CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-10729.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-10729.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-10729.h1

deniedJun 4, 2008· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 51-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to significant unresolved overdue debts totaling $63,775. These debts were primarily medical bills incurred by his estranged wife. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailed 42 specific overdue debts, ranging from $49 to $22,387.

The denial was based on disqualifying conditions related to an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts and a history of not meeting financial obligations. While mitigating conditions were considered, they were not sufficient to overcome the concerns.

The applicant acknowledged some debts and expressed plans for resolution but failed to take substantial action to mitigate his financial obligations. This included not filing for divorce, which left him legally responsible for his estranged wife's debts. The lack of sufficient action to resolve the outstanding debts led to concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, resulting in the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a significant amount of overdue debts totaling $63,775, which he has not resolved.
The applicant remains legally married to his estranged wife, making him responsible for her debts.
The applicant has not taken sufficient action to mitigate his financial obligations, including failing to file for divorce.

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 Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant has not acted responsibly by failing to legally end his marriage.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood Faith Effort to Resolve DebtsThe applicant has not made a good faith effort to resolve most of his overdue debts.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 29, 2008
Answer filedFeb 18, 2008
Hearing heldApr 29, 2008in Woodland Hills, California
Decision dateJun 4, 2008

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Marital Status on Financial Obligations
Failure to Mitigate Significant Overdue Debts

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 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 significant overdue debts totaling $63,775. The applicant's failure to resolve these debts and his ongoing legal responsibility for his wife's medical bills contributed to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $7,207. $7,207	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,764. $1,764	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $391. $391	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $557. $557	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $22,387. $22,387	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,626. $1,626	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $213. $213	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $208. $208	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $292. $292	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.j	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $163. $163	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.k	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $49. $49	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.l	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $262. $262	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.m	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $258. $258	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.n	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $272. $272	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.o	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,793. $2,793	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.p	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $274. $274	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.q	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $130. $130	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.r	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $144. $144	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.s	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $424. $424	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.t	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $144. $144	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.u	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $424. $424	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.v	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $135. $135	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.w	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $195. $195	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.x	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $294. $294	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.y	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $3,193. $3,193	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.z	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,079. $2,079	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.aa	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $8,076. $8,076	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.bb	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $110. $110	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.cc	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $710. $710	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.dd	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $217. $217	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.ee	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $88. $88	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.ff	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $343. $343	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.gg	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $241. $241	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.hh	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $494. $494	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.ii	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,718. $2,718	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.jj	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $383. $383	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.kk	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,354. $2,354	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.ll	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $244. $244	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.mm	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2805. $2,805	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.nn	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $244. $244	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.oo	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $984. $984	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.pp	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $195. $195	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—

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. 07-10729 SSN: ---------------- ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Jennifer I. Goldstein, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro Se

June 4, 2008

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on January 1, 2006. On January 29, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for Applicant. 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 Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.

Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing on February 18, 2008, and requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. The case was assigned to this Administrative Judge on March 27, 2008. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on April 8, 2008, and the hearing was convened as scheduled on April 29, 2008, in Woodland Hills, California. The Government offered Exhibits 1 through 7, which were received without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits A through G. All of the exhibits were admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr) on May 14, 2008. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his RSOR, Applicant admitted with explanations SOR allegations: 1.o., 1.y., 1.z., 1.aa., 1.ii., 1.ll., 1.mm., 1.nn., and he denied all of the other allegations. The admitted allegations are incorporated herein as findings of fact.

After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including Applicant's RSOR, the admitted documents, and the testimony of Applicant, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact:

Applicant is 51 years old. He is currently married to his second wife, although they are separated, and he has one adopted daughter. Applicant served in the United States military from 1970 to 1980.

Applicant is employed by a defense contractor, and he seeks a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense sector.

The SOR lists 42 allegations of overdue debts totaling $63,775, 1.a. through 1.pp., under Adjudicative Guideline F. All of the allegations will be discussed in the same order as they were listed in the SOR:

1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $7,207. Applicant testified that he did not believe that this was his debt, and after he contacted the creditor for this debt he was told it would be removed from his credit report. It has now been removed.

1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,764. Applicant testified that this is a valid debt, which he did not recall. He plans to contact the creditor to resolve this debt, but no action has yet been taken from Applicant to resolve this debt.

1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $391. Applicant testified that this is one of the many debts incurred by his wife for medical treatment that she received after she was struck by an automobile while she was on her bicycle. This debt has not been resolved.

1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $557. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $22,387. Applicant testified that this bill is for a credit card that belonged to his wife’s mother. While this debt has not been eliminated it has been reduced to $1,500. Applicant plans to contact the creditor to have it completely eliminated from his credit report.

1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,626. This is another credit card debt that has not been resolved.

1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $213. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $208. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.i. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $292. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.j. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $163. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.k. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $49. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.l. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $262. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.m. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $258. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.n. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $272. Applicant testified that this a medical bill incurred by him as a result of a heart attack that he sustained. He thought it would be paid by the Department of Veterans Affairs, but for some reason, of which Applicant was unaware, it was not paid. This debt has not been resolved.

1.o. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,793. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred either by him or his wife, he was not sure. This debt has not been resolved.

1.p. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $274. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred either by him or his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.q. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $130. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.r. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $144. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved. 1.s. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $424. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.t. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $144. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.u. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $424. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.v. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $135. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.w. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $195. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.x. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $294. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred either by him or his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.y. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $3,193. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred either by him or his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.z. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,079. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred either by him or his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.aa. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $8,076. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred either by him or his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.bb. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $110. Applicant testified that this bill was incurred by his wife, when she wrote two checks with insufficient funds. This debt has not been resolved.

1.cc. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $710. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.dd. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $217. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.ee. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $88. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.ff. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $343. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved. 1.gg. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $241. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.hh. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $494. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred either by him or his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.ii. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,718. Applicant testified that this bill was incurred by him because of an overpayment by the state Employment Development Department. Applicant further testified that he has been making payments on this debt. Exhibit B confirms that this debt has been reduced to $888, and he continues to make payments of $50 every two weeks.

1.jj. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $383. Applicant testified that this a is medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.kk. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,354. Applicant testified that this bill was incurred by his wife, but when he contacted the creditor, Applicant was informed that the bill would be removed from his credit report.

1.ll. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $244. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.mm. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2805. Applicant testified that this bill was for a credit card lost by Applicant. This debt has not been resolved.

1.nn. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $244. Applicant testified that this phone bill had been approximately $400, and he has reduced it to the current amount listed on the SOR of $244.

1.oo. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $984. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

1.pp. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $195. Applicant testified that this is a medical bill incurred by his wife. This debt has not been resolved.

Applicant explained that the primary reason for his outstanding debt is the many medical bills incurred by his wife from the vehicular accident in which she was involved. While Applicant has been separated from his wife since approximately 2000 or 2001, he is still legally married to her. He contended that he was not aware for many years that she was incurring all of these debts. He contacted some of the creditors to tell them he was separated from his wife, but he was informed that since he was still legally married to his wife, he was still responsible for debts that she has incurred.

When Applicant was asked why he did not file for divorce from his wife so he could stop being responsible for her continuing overdue debts, he testified that he has been unable to afford to file for divorce, but he does plan to do so in the future. Because he remains legally married to his wife, he will be legally responsible for debts she accumulates in the future.

Applicant also was unemployed or underemployed for periods of time, partially due to health issues, which contributed to his indebtedness.

Finally, Applicant testified his income covers his phone, rent, truck and his insurance. He has very little left after paying these debts.

Applicant offered into evidence two letters from individuals who know him in his professional capacity (Exhibits D and E). They spoke in laudatory terms, describing him as a dedicated Security Officer, and someone who is honest and devoted to protecting classified information.

POLICIES

When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the Administrative Judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.

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 the adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge’s over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), 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 access to classified information 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. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security 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 access to classified information. 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 information.

Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

The trustworthiness concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:

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

The guideline notes several conditions that could raise trustworthiness concerns. Under AG ¶ 19 (a), an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶ 19 (c), a history of not meeting financial obligations may raise security concerns. Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt and was unable to pay these debts. The evidence is sufficient to raise these disqualifying conditions, requiring a closer examination.

The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate trustworthiness concerns arising from financial difficulties.

AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:

Under AG ¶ 20 (b), it may be mitigating where 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. As noted above, the financial problems arose primarily from Applicant’s former wife incurring significant medical bills over the course of several years. However, I can not find that this Mitigating Condition applies since Applicant has not acted responsibly since he has made no effort to legally end his marriage with his wife, despite being separated from her for more than five years. As long as Applicant remains married to his wife, he will legally be responsible for all of the bills that she has incurred and will incur in the future. Also, while he has contacted some of these creditors, I can not find that Mitigating Condition (d) is applicable since Applicant has not yet begun to make a good faith effort to resolve and repay most of these overdue debts.

lfind that Applicant is not yet financially sound and prepared for future contingencies. I conclude that he has not mitigated the financial concerns.

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) 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 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 the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on all of the reasons cited above as to why Mitigating Conditions (b) and (d) do not apply, considered with the tremendous amount of overdue debt and Applicant’s failure to take action so that he would no longer be responsible for his wife’s future indebtedness, I find that the record evidence leaves me with considerable questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance under the whole person concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns.

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

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 Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.l: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.m: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.n: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.o: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.p: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.q: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.r: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.s: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.t: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.u: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.v: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.w: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.x: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.y: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.z: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.aa: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.bb: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.cc: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.dd: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.ee: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.ff: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.gg: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.hh: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.ii: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.jj: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.kk: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.ll: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.mm: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.nn: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.oo: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.pp: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

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

Martin H. Mogul Administrative Judge