CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-03657.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-03657.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-03657.h1

deniedApr 25, 2017· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old security officer was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had unresolved delinquent federal income taxes and other debts totaling over $27,000. Specifically, the applicant owed the IRS $3,142 for tax year 2011 and had a collection debt of $729.

The Statement of Reasons also alleged that the applicant inadvertently failed to disclose these delinquent debts on their July 16, 2014 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) or security clearance application. While the applicant admitted to some debts and attributed them to periods of unemployment, they did not provide sufficient documentation to demonstrate resolution of the debts or participation in financial counseling.

Consequently, the applicant's financial problems were deemed not mitigated due to the lack of corroborating evidence. The adjudicator found that the disqualifying conditions related to financial irresponsibility and personal conduct outweighed the mitigating conditions, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had unresolved delinquent federal income taxes and other debts totaling over $27,000.
The applicant did not provide sufficient documentation to show resolution of debts or financial counseling.
The applicant's financial problems were deemed not mitigated due to lack of corroborating evidence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s ControlThe applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of responsible actions taken to address the debts.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Resolve DebtsThe applicant failed to demonstrate any good-faith efforts to resolve the debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 24, 2015
Answer filedApr 5, 2016Applicant requested a decision without a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing was conducted.
Decision dateApr 25, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Insufficient Documentation to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Carelessness in Completing Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E

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's personal conduct concerns were mitigated. Specifically, the applicant was found to have made inadvertent omissions on his security clearance application, which were not deemed intentional. Therefore, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant on the personal conduct allegations under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant inadvertently failed to disclose his delinquent debts on his July 16, 2014 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) or security clearance application (SCA).	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATESELF-CORRECTED	Financial	Admitted	—	(a) prompt, good-faith correction before being confronted	Claimed Explanation of Omission Credible

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 that the applicant had several unresolved delinquent debts totaling $17,271, including tax debts and a charged-off debt from a repossessed vehicle. The applicant's financial considerations security concerns were not mitigated, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant owes the IRS $3,142 for tax year 2011. $3,142	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Collection debt for $729. $729	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—

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: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 15-03657 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance

For Government: Philip J. Katauskas, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

04/25/2017 ___________

STATEMENT OF CASE

___________

HARVEY, Mark, Administrative Judge:

Applicant’s statement of reasons (SOR) alleges, and the record establishes delinquent federal income taxes for 2011, 2012, and 2013 totaling $9,011. The SOR also alleges six delinquent debts totaling $ 18,269. He did not provide sufficient documentation showing resolution of four SOR debts. Applicant inadvertently failed to disclose his delinquent debts on his July 16, 2014 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) or security clearance application (SCA). Personal conduct security concerns are mitigated; however, financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

On July 16, 2014, Applicant completed and signed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) or security clearance application (SCA). (Item 4) On March 24, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued an SOR to Applicant under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, February 20, 1960; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), January 2, 1992; and the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG), which became effective on September 1, 2006.

The SOR detailed reasons why the DOD CAF did not find under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for him, and recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. (Item 1) Specifically, the SOR set forth security concerns arising under the financial considerations and personal conduct guidelines.

On April 5, 2016, Applicant provided a response to the SOR, and he requested a decision without a hearing. (Item 3) On June 21, 2016, Department Counsel completed the File of Relevant Material (FORM). On June 29, 2016, Applicant received the FORM. Applicant did not provide a response to the FORM. On April 13, 2017, the case was assigned to me. The case file consists of seven exhibits. (Items 1-7) Applicant did not object to any of the Government exhibits. Findings of Fact1

In Applicant’s SOR response, he admitted the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.c, and 1.d. (Item 3) He also made some partial admissions, and he provided extenuating and mitigating information. Applicant’s admissions are accepted as findings of fact. Additional findings of fact follow.

Applicant is 39 years old, and he has been employed as a security officer since July 2014.2 From 1999 to 2003, he served in the Army and he received an honorable discharge. In 1995, he graduated from high school, and he has taken some college courses. In 2010, he married, and his children were born in 2009 and 2012. There is no evidence that he violated security rules or used illegal drugs. There is no evidence of employer performance evaluations.

Financial Considerations

Applicant’s October 29, 2014 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) personal subject interview (PSI) indicates Applicant had delinquent state and federal tax debts for 2011, 2012, and 2013 due to periods of unemployment. (Item 5) He was unemployed for three months in 2011, from September 2009 to July 2010, and from November 2007 to February 2008. (Item 4) He owes about $7,000 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and he is on a $125 monthly payment plan. (Item 5) He discussed most of his other SOR debts including two vehicle repossessions. (Item 5) Applicant’s history of delinquent debt is documented in his credit reports, SCA, OPM PSI, and SOR response. The status of his delinquent SOR debts is as follows:

¶ 1.a alleges Applicant owes the IRS $3,142 for tax year 2011. Applicant said all taxes for 2011 were paid in full; however, he did not provide proof of payment or resolution of this debt. (Item 3) ¶¶ 1.band 1.callege Applicant owes the IRS $3,189 for tax year 2012 and $2,680 for tax year 2013. Applicant said he had an installment agreement with the IRS to make $125 monthly payments. (Item 3) He is current on the agreement. (Item 3) He did not provide documentation showing the current status of the two tax debts.

¶ 1.dalleges a charged-off debt for $8,260. He acknowledged responsibility for this debt; however, he did not provide any other information in his SOR response. (Item 3) His Office of Personnel Management (OPM) personal subject interview indicates this debt resulted from a repossessed vehicle. (Item 5) This delinquent debt is listed on his April 6, 2016 credit report, the most recent credit report of record. (Item 3)

Applicant denied five SOR debts and said they were resolved and removed from his credit report: ¶ 1.e alleges a collection debt for $729; ¶ 1.falleges a telecommunications-collection debt for $1,019; ¶ 1.galleges a collection debt for $300; ¶ 1.halleges a collection debt for $429; and ¶ 1.i alleges a bank debt resulting from a repossessed vehicle for $7,532. (Item 3) He believed his grandfather paid the $7,532 debt. (Item 5) These five debts do not appear on his 2015 or 2016 credit reports. (Items 3, 7)

Aside from Applicant’s uncorroborated statements, there is no documentary evidence that Applicant paid, arranged to pay, settled, compromised, or otherwise resolved the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.d. He did not describe financial counseling. The record lacks corroborating or substantiating documentation and detailed explanations of the causes for his financial problems and other mitigating information. The FORM noted that Applicant had 30 days from the receipt of the FORM “in which to submit a documentary response setting forth objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation, as appropriate. If you do not file any objections or submit any additional information . . . your case will be assigned to an Administrative Judge for a determination based solely” on the evidence set forth in this FORM. (FORM at 4)

Personal Conduct

On his July 16, 2014, Applicant completed his SCA. (Item 4) His SCA asked for disclosure of repossessed vehicles, debts in collection, charged-off debts, and debts over 120 days delinquent. (Item 4) Applicant answered, “No” to all questions about delinquent debts. He disclosed his financial problems during his October 29, 2014 OPM PSI. (Item 5) He explained that he hurried through his SCA and inadvertently failed to list his delinquent debts. (Item 3) He made several mistakes on his SCA, including failing to list two of his children and information about his siblings. (Item 4, 5)

POLICIES

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security emphasizing, “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.

Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable.

The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, nothing in this decision should be construed to suggest that it is based, in whole or in part, on any express or implied determination about applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism. It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance.

Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996).

Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b).

ANALYSIS

Financial Considerations

AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concern for financial problems:

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 information. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.

The Appeal Board explained the scope and rationale for the financial considerations security concern in ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012) (citation omitted) as follows:

This concern is broader than the possibility that an applicant might knowingly compromise classified information in order to raise money in satisfaction of his or her debts. Rather, it requires a Judge to examine the totality of an applicant’s financial history and circumstances. The Judge must consider pertinent evidence regarding the applicant’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting the national secrets as well as the vulnerabilities inherent in the circumstances. The Directive presumes a nexus between proven conduct under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s security eligibility.

AG ¶ 19 provides two disqualifying conditions that raise a trustworthiness concern and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;” and “(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.” In ISCR Case No. 08-12184 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 7, 2010), the Appeal Board explained:

It is well-settled that adverse information from a credit report can normally meet the substantial evidence standard and the government’s obligations under [Directive] ¶ E3.1.14 for pertinent allegations. At that point, the burden shifts to applicant to establish either that [he or] she is not responsible for the debt or that matters in mitigation apply.

(internal citation omitted). Applicant’s history of delinquent debt is documented in his credit reports, OPM PSI, and SOR response. The record establishes the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) requiring additional inquiry about the possible applicability of mitigating conditions. Five mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:

(a) the behavior happened so long ago,3 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), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;

(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;4 and

(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue.

The Appeal Board concisely explained Applicant’s responsibility for proving the applicability of mitigating conditions as follows:

Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the Government

ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)). presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The standard applicable in security clearance decisions is that articulated in Egan, supra. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).

ISCR Case No. 10-04641 at 4 (App. Bd. Sept. 24, 2013).

Applicant described unemployment problems. These circumstances beyond his control adversely affected his finances. I have credited Applicant with mitigating all of the delinquent SOR debts except for ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, and 1.d.

The record establishes Applicant has four unresolved delinquent debts totaling $17,271. Applicant did not provide enough details with documentary corroboration about what he did to address his SOR tax debts and to pay the debt resulting from his repossessed vehicle in SOR 1.d. He did not provide documentation relating to any of these four SOR debts: (1) proof of payments, such as checking account statements, photocopies of checks, or a letter from the creditor proving that he paid or made any payments to the creditors; (2) correspondence to or from the creditors to establish maintenance of contact;5 (3) credible debt disputes indicating he did not believe he was responsible for the debts and why he held such a belief; (4) more evidence of attempts to negotiate payment plans, such as settlement offers or agreements to show that he was attempting to resolve these debts; or (5) other evidence of progress or resolution. Applicant failed to establish mitigation under AG ¶ 20(e) because he did not provide documented proof to substantiate the existence, basis, or the result of any debt disputes.

There is insufficient evidence about why Applicant was unable to make greater progress resolving four of his SOR debts. There is insufficient assurance that his financial problems are being resolved, are under control, and will not recur in the future. Under all the circumstances, he failed to establish that financial considerations security concerns are mitigated.

Personal Conduct

AG ¶ 15 explains why personal conduct is a security concern stating:

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 information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful

maintained contact with creditors and attempted to negotiate partial payments to keep debts current. and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.

AG ¶ 16 describes one condition that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case, “(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire . . . used to conduct investigations, . . . determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness. . . .”6

Applicant’s July 16, 2014 SCA asked for disclosure of repossessed vehicles, debts in collection, charged-off debts, and debts over 120 days delinquent. Applicant incorrectly answered, “No;” however, he disclosed his financial problems during his October 29, 2014 OPM PSI. He explained that he hurried through his SCA and inadvertently failed to list his delinquent debts. He made several mistakes on his SCA, including failing to list two of his children and information about his siblings. Applicant was very careless, and he made mistakes on his SCA. His errors and omissions on his SCA do not establish AG ¶ 16(a). Applicant refuted the allegation that he intentionally failed to disclose his delinquent student loans on his SCA with intent to deceive. AG ¶ 17(a) (stating “the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts) and AG ¶ 17(f) (stating “the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability”) are also applicable. Personal conduct security concerns are mitigated.

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 the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):

(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

2004)). 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 eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines E and F in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) were addressed under those guidelines, but some warrant additional comment.

Applicant is 39 years old, and he has been employed as a security officer since July 2014. From 1999 to 2003, he served in the Army and he received an honorable discharge. He has taken some college courses. There is no evidence that he violated security rules or used illegal drugs. There is no evidence of employer performance evaluations.

Applicant’s finances were adversely affected by unemployment, which occurred most recently in 2011. Applicant did not provide specific details about how these circumstances beyond his control negatively affected his finances.

The record establishes Applicant has four unresolved delinquent debts totaling $17,271, including delinquent federal income taxes for 2011, 2012, and 2013 and the debt resulting from his repossessed vehicle. Applicant provided insufficient corroborating or substantiating documentary evidence of payments and established payment plans for his SOR debts. He did not provide a detailed plan about how he intended to resolve all of his delinquent SOR debts. His actions show lack of financial responsibility and judgment and raise unmitigated questions about Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. See AG ¶ 18. More documented information about inability to pay debts, financial history, or documented financial progress is necessary to mitigate security concerns.

It is well settled that once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or renewal of a security clearance. See Dorfmont, 913 F. 2dat 1401. Unmitigated financial considerations concerns lead me to conclude that grant of a security clearance to Applicant is not warranted at this time. This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot or will not attain the state of reform necessary for award of a security clearance in the future. With more effort towards documented resolution of his past-due debts, and a track record of behavior consistent with his obligations, he may well be able to demonstrate persuasive evidence of his security clearance worthiness.

I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Egan, Exec. Or. 10865, the Directive, and the AGs, to the facts and circumstances in the context of the whole person. I conclude that personal conduct security concerns are mitigated; however, financial consideration security concerns are not mitigated. It is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant security clearance eligibility at this time.

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 F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.e through 1.i: For Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

_________________________ MARK HARVEY Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Some details have been excluded to protect Applicant’s right to privacy. Specific information is available in the cited exhibits.

2 Unless stated otherwise, the source of the information in this paragraph is Applicant’s July 16, 2014 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) or security clearance application (SCA) and his October 29, 2014 Office of Personnel Management (OPM) personal subject interview (PSI). (Items 4, 5) 3A debt that became delinquent several years ago is still considered recent because “an applicant’s ongoing, unpaid debts evidence a continuing course of conduct and, therefore, can be viewed as recent for purposes of the Guideline F mitigating conditions.” ISCR Case No. 15-06532 at 3 (App. Bd. February 16, 2017) (citing ISCR Case No. 15-01690 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2016)).

4 The Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a “good faith” effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts: In order to qualify for application of [the “good faith” mitigating condition], an applicant must present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or some other good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does not define the term “good-faith.” However, the Board has indicated that the concept of good- faith “requires a showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.” Accordingly, an applicant must do more than merely show that he or she relied on a legally available option (such as bankruptcy) in order to claim the benefit of [the “good faith” mitigating condition]. (internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004) (quoting 5“Even if Applicant’s financial difficulties initially arose, in whole or in part, due to circumstances outside his [or her] control, the Judge could still consider whether Applicant has since acted in a reasonable manner when dealing with those financial difficulties.” ISCR Case No. 05-11366 at 4 n.9 (App. Bd. Jan. 12, 2007) (citing ISCR Case No. 99-0462 at 4 (App. Bd. May 25, 2000); ISCR Case No. 99-0012 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 1999); ISCR Case No. 03-13096 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2005)). A component is whether he or she 6The Appeal Board has cogently explained the process for analyzing falsification cases, stating: (a) when a falsification allegation is controverted, Department Counsel has the burden of proving falsification; (b) proof of an omission, standing alone, does not establish or prove an applicant’s intent or state of mind when the omission occurred; and (c) a Judge must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence concerning the applicant’s intent or state of mind at the time the omission occurred. [Moreover], it was legally permissible for the Judge to conclude Department Counsel had established a prima facie case under Guideline E and the burden of persuasion had shifted to the applicant to present evidence to explain the omission. ISCR Case No. 03-10380 at 5 (App. Bd. Jan. 6, 2006) (citing ISCR Case No. 02-23133 (App. Bd. June 9,