CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-17869.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-17869.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-17869.h1

deniedSep 3, 2004· Hon. Philip S. Howe· hearing

Summary

A 49-year-old military retiree and computer technician was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had accumulated 20 delinquent debts over several years, including judgments for a credit union loan ($2,228), attorney's fees ($966), and rent owed to an investment company ($8,880). Other significant debts included a bank credit card ($4,932), a consumer electronics store ($4,003), a hospital bill ($4,611 for his ill wife), and a mortgage company ($67,666.26). A repossessed car resulted in a $7,321 debt to a bank.

The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant failed to disclose these delinquent debts on his security clearance application, establishing a pattern of dishonesty by not repaying debts as promised and by falsifying his application. Disqualifying conditions were raised under both personal conduct and financial considerations guidelines.

Despite filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection on the day of his hearing, the applicant did not mitigate the financial or personal conduct concerns. The denial was based on his long-standing pattern of incurring and failing to resolve 20 delinquent debts, his failure to disclose these obligations on his application, and his lack of proactive debt management, evidenced by the timing of his bankruptcy filing.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant incurred 20 delinquent debts over several years without repayment or resolution.
He failed to disclose these debts on his security clearance application.
Applicant filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection on the hearing day, indicating a lack of proactive debt management.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1appliedDC 1: A History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations.
E2.A6.1.2.3appliedDC 3: Inability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts.
E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDC 2: the Deliberate Omission, Concealment, Falsification or Misrepresentation of Relevant and Material Facts.
E2.A5.1.2.5appliedDC 5: A Pattern of Dishonesty.

Key Rule Quoted

“[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 21, 2003
Answer filedNov 12, 2003
Hearing heldApr 6, 2004Hearing rescheduled from 02/19/2004.
Decision dateSep 3, 2004

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Pattern of Dishonesty Affecting Security Clearance Eligibility

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 failed to disclose delinquent debts on his security clearance application and established a pattern of dishonesty regarding his financial obligations. The applicant's conduct was deemed to raise security concerns under Guideline E, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant failed to disclose his delinquent debts on his security clearance application.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.b	Applicant established a pattern of dishonesty by not repaying his debts as he said he would and by falsifying his security clearance application.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule ViolationsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Admitted	(e) personal conduct or concealment creating vulnerability to exploitation	—	—

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 applicant incurred 20 delinquent debts over several years and failed to repay or resolve them. He did not disclose these debts on his security clearance application and filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection on the day of the hearing. The judge found that the applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns, resulting in a denial of his clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	credit union Loan, $2,228 judgment $2,228	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	same credit union Loan, judgment	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	attorney's fees Judgment $966 $966	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	investment company rent owed, $8,880 judgment $8,880	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	medical diagnostic company debt $249 $249	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	same $107 $107	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	grocery store $292 $292	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	gas company $212 $212	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	bank credit card $4,932 $4,932	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	department store debt $304 $304	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	jewelry store $1,713 $1,713	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	same credit union $3,000 $3,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.m	consumer electronics store $4,003 $4,003	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.n	U.S. Dept. of Education Loan, $1,020 $1,020	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.o	same Loan, $730 $730	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.p	same Loan, $2,373 $2,373	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.q	hospital bill $4,611 for ill wife $4,611	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.r	bank $7,321, repossessed car $7,321	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.s	bank $8,270 $8,270	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.t	mortgage company $67,666.26 $67,666	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct

DIGEST: Applicant incurred 20 delinquent debts over several years. He did not repay or otherwise resolve these debts. He failed to disclose his delinquent debts on his security clearance application, and told the government investigator he allowed his debts to become delinquent and did not tell his creditors of his new address each time he moved. He filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection on the hearing day. Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concern or the personal conduct security concern. Clearance is denied.

CASENO: 02-17869.h1

DATE: 09/03/2004

DATE: September 3, 2004

In re:

------------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-17869

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

PHILIP S. HOWE

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS

Applicant incurred 20 delinquent debts over several years. He did not repay or otherwise resolve these debts. He failed to disclose his delinquent debts on his security clearance application, and told the government investigator he allowed his debts to become delinquent and did not tell his creditors of his new address each time he moved. He filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection on the hearing day. Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concern or the personal conduct security concern. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On October 21, 2003, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant. The SOR detailed reasons under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant, and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.

In a signed and sworn statement, dated November 12, 2003, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations. He requested a hearing. This case was assigned to me January 27, 2004. A Notice of Hearing was issued February 3, 2004, setting the hearing for February 19, 2004. Applicant requested a continuance because he had just hired an attorney who needed to prepare for the hearing. I granted the continuance, and the second notice of hearing issued on March 12, 2004, setting the hearing date for April 6, 2004. On that date, I convened the hearing to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant's security clearance. The Government presented five exhibits which were admitted into evidence. Applicant submitted four exhibits at the hearing, and submitted another four exhibits after the hearing. I received the transcript on April 14, 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted all the SOR allegations. Those admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same, I make the following additional findings of fact:

Applicant is a 49-year-old military retiree. He works as a computer technician for a defense contractor. He is married to his second wife, by whom he has two children. Applicant also has a child by his first wife, and supports his second wife's two children from her first marriage. His first marriage started in 1981 and ended in divorce in 2000. (Tr. 15, 16, 41: Exhibits 1 at 1 and 3, 2 at 2, and E)

Applicant incurred a number of debts during the course of his first marriage, and particularly since 1995. He allowed some of those debts to become delinquent, while paying other debts. In his sworn statement to an investigator in December 2001, he admitted allowing debts to become delinquent, and not notifying his creditors when he moved. Applicant also stated that he was going to contact his creditors and resolve these debts. His testimony at the hearing revealed he did not make those contacts, but waited for bills to be sent to him. His personal financial statement submitted in 2001 showed a net remainder monthly of $1869 because he was not paying his debts. Instead, Applicant spent his income on purchases for himself and his family. (Exhibit 2 at 5 to 8; Tr. 47, 52 to 54, 62 to 68)

Applicant's debts and their disposition as shown by Exhibit C, the record, and her Answer, are as follows:

SOR NATURE OF CURRENT STATUS ALLEGATION DEBT AND CURRENT AMOUNT 1.a. credit union Loan, $2,228 Wages garnished; Tr. 21, 45, 47, 48, Exhibit A, Answer; Assigned to Applicant judgment by divorce decree Exhibit E at 17. Admits he owes at least $517. 1.b. same credit Loan, judgment Tr. 24, 45, 47, 48, Answer, still owed, no documentation to show paid. union 1.c. attorney's Judgment $966 Tr. 25, Answer, still owed, no documentation to show paid. fees 1.d. investment rent owed, $8,880 Tr. 26, 50, still owed, included in Chapter 13 bankruptcy Exhibit D at 11 to 14, company judgment Answer 1.e. medical $249 Tr. 27, Answer, still owed. diagnostic company debt 1.f. same $107 Tr. 28, Answer, thought his medical insurance would pay. Still owed. 1.g. grocery $292 Tr. 28, Answer, denies knowledge and obligation, still owed. store 1.h. gas $212 Tr. 28 to 29, Answer, says paid but no documentation. company 1.i. bank credit $4,932 Tr. 29, Answer, thinks is part of ¶1.rof SOR, repossessed car, included in card bankruptcy as credit card debt, Exhibit D at 11 to 14. 1.j. department $304 Tr. 29, 30, Answer, says not know about it, but included in bankruptcy at store debt Exhibit D at 11 to 14. 1.k. jewelry $1,713 Tr. 30, 45, 47, 50 to 52, 57, Answer, wedding rings for first marriage, says was store paying, assigned by divorce decree (Exhibit E at 17), included in bankruptcy, Exhibit D at 11 to 14 1.l. same credit $3,000 Tr. 24, 25, Answer, Applicant thinks part of ¶1.a. and 1.b., still owes. union 1.m. consumer $4,003 Tr. 30, 31, Answer, Applicant thinks this computer purchase was paid for by electronics store time of divorce. Still owes. 1.n. U.S. Dept. Loan, $1,020 Tr. 31, 32, Answer, Applicant thought it was only $400, making payroll of Education deductions for at least 6 months, included in bankruptcy Exhibit D at 11 to 14. 1.o. same Loan, $730 Tr. 32, Answer, Applicant still owes and included in bankruptcy. 1.p. same Loan, $2,373 Tr. 32, 33, Answer, same result 1.q. hospital bill $4,611 for ill wife Tr. 33, 34, Answer, Applicant thought his insurance paid for it, he never received any bills for it. Still owes. 1.r. bank $7,321, repossessed Tr. 34, Answer, car assigned to wife in divorce free and clear (Exhibit E at 14), car included in bankruptcy (Exhibit D at 11). 1.s. bank $8,270 Answer, Applicant did not testify about this debt, included in bankruptcy (Exhibit D at 11 to 14. 1.t. mortgage $67,666.26 Tr. 34, 35, 44, Answer, Applicant allowed home to go into foreclosure by not company paying mortgage because he lived with his new wife, and renters were not paying regularly Exhibit G. Included in bankruptcy.

Applicant filed his Chapter 13 bankruptcy at 11:19 a.m. on the morning of the hearing. Applicant had his investigative interview in December 2001, stated he would pay his debts, but took no action to do so. Applicant's bankruptcy includes other debts than those listed on the SOR, but only nine SOR debts are listed on the bankruptcy Schedule F. When he received the notice of hearing, he requested a continuance, received it, but did nothing to repay his debts until the morning of the hearing. Applicant has a 48 month Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan to pay 50% of his debts and makes monthly payments of $544 to the trustee. Applicant asked at the hearing for a chance to pay his debts that total nearly $100,000 in the SOR, but only $49,956 in the bankruptcy. Applicant takes the position he was not aware of many of his debts until December 2001 when he read the credit report shown him by the investigator. By November 2002, Applicant had four judgments against him. (Tr. 18, 37 to 40, 47, 82; Exhibits 2 at 5 to 9, D, F)

Applicant answered with denials security clearance application (SCA) Questions 38 (delinquent debts over 180 days in the past seven years) and 39 (delinquent debts over 90 days), while actually having several debts exceeding those time standards, including subparagraphs 1.a. 1.j. to 1.q. and 1.s. and 1.t. (Exhibit 1 at 7 to 8; Exhibit 2 at 5 and 6; Tr. 18, 36, 56, 64 to 68)

POLICIES

"[N]o 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 occupy a position . . . that will give that person access to such information." Id. at 527. The President has restricted eligibility for access to classified information to United States citizens "whose personal and professional history affirmatively indicates loyalty to the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability, discretion, and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for coercion, and willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and protection of classified information." Exec. Or. 12968, Access to Classified Information § 3.1(b) (Aug. 4, 1995). Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the security guidelines contained in the Directive.

The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept. All available, reliable information about the person, past and present, is to be taken into account in reaching a decision as to whether a person is an acceptable security risk. Enclosure 2 to the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines that must be carefully considered according to the pertinent Guideline in making the overall common sense determination required.

Each adjudicative decision must also include an assessment of: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, and the extent of knowledgeable participation; (3) how recent and frequent the behavior was; (4) the individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent 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 (See Directive, Section E2.2.1. of Enclosure 2). Because each security case presents its own unique facts and circumstances, it should not be assumed that the factors exhaust the realm of human experience or that the factors apply equally in every case. Moreover, although adverse information concerning a single condition may not be sufficient for an unfavorable determination, the individual may be disqualified if available information reflects a recent or recurring pattern of questionable judgment, irresponsibility, or other behavior specified in the Guidelines.

The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant. See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. It is merely an indication that 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 disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The Directive presumes a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the disqualifying conditions listed in the guidelines and an applicant's security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996). All that is required is proof of facts and circumstances that indicate an applicant is at risk for mishandling classified information, or that an applicant does not demonstrate the high degree of judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness required of persons handling classified information. ISCR Case No. 00-0277, 2001 DOHA LEXIS 335 at **6-8 (App. Bd. 2001). Once the Government has established a prima facie case by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant "has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance. ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. 2002). "Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security." Directive ¶ E2.2.2. " [S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. See Exec. Or. 12968 § 3.1(b).

Based upon a consideration of the evidence as a whole, I find the following adjudicative guidelines most pertinent to an evaluation of the facts of this case:

Guideline F: Financial Considerations

(A) The Concern: An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Unexplained affluence is often linked to proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.

(B) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

(1) A history of not meeting financial obligations. E2.A6.1.2.1.

(3) Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. E2.A6.1.2.3.

Guideline E - Personal Conduct:

(A) The Concern: Conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information. The following will normally result in an unfavorable clearance action or administrative termination of further processing for clearance eligibility:

Refusal to provide full, frank and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security officials or other official representatives in connection with a personal security or trustworthiness determination.

(B) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying also include:

(2) The deliberate omission, concealment, falsification or misrepresentation of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; E2.A5.1.2.2.

(5) A pattern of dishonesty. E2.A5.1.2.5.

None

Under Executive Order 10865, as amended, and the Directive, a decision to grant or continue an applicant's clearance may be made only upon an affirmative finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest.

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate legal precepts, factors, and conditions above, I conclude the following with respect to each allegation set forth in the SOR:

Considering Guideline F (Financial Considerations), I conclude Disqualifying Conditions (DC) 1 (history of not meeting financial obligations) and DC 3 (an inability to satisfy debts) apply here. Applicant has not paid his debts for several years, at least the delinquent debts listed in the SOR. The bankruptcy filing shows other debts Applicant seeks to pay under the Chapter 13 plan. Applicant also professes ignorance of many debts, and provided varying testimony about his repayment efforts on the credit union, jewelry store, and mortgage debt, to list but three such debts. Applicant moved twice and never contacted his creditors, testifies he never got bills that he could pay or use to contact these creditors after the December 2001 investigative interview, provided no documentation concerning debts he asserts were paid, and did nothing about satisfying these debts even after the SOR was sent to him in October 2003. Applicant incurred large debts, kept buying "nice stuff to have and stuff for the family" (as he admits), and rarely paid off any debt.

There are no Mitigating Conditions (MC) applicable here. Applicant never made a good-faith effort to repay these debts. Garnishment and judgments were used by some of his creditors to obtain payment. Applicant at the last hour before the hearing filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy on only part of the debts listed in the SOR. I conclude that Applicant has not mitigated the Financial Considerations security concerns, and hold against Applicant under Guideline F.

With respect to Guideline E, I conclude the Government proved its case. Applicant did not reveal all of his outstanding debts. Applicant knew these debts were delinquent, he should have disclosed them on the security clearance application, but failed to do so. DC 2 (the deliberate omission or concealment of relevant and material facts from any personal security questionnaire) applies. Also, DC 5 (a pattern of dishonesty) applies because Applicant established such a pattern because he has not repaid his debts as he said he would do, and by falsifying his SCA.

There are no MC to apply here under these facts. I find Applicant deliberately failed to disclose the totality of his debts, or even that he had any that were delinquent. Applicant may not have known about the judgments by February 22, 2001, when he completed his SCA, but he knew about the garnishments for the credit union that were made because he was so late on paying bills. He also knew he had not paid his mortgage regularly for whatever reason. He knew he borrowed money or used credit cards, and owed that money even if the creditors could not find him because he moved and did not notify them of his new address. Furthermore, Applicant admitted he allowed his debts to become delinquent and that is why his personal financial statement in 2001 showed a net remainder of $1869 monthly. Therefore, I conclude Guideline E against the Applicant.FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal Findings as required by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are hereby rendered as follows: 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

Paragraph 2 Guideline E: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 2.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 2.b.: Against Applicant

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances and facts presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.

Philip S. Howe

Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Pamela C. Benson, Esq., Department Counsel Lynette Andresen, Esq., Department Counsel