DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
    DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX )      ISCR Case No. 18-02124
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Andre M. Gregorian, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  I deny Applicant’s clearance.1
On 22 October 2018, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) raising security concerns under Guideline F, Financial
Considerations, and Guideline E, Personal Conduct.  Applicant timely answered the2
SOR, requesting a decision without hearing by the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA). The record in this case closed 6 February 2019, when Department
Counsel stated no objection to Applicant’s response to the FORM. DOHA assigned the
case to me 1 March 2019.
Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-5, and Applicant’s Response to the FORM1
(Response).
DoD acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20,2
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) of Security Executive Agent
Directive 4, implementing new AG, effective with any decision issued on or after 8 June 2017. 
1
03/14/2019
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations, but denied the falsification
allegation. He is a 53-year-old information technology support specialist employed by a
defense contractor since February 2017. He was previously employed in a similar
position, at a much higher salary from December 2006 to June 2015, when the
company shut down, and he remained unemployed until February 2017. He received a
$23,000 lump-sum pension payment from the company. He has not previously held a
clearance.
The SOR alleges, Items 3-5 establish, and Applicant admits 43 delinquent debts
totaling over $31,000. The debts comprise 25 delinquent medical bills totaling over
$17,000, 5 delinquent education loans totaling over $3,000, and 13 delinquent
consumer credit accounts totaling nearly $11,000. Applicant’s Response shows that the
state educational loan authority obtained a $5,291.89 garnishment order against
Applicant’s wages in December 2017, which Applicant’s employer began deducting at
the end of January 2018.3
Applicant disclosed no financial problems on his October 2017 clearance
application (Item 2), but discussed most of the SOR debts during a May 2018 interview
with a Government investigator (Item 3). Applicant acknowledged that the debts were
his. He stated that he knew he had extensive problems when he completed the
clearance application, but claimed that he had no intent to mislead the Government
because he knew the issue would come up during the investigation. However, he also
stated that he omitted his financial problems from the clearance application because he
feared that reporting the debts would jeopardize his getting and keeping the job. Now
that he has stable employment, he hopes to have his finances straightened out within
the next two years.
Applicant has been paying some of his medical bills as finances permit. He
offered a screen shot of some claimed payments (Response), but nothing in the screen
shot connects the putative payments to any SOR debts. Applicant expects to finish the
garnishment payments on his education loan within the next two-to-three months,
However, he does not appear to have been in contact with any of his creditors aside
from the education loan authorities.
Applicant traces his financial problems to his 20-months’ unemployment, his re-
employment at a substantially reduced salary, and his continued medical expenses (not
otherwise explained). However, he has not undertaken any action to contact his
creditors to discuss addressing his debts. The only creditor he has documented regular
payments for obtained a garnishment order to enforce payment. Moreover, most of the
At which point the balance owed had grown to $5,298.36. Applicant provided copies of the January, February,3
March, and July 2018, and January 2019 creditor statements. The January 2019 statement reflected regular
payments and a current $896.08 balance. Applicant also provided records from the collection agent for the
Government loans. However, the relationship between the two sets of documents is not established.
2
 
alleged medical debts are held by two collection agents, and could presumably be
consolidated into a repayment plan.
Applicant has not documented any credit or financial counseling. He provided no
current budget. He provided no work or character references, and provided no evidence
of community involvement.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors to evaluate a person’s suitability for
access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also show a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). The applicability of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is
not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific guidelines should be followed when a case
can be measured against them, as they are policy guidance governing the grant or 
denial of a clearance. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guidelines are Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, disputed facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, the
burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. 
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the required judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels deciding any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.4
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, but
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant accumulated significant debt
while he was unemployed, but has undertaken no independent efforts to address those
debts after regaining employment in 2017.5
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
19(a) inability to satisfy debts; (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; © a history5
of not meeting financial obligations;
3
 
The mitigating factors for financial considerations provide little help to Applicant.
These financial difficulties are recent and frequent, and given his decrease in income
cannot be considered unlikely to recur.  Applicant’s unemployment, underemployment,6
and ongoing medical issues are clearly circumstances beyond his control. However, he
has not been responsible in dealing with these debts since becoming re-employed.  It is7
not that he has not completely resolved his debts. It is that he has not documented any
efforts to organize his debts or keep his creditors advised of his current situation.
 It may be that Applicant lacks the means currently to do more than he is
presently doing. That is impossible to know because Applicant did not provide a
financial statement or budget that would show if he had the means to begin to address
his debts. The debts are clearly not being resolved.  Moreover, Applicant has8
undertaken no actions on the bulk of his debt that could be construed as a good-faith
effort to resolve the debts, and repayment by garnishment does not constitute such an
effort.  9
The Appeal Board has stated that an Applicant need not have paid every debt
alleged in the SOR, need not pay the SOR debts first, and need not be paying on all
debts simultaneously. Applicant need only establish that there is a credible and realistic
plan to resolve the financial problems, accompanied by significant actions to implement
the plan.  Applicant’s actions do not constitute such a plan. I conclude Guideline F10
against Applicant.
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline E, and
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns. Applicant was aware of his significant
debt, but deliberately chose to omit that fact from his clearance application.  He says11
he knew the Government would find out about his debts, and so lacked the intent to
mislead the Government. However, he omitted his debts because he feared he would
lose, or not get, the job he was being considered for. This hardly improves his position.
As a cleared employee, there is a wide variety of adverse information that an applicant
is required to report to the employer, so the employer can comply with its obligation to
¶ 20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that6
it is  unlikely to recur . . . ;
¶ 20 (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and7
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶ 20 (c) person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that8
the problem is being resolved or is under control;
¶ 20 (d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;9
ISCR Case No. 07-06482 (App. Bd. 21 May 2008).10
¶ 16 (a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel11
security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, . . . [or]
determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness. . .;
4
 
report the information to the Government, if required. The Government must have
confidence that an applicant will self-report so the security significance of the conduct
can be assessed, and corrective action taken. Applicant’s conduct here constitutes a
deliberate omission or evasiveness inconsistent with the candor required of applicants.
Accordingly, I resolve Guideline E against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-qq: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: Against Applicant
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge
5