, Applicant submitted a proposed Decree of 
Annulment to a state district court in which he certified that were no minor children 
born of his union with his then-wife. In so doing, he neglected to note his three pre-
teen children. In that same proposed decree, he listed an in-state address of 
residence, rather than the residence at which he had continuously lived for over six 
years. [SOR allegations 1.f-1.g] Applicant denied having children with his then-wife, a 
former “drinky girl” from Asia. He believed this at the time because she had told him 
that, although they had been sexually active, she had conducted affairs in his absence. 
(Tr. 53-54) Later, after DNA testing, he accepts them as his own.  
 
          As for the address Applicant noted as in-state for purposes of the annulment 
petition, it was the address of residency he established in order to proceed with an 
annulment in that state. In that particular state, residency for divorce and annulment 
can be established in minimal time. Indeed, the period of time is so short it does not 
adversely affect maintaining permanent residency elsewhere. Consequently, for the 
purposes of the petition, the address given was not incorrect. (Tr. 55-58)  
 
          On March 26, 2014, Applicant signed a copy of his responses to interrogatories 
proposed by DOHA. In so doing, he answered “no” in response to interrogatory 
Number 3, as to whether a particular female employee had worked for salary for a 
specific employer. [SOR allegation 1.h] The employee at issue is the mother of 
Applicant’s youngest child. (Tr. 58) Applicant denies that she was ever an employee, 
issued any Internal Revenue Service (IRS) forms as an employee, or drew a salary as 
an employee. (Tr. 58-59) He conceded, however, that she may have received funds 
from one of the accounts where his personal and business funds are comingled, giving 
the impression she was paid by his business. (Tr. 59) He provided a letter from her 
stipulating she only received child support funds from Applicant, not wages from his 
company. (Tr. 59-60; Ex. I)  
 
          Moreover, Applicant addressed interrogatory Number 10, which noted 
“(a)vailable information reflects that you were engaged in approximately 28 cash 
transactions with a total value of about $1,500,000 during the period September 1996 
through May 1997. Provide an explanation of the source(s) of the cash and the reason 
you were depositing or withdrawing cash into/from a bank account in such amounts.” 
 
          In response, Applicant wrote: “This information is wrong, all earnings during that 
period were shown on my IRS filings and schedule ‘C.’ It is likely that you pulled the 
information for my Grandfather or Father and both share the same name.” [SOR 
 
 
 
 
5 
allegation 1.i] Applicant noted that there are numerous family members with his first 
and last name, although his examples noted individuals with distinctly different middle 
names. (Tr. 62) When asked if any of these family members would be likely to have 
handled this amount of money between 1996 and 1997, his explanation was that “the 
folks that came out of the World War II/Great Depression Era, they’re all millionaires, 
deca-millionaires, centa-millionaires . . . . [but] their kids . . . were cash poor.” (Tr. 62)  
 
          In the original March 2015 SOR, under paragraph 2, the Government set forth 
four delinquent debts, attributed to Applicant in his credit reports. Those accounts are: 
 
2.a – Collection account ($10,149) – Settled for less than full balance. This debt is 
related to a window purchase for Applicant and his former spouse’s home. (Tr. 63, 
116) The account was opened in 2012. Applicant stated that he paid the principal 
owed on this account over several years, but ceased making additional payments 
because he did not agree with the interest terms applied. (Tr. 117-118) His reason, in 
part, was that he disagreed with how the entity calculated its interest and fees. The 
account eventually went into default and was put into collection. It was ultimately 
settled for less than the full balance in about 2015, and is no longer reflected as owed 
in his credit report. (Tr. 64, 121; Ex. A, Ex. T, Ex. Y) 
 
2.b – Telecommunication collection account ($568) – Paid. Applicant doubted he owed 
some or all of the debt assessed by this entity, claiming he did not have service for 
some of the time billed. He stopped making payments on this account in 2014, but 
ultimately satisfied the debt in December 2016, shortly before the first scheduled 
hearing date. (Tr. 66-67, 123-124; Ex. B)  
 
2.c – 2.d Student loan collection account ($3,425) and ($2,884) – Status unclear. 
Applicant believed these accounts, from over a dozen years ago, had been placed into 
forbearance or deferment. (Tr. 127) These two student loans are from a different 
lender than any other student loans at issue. They were formerly in default, but 
Applicant asserted that they have since been deferred again with Applicant’s return to 
college. (Tr. 68, 131-135; Ex. C) After the hearing, however, Applicant wrote an email 
in which he claimed the accounts were being paid via auto-debit and were now timely. 
As evidence, he offered various telephonic contacts for verification. However, it is his 
burden to offer documentary evidence regarding such matter. The burden is not on 
Department Counsel or the tribunal to verify such matters telephonically on his behalf.3 
 
          In an amendment to the SOR, dated on or about April 1, 2016, the Government 
added the following accounts to the SOR issued in 2015: 
 
 
 
                                                          
3  Applicant offered a letter from a university reflecting he registered for a program and paid a sum in 
December 2016. (Ex. U) No reference is made to student loans or the number of credits carried.   
 
 
 
 
6 
2.e – Cable television collection account ($102) – Paid. This debt became delinquent 
in 2016. Applicant noted that his former spouse was ordered to pay all utilities. (Tr. 
138-140) She failed to pay this bill, so Applicant paid it. (Tr. 139-141; Ex. E).  
 
2.f – 2.n - Approximate past-due (180+ days) student loan account balance ($199), 
($174), ($36), ($430), ($51), ($170), ($209), ($77), ($133) – Status unclear. These 
student loans date from 2005. (Tr. 70) They were initially in deferral, then, in about 
2008, in “rehabilitation.” (Tr. 73-74) Since that time, Applicant has been in and out of 
college. He claimed these loans are now in deferment because he is in school. (Tr. 74) 
There is no documentary evidence indicating he was then in school, only documentary 
evidence reflecting he had registered for upcoming coursework. (Exs. U-V)  
 
2.o – 2.p - Student loan collection balance (balance unknown), (balance unknown) – 
Status unclear. Applicant argued that these debts were consolidated with the above 
student loan accounts. (Tr. 70-78) No documentary evidence reflects their status. 
 
2.q – Second mortgage charged-off account balance ($100,324) – Status unclear.  
This loan is related to the home in which Applicant’s ex-wife currently lives. (Tr. 147) 
Applicant opened this account in 2005. The lender went out of business in about 2008. 
The loan was then transferred. The last payment on this account was in May 2012. 
Due to financial issues at work, he was unable to continue making timely payments. 
(Tr. 143-144) From 2012 until February 2017, Applicant made no payments on the 
loan. (Tr. 146-147) Applicant is now in negotiations to settle the matter. (Tr. 80-82; see, 
e.g., Ex. D)) Applicant showed that he has emailed his attorney about the situation, but 
he offered no documentary evidence from the lender or any associated banks 
regarding the account’s current status. (Ex. Y) 
 
2.r – Home improvement charged-off bank credit card ($10,046) – Settled for less than 
full balance. Despite a lack of documentary evidence to that effect, Applicant believes 
this debt is related to the window installation noted at 2.a. (Tr. 82-83, 154) These 
windows were purchased from a door-to-door salesman, Applicant was unhappy with 
the quality of the work and the interest terms in the contract. (Tr. 150-151) The 
circumstantial evidence appears to corroborate Applicant’s assertion that this is the 
same debt as noted above at 2.a. 
 
          In its next amendment to the SOR, dated on or about November 28, 2016, the 
Government added the following accounts to the original 2015 SOR: 
 
2.s – State tax lien ($34,520) – Unpaid. This lien was filed in November 2016. (Tr. 155) 
It is against both Applicant and his company. Applicant and his company have the 
ability to honor this debt but have not done so as a business strategy. (Tr. 158) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
2.t – Cable television collection account ($120)4 – see above. (Tr. 88, 91, 139-141; Ex. 
E, Ex. B).  
 
2.u – Cable television collection account ($175) – Paid. (Ex. F) 
 
 
2.v – Child support collection balance ($850) – In arrears. Applicant showed he has a 
total arrearage as of the date of the document submitted of $1,710. (Ex. X) 
 
2.w – 2.x - Approximate past-due (120+ days) student loan account balances ($205) 
and ($173) – Status unclear. Applicant argued that these debts are deferred. As proof, 
he offered a letter noting that he had paid for and registered in a doctoral level program 
to begin at an unspecified time. He relied on this letter to confirm that he has been “in 
college full time with Administrative Forbearance on or prior to December 1, 2016. The 
administrative forbearance will convert to an in-school deferment as soon as the 
college and the student loan companies synchronize their systems.” (Ex. V)   The letter 
does not support this contention.  
 
2.y – State tax lien ($42,954) – Unpaid. This lien was filed in March 2014 regarding tax 
years 2013-2015. (Tr. 155-156) It is against both Applicant and his company. Applicant 
claims they are related to his business. It was unable to pay this debt at the time due to 
unforeseen business financial difficulties after a client allegedly stole from the 
company. (Tr. 156) Applicant and his company now have the ability to honor this debt 
but have not done so as a business strategy. (Tr. 158, 160) 
 
2.z – Adverse judgments for $15,000 (attorney’s fees), $5,579 (child support), and 
$15,000 (temporary ex-spousal support) – On appeal. These debts are related to 
Applicant’s separation and divorce proceedings. He has requested a second 
reconsideration regarding these sums unsuccessfully. (Tr. 165; Ex. 8) Another hearing 
for reconsideration has been set by the court. (Ex. X) 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are 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, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to the AG, 
                                                          
4 This is with regard to the same entity reflected in SOR allegation 1.e. 
 
 
 
 
8 
the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the 
“whole-person concept, each of which must be fully considered in making a decision. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. Any doubt 
concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility and 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 record evidence. 
Under the Directive, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted 
facts alleged in the SOR. Under the Directive, an applicant is responsible for presenting 
witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by 
applicant or proven by Department Counsel and has the ultimate burden of persuasion 
to obtain a favorable security decision.  
 
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. This relationship 
transcends normal duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and 
confidence in those to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include 
consideration of the possible risk an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to 
safeguard classified information. Decisions are in terms of the national interest and shall 
in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant.   
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct  
 
 The security concern 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. 
 
 AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying. The following disqualifying conditions are potentially applicable: 
 
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, 
and 
 
AG ¶ 16(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 
 
 
 
 
9 
national security eligibility determination, or other official government 
representative. 
 
Here, Applicant inaccurately answered “no” on five sections of his 2008 SCA, 
and provided seemingly inaccurate answers on two questions related to an annulment 
decree and to 2014 DOHA interrogatories. Purposefully inaccurate or false answers on 
any of these documents would raise AG ¶ 16(a) and AG ¶ 16(b).   
 
 According to SOR allegation 1.a, Applicant failed to disclose on his SCA a former 
position with a defense contractor held between November 2004 and December 2005. 
He admitted that he obfuscated the truth out of his own “insecurity and fear,” and 
because he “thought it was a waste of time to fill out the paperwork.” Consequently, 
his omission was not only intentional, but exercised with a somewhat cavalier attitude 
toward the importance of the SCA process.  
 
As for SOR allegation 1.b, it appears that Applicant’s reason for obscuring this 
position was because he was initially let go under a cloud. While he may have later 
ameliorated any tensions or issues between the company and himself, that does not 
change the fact that his departure was initiated by the entity because of some 
disagreement or issue. Indeed, he admits that before the situation was later remedied 
and the parties resumed friendlier relations, “there was for a time a way of looking at 
[his departure involuntarily], but it was unwound.” While the truth here may have 
been inconvenient or embarrassing, candor regarding such situations is essential in 
the SCA process so that investigators can examine the circumstances 
independently. Had Applicant felt the need to provide an explanation, the SCA has 
sufficient space to provide an explanation. Here, the answer was patently false.  
 
 When, in response to SOR allegation 1.c, Applicant was asked under SCA 
Section 17 about foreign contacts made on a business trip, Applicant denied having had 
foreign contacts abroad. In fact, he had significant foreign contacts on that trip. His 
failure to remember specific names does not excuse his failure to note that such 
contacts were made, a concession that would have made for a more candid and truthful 
answer. The obligation was on him to provide sufficient information to put investigators 
on notice of the situation. As it stands, however, his answer was not candid. However, 
as a matter of semantics, Applicant was correct with regard to his SCA answer at 
Section 18 (SOR allegation 1.d), when he noted that the company described as foreign 
was, in fact, physically based in the United States. 
 
 With regard to SCA Section 29 (SOR allegation 1.e), Applicant was simply and 
directly asked whether he had been a party to any public record civil court action in the 
preceding seven years. Whether the matter went to trial or whether he lost or won does 
not enter into that specific query. Applicant is a well-educated and intelligent man. The 
question is not confusing. He answered “no” to the question, however, despite the plain 
evidence that he was a party to such an action. Given the totality of the circumstances, 
this omission appears to be intentional.  
 
 
 
 
 
10 
 Two questions arise from Applicant’s proposed decree of annulment, as noted at 
SOR allegations 1.f-1.g. While both answers were technically incorrect, they were, as 
far as Applicant knew at the time, correct under the circumstances. Applicant went to a 
distant state for a brief period to establish residency to expedite the annulment process. 
Consequently, on the annulment petition, he listed his local address. In addition, 
believing that the children born to his wife during their marriage were the result of her 
extramarital affairs, he earnestly answered that their marriage had yielded no children. 
 
 Applicant’s answer regarding SOR allegation 1.h, that no salary was paid to the 
mother of his youngest child as an employee of one of his business entities, is credible 
because of the circumstances and the intermingling of his personal and corporate 
monies. With regard to SOR allegation 1.i, Applicant denies the transactions at issues 
were his and posits they may have come from transactions conducted by one of the 
several members of his family with the same first and last name. Under these particular 
circumstances and the limited documentation offered, his answer is plausible.  
 
I have considered these facts in light of the AG ¶ 17 mitigating conditions:  
 
AG ¶ 17(a): the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the 
omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the 
facts; 
 
AG ¶ 17(b): the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment 
was cause or significantly contributed to by the advice of legal counsel or 
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; 
  
AG ¶ 17(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; and 
 
AG ¶ 17(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; and  
 
AG ¶ 17(e): the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate 
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.  
 
Under these facts, no mitigating conditions apply to SOR allegations 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 
and 1.e, where Applicant’s lack of candor sustains security concerns. 
 
 
 
 
 
11 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
Under Guideline F, AG ¶ 18 sets forth that the security concern under this 
guideline is that failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet 
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to 
abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s 
reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.  
 
The Government offered documentary evidence reflecting that Applicant has 
many delinquent debts. This raises financial considerations disqualifying conditions:  
 
AG ¶ 19(a): inability to satisfy debts; 
 
AG ¶ 19(b): unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the inability to do so; and 
 
AG ¶ 19(c): a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
Four conditions could mitigate the finance-related security concerns posed here:  
 
 AG ¶ 20(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; 
 
 AG ¶ 20(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; 
 
 AG ¶ 20(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the 
problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit 
counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is 
being resolved or is under control; and 
 
 AG ¶ 20(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to 
repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
There are multiple delinquent debts at issue, some dating back to 2005. 
Applicant only points to occasional business difficulties as adversely affecting his 
finances, specifically, his second mortgage and state tax lien. Although he failed to fully 
describe his efforts to manage those difficulties or to resolve his financial problems at 
that time, this fact is sufficient to raise AG ¶ 20(b) in part.  
 
Applicant did provide evidence of progress on some of his debts. The debts at 
SOR allegations 2.a and 2.r have been settled, while the debts at 1.b and 1.u have 
 
 
 
 
12 
been paid. The marital and child support balances owed, as noted at SOR allegation 
1.z, is currently under reconsideration for its second time. Meanwhile, the status of the 
debts at SOR allegations 2.c, 2.d, 2.f-2.q, 2.s, 2.v, 2.w, and 2.y remain unpaid or 
unclear. Facing the future, his strategy is unclear. He continues to keep multiple past-
due student loan balances, such as those noted at 1.f-1.n and amounting to about 
$1,500, unpaid and deferred. Meanwhile, he claims to have the present ability to honor 
a debt of nearly $43,000, but has made the business decision not to do so. While some 
progress has been made, it is difficult to discern what his strategy going forward is.   
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the her  
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the 
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d). Here, I have considered those 
factors. Under AG ¶ 2(a), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a 
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based on careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.        
 
Applicant is a 42-year-old Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of a company he 
established in his teens. Highly analytical and a child prodigy, he matriculated through 
secondary and post-secondary education at an accelerated pace. He joined the United 
States Marine Corps, where he served for four years, starting at age 22. Since that time, 
he has devoted his energies to his company, which is a multimillion dollar venture. He is 
presently enrolled in two doctoral programs. He had three children with his first wife, 
and a fourth child with a former girlfriend.   
   
Applicant was initially alleged to have offered false answers on multiple questions 
relevant to investigative or judicial processes. His explanations revealed that, at times, 
his unique perspective or his misunderstanding of an otherwise direct question 
confused him. However, his explanations also revealed that, in at least some of the 
cases, his answers were either false or self-serving. Inasmuch as candor is at the heart 
of this process, anything less than complete truthfulness is inadequate.  
 
Further, Applicant has numerous delinquent debts, including a state tax lien, that 
remain outstanding. While he has made some progress on some of the debts at issue 
and appears to have the resources to make additional progress at this time, some 
obligations remain unaddressed or deferred as a strategy. While such strategies are 
within an applicant’s rights, they do little to demonstrate either financial responsibility or 
good judgment in an applicant for a security clearance. This is particularly true when an 
applicant has failed to explain what, if any, reasonable plan he has for addressing his 
remaining debts going forward. Under these facts, and given the documentary evidence 
provided, it is difficult to assess Applicant’s present financial situation in general, and in 
terms of the delinquent debts at issue. In light of the above, I find personal conduct and 
financial considerations security concerns remain unmitigated.    
 
 
 
 
 
13 
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 E:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a-1.c:   Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.d:    For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.e:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraphs 1.f-1.i:   For Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline F:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a-2.b:   For Applicant 
Subparagraphs 2.c-2.q:   Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.r:    For Applicant 
Subparagraphs 2.s-2.t:   Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.u:    For Applicant 
Subparagraphs 2.v-2.y:   Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.z:    For 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 a security clearance. 
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
                                                     
_____________________________ 
Arthur E. Marshall, Jr. 
                                                     Administrative Judge