CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01745.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01745.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01745.h1

deniedJul 18, 2017· Hon. Shari Dam· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old defense contractor was denied national security eligibility due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had a history of unresolved delinquent debts totaling $16,772, which began accumulating in 2013. These debts included multiple credit card balances, a cell phone bill, a retail store debt, a collection account, and a cable bill.

Specific allegations included the applicant's failure to disclose an October 1998 arrest for marijuana possession in Section 22 of his 2015 e-QIP. Furthermore, he failed to disclose any of his delinquent debts in Section 26 of his November 2015 e-QIP. While the applicant arranged repayment plans for some debts in January 2017, he did not provide evidence of making the initial payments. He also claimed to have paid a cable debt but did not submit proof.

The judge found that the applicant did not mitigate the trustworthiness concerns. This was primarily due to his history of unresolved delinquent debts, his failure to disclose these debts in his e-QIP, and his initial misrepresentations during a background interview. The applicant also did not demonstrate good-faith efforts to resolve his financial issues or correct the omissions in his e-QIP, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of unresolved delinquent debts totaling $16,772 that began accumulating in 2013.
The applicant failed to disclose his delinquent debts in his e-QIP and initially lied about them during a background interview.
The applicant did not demonstrate good-faith efforts to resolve his financial issues or to correct omissions in his e-QIP.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)raisedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 10, 2016
Answer filedJul 8, 2016
Hearing heldJan 18, 2017Hearing convened as scheduled.
Decision dateJul 18, 2017

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Financial Obligations Under Guideline E
Ongoing Financial Issues as a Disqualifying Condition Under Guideline F
Lack of Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts as a Basis for Denial

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant did not mitigate the personal conduct concerns related to his failure to disclose delinquent debts on his security questionnaire. The applicant's explanation for not disclosing a past arrest was credited, but his lack of candor regarding his financial obligations led to a ruling against him on that allegation.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	When he completed “Section 22: Police Record” of his 2015 e-QIP, Applicant failed to disclose an October 1998 arrest for possession of marijuana.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Criminal Conduct	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	When he completed “Section 26: Financial” in his November 2015 e-QIP, Applicant failed to disclose any of delinquent SOR debts.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all financial allegations under Guideline F, citing a history of unresolved debts totaling $16,772 that began accumulating in 2013. The applicant's financial issues were deemed to reflect poor judgment and a lack of good-faith efforts to resolve the debts, leading to a denial of national security eligibility.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The $2,770 debt is owed to credit card company. It became delinquent in 2013. It is unresolved. $2,770	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	The $1,098 debt is owed to a credit card company. It became delinquent in 2013. It is unresolved. $1,098	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	The $965 cell phone debt became delinquent in 2013. It is unresolved. $965	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	The $901 debt is owed to a credit card company. It became delinquent in 2013. It is unresolved. $901	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	The $796 debt is owed to credit card company. It became delinquent in 2013. It is unresolved. $796	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	The $333 debt is owed to a retail store. It became delinquent in 2013. It is unresolved. $333	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	The $6,211 collection account remains unresolved. In January 2016, Applicant’s attorney notified him by letter that the creditor produced sufficient information to obtain a judgment for the unpaid debt. Applicant has not had any contact with his attorney since receiving that letter. It is unresolved. $6,211	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	On January 11, 2017, Applicant arranged a monthly repayment plan to resolve this $1,132 credit card debt, delinquent since 2013. He was scheduled to make the first $15 payment on January 13, 2017. He did not provide evidence that he made the payment. It is unresolved. $1,132	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	On January 11, 2017, Applicant arranged a monthly repayment plan to resolve this $913 credit card debt, delinquent since 2013. He was scheduled to make his first $15 payment on January 13, 2017. He did not provide evidence that he made the payment. It is unresolved. $913	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	The $836 debt is owed to a credit card company. It became delinquent in 2013. It is unresolved. $836	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	On January 11, 2017, Applicant arranged a monthly repayment plan to resolve this $634 credit card debt, delinquent since 2013. He was scheduled to make his first $15 monthly payment on January 13, 2017. He did not provide evidence that he made the payment. It is unresolved. $634	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	Applicant stated he paid this $183 cable debt and would produce a paid receipt. He did not submit one. It is unresolved. $183	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ADP Case No. 16-01745 ) ) Applicant for Position of Trust

For Government: Andre Gregorian, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

07/18/2017 __________

STATEMENT OF CASE

__________

DAM, Shari, Administrative Judge:

Applicant did not mitigate the trustworthiness concerns raised under the guidelines for financial considerations and personal conduct. National security eligibility for a position of trust is denied.

History of the Case

On November 11, 2015, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) for re-investigation. On June 10, 2016, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DoD CAF) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), alleging security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, and Guideline E, Personal Conduct. The action was taken under DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Previous Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) effective on September 1, 2006. This decision applies the New AGs that became effective on June 8, 2017.1

Applicant answered the SOR in writing on July 8, 2016 (Answer), and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) assigned the case to me on September 28, 2016. It issued a Notice of Hearing on December 21, 2016, scheduling the hearing for January 18, 2017. The hearing convened as scheduled. Department Counsel offered Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5 into evidence. Applicant testified and offered Applicant Exhibits (AE) A through D into evidence. All exhibits were admitted without objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on January 26, 2017. The record remained open until February 15, 2017, to give Applicant an opportunity to provide additional exhibits. Applicant did not submit any documents and the record closed.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted all allegations in the SOR. His admissions are incorporated into these findings.

Applicant is 35 years old and married since 2011. He and his wife have a young child and are expecting their second. Applicant earned an associate’s degree in 2013. His wife has worked as a school counselor for about a year. He started working for a defense contractor in 2004. He has held a position of trust since then. His last two performance evaluations noted that he exceeds expectations. His supervisor is aware of this investigation and the underlying security issues. (Tr. 17-19.)

Applicant began experiencing financial problems after he and his wife purchased a house in 2013 for about $140,000 or more. He soon learned that he did not have enough money to pay a mortgage, credit cards, and lines-of-credit. He did not adequately budget his finances, and consequently began accumulating delinquent debts. (Tr. 20-24.)

Based on a credit bureau report (CBR) from December 2015, the SOR alleged 12 delinquent debts, which became delinquent between 2013 and 2015, and totaled $16,772. (Tr. 21; GE 3.) The status of each debt is as follows:

1. (SOR ¶ 1.a) The $2,770 debt is owed to credit card company. It became delinquent in 2013. It is unresolved. (Tr. 32, 34.)

2. (SOR ¶ 1.b) The $1,098 debt is owed to a credit card company. It became delinquent in 2013. It is unresolved. (Tr. 32.)

3. (SOR ¶ 1.c) The $965 cell phone debt became delinquent in 2013. It is unresolved. (Tr. 32.)

4. (SOR ¶ 1.d) The $901 debt is owed to a credit card company. It became delinquent in 2013. It is unresolved. (Tr. 32.)

5. (SOR ¶ 1.e) The $796 debt is owed to credit card company. It became delinquent in 2013. It is unresolved. (Tr. 32.) 6. (SOR ¶ 1.f) The $333 debt is owed to a retail store. It became delinquent in 2013. It is unresolved. (Tr. 32.)

7. (SOR ¶ 1.g) The $6,211 collection account remains unresolved. In January 2016, Applicant’s attorney notified him by letter that the creditor produced sufficient information to obtain a judgment for the unpaid debt. Applicant has not had any contact with his attorney since receiving that letter. (Tr. 26-27; AE A.) It is unresolved.

8. (SOR ¶ 1.h) On January 11, 2017, Applicant arranged a monthly repayment plan to resolve this $1,132 credit card debt, delinquent since 2013. He was scheduled to make the first $15 payment on January 13, 2017. He did not provide evidence that he made the payment. (Tr. 29; AE C.) It is unresolved.

9. (SOR ¶ 1.i) On January 11, 2017, Applicant arranged a monthly repayment plan to resolve this $913 credit card debt, delinquent since 2013. He was scheduled to make his first $15 payment on January 13, 2017. He did not provide evidence that he made the payment. (Tr. 31; AE B.) It is unresolved.

10. (SOR ¶ 1.j) The $836 debt is owed to a credit card company. It became delinquent in 2013. It is unresolved. (Tr. 32.).

11. (SOR ¶ 1.k) On January 11, 2017, Applicant arranged a monthly repayment plan to resolve this $634 credit card debt, delinquent since 2013. He was scheduled to make his first $15 monthly payment on January 13, 2017. He did not provide evidence that he made the payment. (Tr. 31; AE D.) It is unresolved.

12. (SOR ¶ 1.l) Applicant stated he paid this $183 cable debt and would produce a paid receipt. He did not submit one. (Tr. 25.) It is unresolved.

After receiving the SOR, Applicant contacted some creditors. He also spoke briefly to a financial counselor at his company’s employee assistance program. (Tr. 21- 22.) Applicant’s annual salary is $37,000 to $38,000 and his wife earns between $47,000 and $48,000. (Tr. 23.) They do not have a written budget. (Tr. 52.) Applicant has not filed Federal income tax returns for 2015 and 2016. He spoke to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and thinks he owes under $5,000 in unpaid taxes for those years.2 He anticipates beginning a payment plan in the future. (Tr. 49-50.)

When Applicant completed “Section 22: Police Record” of his 2015 e-QIP, Applicant failed to disclose an October 1998 arrest for possession of marijuana. Applicant said he disclosed that information in his 2004 e-QIP. (Tr. 38; GE 2.) Applicant said he misunderstood the question and thought that he did not need to disclose it in the 2015 e-QIP because he thought it was too old and had been expunged from his record. (Tr. 39-40.) Applicant’s explanation for not disclosing it in his second e-QIP is credible. The allegation in SOR ¶ 2.a is found in his favor.

When he completed “Section 26: Financial” in his November 2015 e-QIP, Applicant failed to disclose any of delinquent SOR debts. He said he did not intend to lie about his debts, but admitted that he was aware of the delinquent debts. He did not think they would come up in the investigation because they were too recent. He intended to address them if the government inquired about them. He knows he made a mistake by not disclosing them. (Tr. 41-44.) During a background interview in January 2016, a government investigator asked him if he had any delinquent debts. Initially, Applicant said, “No,” until the investigator confronted him about the debts listed on his credit report. (Tr. 45.) Applicant’s explanation for not disclosing the delinquent debts is not credible.

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility, the administrative judge must consider the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the AGs. 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 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 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.

Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Directive ¶ E3.1.15 states that an “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 applies for national security eligibility 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 national security eligibility. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard sensitive information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of sensitive information. See Executive Order 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information.)

ANALYSIS

Guideline F: Financial Considerations

AG ¶ 18 sets out the trustworthiness concerns pertaining to financial considerations:

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.

This concern is broader than the possibility that an individual might knowingly compromise sensitive information in order to raise money. It encompasses concerns about an individual’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting sensitive information. An individual who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified or sensitive information.3

AG ¶ 19 describes three conditions that could raise trustworthiness concerns and be disqualifying in this case:

(a) inability to satisfy debts;

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; and

Applicant has a history of being unable or unwilling to satisfy delinquent debts that began accumulating in 2013 and remain unresolved. The evidence raised the above disqualifying conditions.

3 See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012). AG ¶ 20 provides four conditions that could mitigate the trustworthiness concerns raised under this guideline:

(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; 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 mitigation under AG ¶ 20(a). Applicant’s financial problems have been ongoing for about four years, and cast doubt on his reliability and good judgment. There is insufficient evidence to establish mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b), because Applicant’s financial problems did not arise from conditions that were beyond his control. The evidence does not establish mitigation under AG ¶ 20(c). Applicant does not have a solid budget or plan to resolve old debts, nor are there indications that his debts, finances, and unfiled Federal tax returns for 2014 and 2015 are under control.

A few days before this hearing, Applicant contacted several creditors and proposed resolution of the debts through minimal monthly payments. He presented no evidence that he made the first payments, which were due before this hearing. There is no evidence of any good-faith efforts on his part to resolve delinquent debts, including unpaid Federal taxes for 2014 and 2015. The evidence does not establish mitigation under AG ¶ 20(d).

Guideline E: Personal Conduct

AG ¶ 15 sets out the trustworthiness concerns pertaining to personal conduct:

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.

AG ¶ 16 describes two conditions that could raise trustworthiness concerns and may be disqualifying 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; and

(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.

Applicant knew he had delinquent debts when he completed the 2015 e-QIP and chose not to disclose them. When confronted by a government investigator about his delinquent debts, he initially lied to the investigator before admitting them. The evidence established both of the above disqualifying conditions as to Applicant’s failure to disclose delinquent debts. The allegation regarding his failure to disclose previous marijuana use was found in his favor.

AG ¶ 17 provides two conditions that could mitigate the trustworthiness concerns raised in this case and include:

(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; and

(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.

Applicant did not make a good-faith effort to correct his financial omissions after he submitted his 2015 e-QIP. In fact, he initially denied having delinquent debts when questioned about them during a background interview. Falsifying or concealing requested information during the investigative process is not a minor offense and casts doubt on Applicant’s trustworthiness and good judgment. The evidence does not establish mitigation under either of the above conditions.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

AG ¶ 2(a) requires an administrative judge to evaluate an applicant’s national security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances, commonly referred to as the whole-person concept. Under AG ¶ 2(c) the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a position of trust must include an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. The administrative judge should also consider the following 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 considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a 35-year-old man, who has worked for his employer since 2004 and held a position of trust during that time. In 2013, he began experiencing financial difficulties after purchasing a house, which resulted in the accumulation of delinquent debts that are unresolved. Immediately prior to his hearing, on January 21, 2017, he contacted several creditors listed on the SOR and established minimal repayment schedules. Up to that time, he has not taken responsible action to address his financial obligations. Additionally, he failed to file Federal tax returns and pay taxes for 2014 and 2015. In listening to his testimony, I found his understanding of the importance of financial responsibility, both for delinquent debts and tax obligations, inadequate and irresponsible. Those facts, coupled with his decision to lie to the government about his debts demonstrate a pattern of poor judgment.

Overall, the record evidence leaves doubt as to Applicant’s present national security eligibility. Applicant did not mitigate the financial and personal conduct trustworthiness concerns.

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

Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.l: 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 continue Applicant’s eligibility for a position of trust. National security eligibility is denied.

_________________ Shari Dam Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 I considered the Previous AGs, as well as the New AGs. My decision would be the same if the case was decided under the Previous AGs. 2 The SOR did not allege Applicant’s failure to file Federal tax returns for 2014 and 2015, or his failure to pay taxes for those years, as eligibility concerns. Those facts will not be analyzed as disqualifying conditions, but may be considered under the analysis of mitigating conditions and the whole-person concept, and an evaluation of Applicant’s credibility.