DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
        DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 17-03498 
) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Esquire, Department Counsel 
 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
May 9, 2019 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant has over $23,000 in past-due debts that he cannot, or will not, resolve. 
Applicant falsified a government questionnaire in 2016 concerning his past-due debts. 
Based on a review of the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, national security eligibility 
for access to classified information is denied.  
 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on February 22, 2016. (Government Exhibit 1.) On October 18, 2017, the 
Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DoD CAF) issued a 
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns under Guidelines 
F (Financial Considerations) and E (Personal Conduct). The action was taken under 
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 
20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial 
 
 
1 
 
 
 
 
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended 
(Directive); and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility 
for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position, effective 
within the Department of Defense on June 8, 2017. 
  
Applicant answered the SOR in writing (Answer) on January 9, 2018, and 
requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared 
to proceed on January 31, 2018. The case was assigned to me on February 6, 2018. The 
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on March 9, 
2018. I convened the hearing as scheduled on May 1, 2018. The Government offered 
Government Exhibits 1 through 5, which were admitted without objection. Applicant 
testified on his own behalf. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on May 9, 
2018.  
  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant is a 34-year-old Technician II. He is divorced with one child, and has an 
Associate of Arts degree. He is seeking to retain a security clearance in connection with 
his work with the DoD.  
 
Applicant served on active duty with the Navy from November 2003 through 
November 2007, when he obtained an Honorable Discharge. He has had several periods 
of unemployment between November 2007 and June 2015, when he began work with his 
current employer. The longest period of unemployment was between May 2010 and 
August 2013. During that period Applicant went to college and supported himself with the 
GI Bill. (Government Exhibit 1 at Sections 13A and 15.) 
 
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F – Financial Considerations) 
 
 The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance 
because he has a history of past-due indebtedness that can raise questions about his 
reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. 
 
 Applicant admitted owing all nine debts set forth in the SOR (subparagraphs 1.a 
through 1.i), with qualifications and explanations. The total amount of money Applicant is 
alleged to owe is approximately $23,094. The existence and amount of the debts are 
documented by credit reports dated March 2, 2016; September 5, 2017; and April 30, 
2018. (Government Exhibits 4, 3, and 5.) (See Government Exhibit 2.)  
 
 The current status of the debts is as follows: 
 
 1.a. Applicant admitted owing $5,121 for a past-due student loan debt. Applicant 
had not made any recent payments on this debt and did not have a plan to pay this debt 
in the near future. This debt is not resolved. (Tr. 44-48.) 
 
2 
 
 
 
 1.b. Applicant admitted owing $3,578 for a second past-due student loan debt. 
Applicant had not made any recent payments on this debt and did not have a plan to pay 
this debt in the near future. This debt is not resolved. (Tr. 44-48.) 
 
 1.c. Applicant admitted owing a past-due debt to a cable company, however he 
denied owing $1,257. He stated that this debt was allegedly for equipment he had not 
returned, when in fact he had returned it. Applicant further stated that he had attempted 
to dispute the account with the creditor, but his testimony was unclear on this point. He 
further stated, “I will be addressing this one [debt] in the very near future.” No further 
information was provided. This debt is not resolved. (Tr. 49-51.) 
 
 1.d. Applicant admitted owing $1,012 for a past-due wireless telephone debt. 
Applicant had not made any recent payments on this debt and did not have a plan to pay 
this debt in the near future. This debt is not resolved. (Tr. 52-54.) 
 
 1.e. Applicant admitted owing $351 for a past-due debt to a credit union. Applicant 
had not made any recent payments on this debt and did not have a plan to pay this debt 
in the near future. This debt is not resolved. (Tr. 54-55.) 
 
 1.f. Applicant admitted owing $264 for a past-due telephone debt. Applicant had 
not made any recent payments on this debt and did not have a plan to pay this debt in 
the near future. This debt is not resolved. (Tr. 52, 55.) 
 
 1.g. Applicant admitted owing $5,000 for a judgment entered against him in 
February 2011 for past-due home owners’ association fees. Applicant had no information 
as to whether this judgment had been resolved. Once again, his testimony was unclear 
on this point. He had not made any recent payments on this debt and did not have a plan 
to pay this debt in the near future. This debt is not resolved. (Tr. 55-57.) 
 
 1.h. Applicant admitted owing $235 for a past-due gym membership debt. 
Applicant had not made any recent payments on this debt and did not have a plan to pay 
this debt in the near future. This debt is not resolved. (Tr. 57-58.) 
 
 1.i. Applicant admitted owing $6,276 for a past-due bank credit card debt. Applicant 
had not made any recent payments on this debt and did not have a plan to pay this debt 
in the near future. This debt is not resolved. (Tr. 59-61.) 
 
 As stated, after Applicant left the Navy he had several periods of unemployment. 
This had some impact on his ability to pay his bills. However, Applicant admitted that part 
of the problem was poor financial planning, decision making, and budgeting on his part. 
He had been employed by his current company for almost three years as of the date of 
the hearing and had not made any payments towards any of his past-due debts. (Tr. 30-
36, 39-40, 42-43.) 
 
 
3 
 
 Applicant stated, and the credit reports support, that he had not acquired any new 
delinquent debt. He testified that he hoped to pay his past-due debts off over the next five 
years. However, he had not made any specific plan to pay off his past-due indebtedness. 
(Tr. 20, 48, 61-63, 74.) 
 
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E – Personal Conduct) 
 
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for clearance 
because he has engaged in conduct that shows poor judgment, untrustworthiness or 
unreliability. Applicant admitted both the allegations under this paragraph, with 
qualifications.  
 
Applicant filled out an e-QIP on February 22, 2016. (Government Exhibit 1.) 
Section 26 of that questionnaire concerned Applicant’s financial record. Both allegations 
in the SOR concern different questions from this section. 
 
 2.a. Appellant was asked in Section 26 whether, in the past seven years, he had 
a judgment entered against him. Appellant answered this question, “No.” In fact, as stated 
above, Applicant had a judgment entered against him in 2011, five years before his filling 
out the e-QIP, in the amount of $5,000. This was a false answer to a relevant question 
concerning Appellant’s financial situation.  
 
Applicant testified that he did not talk about the judgment because he thought it 
had occurred more than seven years before he filled out the questionnaire. Appellant’s 
explanation is not unreasonable as to this question. Subparagraph 2.a is found for 
Applicant. (Tr. 68-71.) (See Answer.) 
 
2.b Section 26 goes on to ask Applicant if, in the seven years before the date he 
filled out the questionnaire, he had bills or debts turned over to a collection agency, or 
had an account charged off for failing to pay as agreed? Applicant answered both 
questions, “No.” These were false answers to relevant questions about his financial 
status.  
 
Applicant testified that he did not intend to falsify the questionnaire, but he was not 
really “on top of it” with regard to his debts. Applicant’s testimony as to his reasons for 
leaving his debts off of the questionnaire was often vague, unclear, or contradictory. (Tr. 
71-78.) Subparagraph 2.b is found against Applicant. 
 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility 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 
4
 
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.”  
 
 A person who seeks access to classified information enters 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access 
to classified or sensitive information.) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
 
 
 
Analysis 
 
Paragraph 1 (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. 
 
 AG ¶ 19 describes three conditions that could raise security concerns and may be 
disqualifying in this case:  
 
(a) inability to satisfy debts;  
 
(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability to do so; and 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
 Applicant, based on the evidence, had nine delinquent accounts that he could not 
or chose not to resolve. These debts have been in existence for a considerable period of 
time. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions. 
 
 The guideline includes four conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate the security 
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties: 
 
(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, or a death, divorce or separation, clear 
victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the 
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; 
 
 
6 
 
 
 
(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 
 
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
 The evidence does not establish that any of the above mitigating conditions apply 
to Applicant. With regard to AG ¶ 20(b), Applicant was unemployed between 2010 and 
2013. However, he was going to school during that time and was supporting himself with 
the GI Bill. In addition, he had been employed just short of three years as of the time of 
the hearing and had not paid any of the past-due debts. He failed to submit evidence that 
would tend to support any of the other mitigating conditions. There is no basis for me to 
find that Applicant has mitigated the security concerns of his financial situation. Paragraph 
1 is found against Applicant. 
 
Paragraph 2 (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 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. 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
 
 
 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under 
AG ¶ 16. One is potentially applicable in this case:   
 
(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 knowingly falsified material facts about his financial situation on a 
Government personnel security questionnaire in 2016. None of the potentially mitigating 
conditions under this guideline apply to his conduct in this case with regard to that 
questionnaire. Paragraph 2 is found against Applicant. 
 
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 national security 
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 
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant has not mitigated his 
significant financial difficulties, or his falsifications to the Government concerning his 
financial situation. Overall, the record evidence does create substantial doubt as to 
Applicant=s present suitability for national security eligibility and a security clearance. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
 
 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as 
required by & E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 1.a:     Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.b:     Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.c:     Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.d:     Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.e:     Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.f:     Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.g:     Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.h:     Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.i:     Against Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline E:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 2.a:     For Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.b:     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 or continue Applicant=s national 
security eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is 
denied. 
                                                  
 
 
WILFORD H. ROSS 
Administrative Judge 
 
9