1 
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
 DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
) ISCR Case No. 17-00893 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Benjamin Dorsey, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge: 
This case alleges security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial 
Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Eligibility for access to classified 
information is denied. 
Statement of the Case 
On May 16, 2018, in accordance with DoD Directive 5220.6, as amended 
(Directive), the Department of Defense issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 
alleging facts that raise security concerns under Guidelines F and E. 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 answered the SOR on June 13, 2018, and requested a hearing before 
an administrative judge. (Answer.) The case was assigned to me on September 12, 2018.  
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on 
October 29, 2018, scheduling the hearing for December 6, 2018. The hearing was 
convened as scheduled. The Government offered Exhibits (GE) 1 through 9, which were 
admitted. Applicant testified on her own behalf. She submitted Applicant Exhibits (AE) A 
though E. The record was left open until December 20, 2018, and Applicant timely 
02/14/2019
 
2 
 
submitted a packet of documents, which was marked as AE F, and was accepted into the 
record without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on December 
14, 2018. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant, age 58, is married and has one adult child. She obtained her  
undergraduate degree in 2007. She also has a master’s in theology and other 
certifications. Applicant completed her security clearance application (SCA) on 
September 29, 2015. She has held a security clearance since 2004. (GE 1) She worked 
for her current employer since 2015. She previously worked as a contractor since 1998. 
(Tr. 18) 
 
The SOR alleges a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filing in 2005 that was dismissed in 
2005 when Applicant failed to complete required filings; a 2016 state tax lien in the amount 
of $7,308; a 2011 state tax lien in the amount of $13,132.00; a 2012 Federal tax lien in 
the amount of $41,313.00; a medical account in the amount of $560; and a 2014 eviction 
law suit. Applicant admitted the allegations relating to the financial allegations. The SOR 
alleged under personal conduct concerns three instances of falsification on her 2015 
security clearance application. Applicant denied the falsifications on the security 
clearance application and she provided explanations for her financial situation. 
 
FINANCIAL 
 
Applicant acknowledged her financial hardship, but reported unemployment from 
December 2014 to February 2015 and from July 2015 to September 2015. Applicant was 
self-employed from May 2007 to May 2009 and from October 2009 to December 2010. 
(GE 2) Applicant also referred to bad advice from an accountant regarding the filing of  
her self-employment tax return. A final unemployment occurred when a contract ended in 
October 2017 until April 2018. (Tr. 47) 
 
Applicant suffered a stroke in the workplace, but did not have health insurance as 
she was working as a 1099 employee and responsible for health insurance. She suffered 
some short term memory loss as a result, and noted this to the OPM investigator when 
she had neglected to provide certain dates. (GE 2) 
 
As to SOR 1.a, Applicant admitted the bankruptcy filing (GE 9) and explained that 
her attorney advised her to file as there was a home contractor who was attempting to 
garnish her wages and extract $68,000 from her for work that had not been done and for 
which she had no account. (Tr. 51) She was not aware of this until she was purchasing a 
home and it appeared on her credit report. Her attorney asked for proof from the company 
that Applicant owed $68,000 and nothing was forthcoming. The bankruptcy was 
dismissed. It has not appeared on her credit bureau report for some time and she has 
discussed this issue in previous investigations. The action is 12 years old. 
 
Applicant admitted that she was indebted for the state tax lien (SOR 1.b) in an 
original amount of $7,308. However, Applicant stated that there is only one account or 
 
3 
 
lien for the state and the total is $13,132, which is the other state tax lien alleged in SOR 
1.c. She submitted a document from the state comptroller, dated March 2018 showing a 
balance of $4,786.08 for tax year 2007 and a balance of $9,072.72 for tax year 2009. (AE 
A) Applicant explained that the tax was due to the inaccurate tax filing by her accountant.  
Applicant was to file as an S corporation but the filing was for a C corporation. (Tr. 22) 
She explained that in 2011, she began paying $400 a month, but it was not clear from the 
record that the payment was going to the IRS. At one point, she received the checks back. 
They had been torn in half. In 2018, Applicant contacted the state comptroller’s office and 
explained her “situation.” Applicant reached an agreement for a payment plan for a term 
of 60 months with a down payment of $1,374 and monthly payments of $235. She stated 
that the tax year 2008 had been paid in full. Applicant has not started making any 
payments and stated that her husband had a massive heart attack and she is the only 
one employed. (Tr. 25) 
 
As to SOR 1.d, a 2012 Federal tax lien in the amount of $41,313, Applicant made 
an offer in compromise for $2,400, which was accepted. She made monthly payments of 
$100. Applicant presented a Certificate of Release of Federal Tax Lien (AE B) and a letter 
from the IRS, dated 2013 that the final payment was made by credit card and that all 
payments had been made. (AE B) 
 
As to SOR 1.e, a medical account in the amount of $560, Applicant stated that she 
has been making payments to a creditor monthly in the amount of $87. However, there is 
no record of any payments made to the account. As a post-hearing submission, Applicant 
provided a receipt for $480, but it was not clear to whom it was paid. (AE F) 
 
Applicant explained that the law suit situation which resulted in allegation SOR 1.f, 
is due to a flood that occurred above her apartment in May 2014, when her dining room  
filled with scalding water from the roof. She called maintenance and after about 20 
minutes a technician. The technician was unsuccessful in stopping the water and he 
called the supervisor. It took another 20 minutes to turn the water off in the above 
apartment. This left her apartment uninhabitable and she checked into a hotel. (AE C) 
Management asked Applicant to move all her belongings out so that the apartment could 
be renovated. When Applicant asked to be reimbursed for her May rent and expenses 
paid for the hotel night, she was told no. Applicant moved things as fast as she could. 
Before she was finished a notice of eviction was placed on her door. She was charged 
for various repairs for which she paid. 
 
 Applicant volunteered that she filed for an extension for her 2017 Federal tax 
return. (Tr. 59) It has been filed and she owes about $8,000. She stated that she believes 
she also owes states tax for 2017. (Tr. 60) She testified that this was due to the old 
accountant that she had a problem with concerning the S versus C corporation,  i.e,  filing 
the wrong tax returns during her self-employment in 2008.  She has a new accountant.  
 
PERSONAL CONDUCT 
 
When Applicant completed her 2015 SCA, she answered “No” to Section 26 
concerning liens against your property or failure to pay taxes in the past seven years. She 
 
4 
 
also answered “No” to Section 26 concerning bills or debts turned over to collection 
accounts. Also, Applicant responded “No” to Section 28 regarding non-criminal court 
actions in the last ten years. 
 
Applicant denied that she intentionally falsified her 2015 SCA. In her answer, she 
stated that she did not have a lien placed against her property for failure to pay taxes.  
She stated that she did not become a home owner until 2015 and the taxes owed were 
paid in 2013.  She testified that she answered all questions to the best of her ability and 
as for being a party to a law suit regarding the apartment, the amount of money was paid 
and she did not regard this as being a party to a law suit. She realized at the hearing that 
she answered incorrectly. (Tr. 35)  She was adamant that she did not believe the medical 
account was in collection because it was due and owing to a hospital. (Tr. 36)  She 
testified at the hearing that she had liens (both state and federal) but they had been 
resolved in years prior.  Applicant stated that she kept no information from the investigator 
during her interview. (Tr.45) She reiterated that she was completely open and honest with 
the Government when she answered the questions.  
 
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 (AG) 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, “Any 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, “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.”  
 
 
5 
 
 A person who seeks access to classified information enters into 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 EO  10865, “Any 
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 EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information.) 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) 
 
The concern under this guideline 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 . . . .  
 
 This concern is broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly 
compromise classified information to raise money. It encompasses concerns about a 
person’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified 
information. A person who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, 
unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. See ISCR 
Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012). 
 
 Applicant’s admissions, corroborated by her credit reports, establish three 
disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability to satisfy debts”), and 
AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”) and AG ¶ 19(f) (….failure to 
pay annual Federal, state or local income tax as required”).  
 
 The security concerns raised in the SOR may be mitigated by any of the following 
potentially applicable factors: 
 
AG ¶ 20(a): the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or 
 
6 
 
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 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 
 
AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to 
repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
Applicant’s bankruptcy occurred in 2005, and is an isolated event. She 
experienced unemployment on various occasions and suffered a stroke. Her husband 
suffered a heart attack. She also received some bad advice from an accountant. These 
events were beyond her control. She also had flooding in her apartment as a result of a 
flood from an apartment above. AG ¶ 20(a) is not established. Applicant has significant 
tax issues, an unpaid medical debt, and 2017 Federal tax due in the amount of about 
$8,000.  
 
AG ¶ 20(b) is not established. While Applicant’s unemployment, stroke and other 
health issues were beyond her control, she has not acted responsibly to address the 
resulting debts. She has not produced sufficient information to show that she has been 
proactive in her actions. 
 
AG ¶ 20(c) and 20(d) are not established. Applicant did not receive any financial 
counseling nor are there clear indications that her financial situation is under control. She 
has settled a Federal tax lien but has not started payments on other liens. She did not 
submit proof or documentation about her medical account. Her current ability to pay her 
delinquent debts and taxes is in doubt. Her financial problems are not under control.  
 
Applicant failed to meet her burden to mitigate the financial concerns set out in the 
SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.c, and 1.e. 
 
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 
 
7 
 
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 
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 SCA, 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 that she falsified her 2015 SCA, in her answer, and in her remarks 
at the hearing, she was adamant that she was not trying to defraud the Government.  She 
paid a Federal tax lien and did not understand the question about a lien on property. She 
answered to the best of her ability. In fact, she had denied those allegations on the SOR. 
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.1 An applicant’s level of education and business experience are 
relevant to determining whether a failure to disclose relevant information on an SCA was 
deliberate.2  
 
In this instance, it is clear from Applicant’s comments that she was not aware of 
the intent of the questions. At the hearing, she agreed that she answered inaccurately 
when the questions were explained. She should have disclosed the delinquent debts she 
had knowledge of on her SCA. However, I find insubstantial evidence of an intent by 
Applicant to intentionally omit, conceal, or falsify facts from and on her SCA. Therefore, 
AG ¶ 16(a) is not established. 
                                                          
1 See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2004). 
 
2 ISCR Case No. 08-05637 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2010). 
 
 
8 
 
 
 Applicant made prompt or good-faith efforts to correct any misleading or false 
information when she spoke openly to the investigator during her interview. Applicant was 
credible and has shown that similar lapses in judgment are unlikely to recur. She provided 
sufficient information in this record to demonstrate that she has met her burden of proof 
for her personal conduct. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether the granting or continuing 
of national security eligibility is clearly consistent with the interests of national security 
must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
applicable guidelines, each of which is to be evaluated in the context of the whole person. 
An 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. 
 
 I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines F and E in my whole-person 
analysis, and I have considered the factors in AG ¶ 2(d). After weighing the disqualifying 
and mitigating conditions under Guidelines F and E, and evaluating all the evidence in 
the context of the whole person, including her credibility and openness at the hearing, I 
conclude that Applicant did not deliberately falsify her SCA, but she has not mitigated the 
security concerns raised by her financial indebtedness. Accordingly, Applicant has not 
carried her burden of showing that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant 
her eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 1.a:     For Applicant 
Subparagraphs 1.b-c:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.d:     For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.e:     Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.f:     For Applicant 
 
 
 
9 
 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline E (Personal Conduct): FOR APPLICANT 
 
 
Subparagraphs 2.a-2c:  For Applicant 
 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to continue 
Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is denied. 
 
 
 
 
Noreen A. Lynch 
Administrative Judge