KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: This 28-year-old software engineer has a history of financial problems that remain current,
with close to $29,000 in delinquent debts.  There has been minimal repayment of her debts, with only
two small debts being paid off.  Mitigation has not yet been adequately established.  Clearance is
denied. 
CASENO: 06-12993.h1
DATE: 02/09/2007
DATE: February 9, 2007
In Re:
------------------------
SSN: -----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-12993
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
BARRY M SAX
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Rita C. O’Brien, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
This 28-year-old software engineer has a history of financial problems that remain
current, with close to $29,000 in delinquent debts.  There has been minimal repayment of her
2
debts, with only two small debts being paid off.  Mitigation has not yet been adequately
established.  Clearance is denied. 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 29, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2,
1992, as amended, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant.  The SOR detailed reasons
why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding required under the Directive that it
is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant.  The SOR recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to conduct proceedings and
determine whether a clearance should be granted, denied or revoked.
On December 11, 2006, Applicant responded to the allegations set forth in the SOR, and
elected to have a decision made by a DOHA Administrative Judge on the written record, i.e., without
a hearing.  Department Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on December 20, 2006.
The Form instructed Applicant that any response to the FORM had to be submitted within 30 days
of its receipt by Applicant.  Applicant received the FORM on December 7, 2006.  Any response was
due by January 6, 2006.  Applicant timely submitted additional information.  The matter was
assigned to me for resolution on December 20, 2006. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is a 28-year-old software engineer for a defense contractor.  Her SOR contains
eight (8) allegations under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).  In her responses to the SOR
(Item 3) and Interrogatories (Item 5), Applicant admits allegations 1`.a. - 1.d., and 1.f., and denies
allegations 1.e, 1.g., and 1.h.  The admitted allegations are accepted and incorporated herein as
Findings of Fact.  
After considering the totality of the evidence derived from the FORM and its attachments,
including Applicant’s response to the SOR, I make the following additional FINDINGS OF FACT
as to the status, past and present, of each SOR allegation:
Guideline J (Financial Considerations) 
As established by Government Exhibits/Items in the FORM, Applicant owed following
delinquent debts in the approximate amounts shown to the cited creditors:
1.a. –Bank A - $2,451.00 (charged off);
1.b. - Bank B - $1,226.00 (charged off);
3
1.c. - Bank C - $1,594.00 (charged off);
1.d. - Collection Agency D - $6,769.00;
1.e. - Dentist E - $2,382.00;
1.f. - Collection Agency F - $6,472.00;
1.g. - Medical Firm G - $300.00.  This debt was paid off in July 2005 (Item 3).
1.h. - Company H - $689.00.  This debt was paid off in July2006 (Item 3).
The remaining delinquent debts (1.a. - 1.f.) total about $20,894.00 
POLICIES
Each adjudicative decision must also include an assessment of nine generic factors relevant
in all cases: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding
the conduct, to include knowing participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (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 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 (Directive, E.2.2.1., on page 16 of Enclosure 2).  I have considered all
nine factors, individually and collectively, in reaching my overall conclusion.
Because each security case presents its own facts and circumstances, it should not be assumed
the factors cited above exhaust the realm of human experience or that the factors apply equally in
every case. Moreover, although adverse information concerning a single criterion may not be
sufficient for an unfavorable determination, the individual may be disqualified if available
information reflects a recent or recurring pattern of questionable financial judgment and conduct.
Because Applicant chose to have this matter decided without a hearing and without submitting any
additional information in response to the FORM, all credibility determinations and findings of fact
are necessarily based entirely on the contents of the FORM and applicant’s response thereto.
The eligibility criteria established by Executive Order 10865 and DoD Directive 5220.6
identify personal characteristics and conduct that are reasonably related to the ultimate question of
whether it is “clearly consistent with the national interest” for an individual to hold a security
clearance.  In reaching the fair and impartial overall common sense determination based on the
“whole person” concept required by the Directive, the Administrative Judge is not permitted to
speculate, but can only draw those inferences and conclusions that have a reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  In addition, as the trier of fact, the Administrative Judge must make
critical judgments as to the credibility of witnesses, here based solely on the written record. 
In the defense industry, the security of classified information is entrusted to civilian workers
who must be counted on to safeguard classified information and material twenty-four hours a day.
The Government is therefore appropriately concerned where available information indicates that an
4
applicant for a security clearance, in his or her private life or connected to work, may be involved
in conduct that demonstrates poor judgment, untrustworthiness, or unreliability.  These concerns
include consideration of the potential, as well as the actual, risk that an applicant may deliberately
or inadvertently fail to properly safeguard classified information
An applicant’s admission of the information in specific allegations relieves the Government
of having to prove those allegations.  If specific allegations and/or information are denied or
otherwise controverted by the applicant, the Government has the initial burden of proving those
controverted facts alleged in the Statement of Reasons.  If the Government meets its burden (either
by the Applicant’s admissions or by other evidence) and proves conduct that creates security
concerns under the Directive, the burden of persuasion then shifts to the Applicant to present
evidence in refutation, extenuation or mitigation sufficient to demonstrate that, despite the existence
of conduct that falls within specific criteria in the Directive, it is nevertheless consistent with the
interests of national security to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant.  I find that
the financial issues in question do raise security concerns under Directive Guideline F.  
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the
Government based upon trust and confidence.  As required by DoD Directive 5220.6, as amended,
at E2.2.2., “any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with the
interests of national security will be resolved in ``favor of the nation’s security.”
CONCLUSIONS
Since this matter is being decided without a hearing, my evaluation is necessarily limited to
the contents of the various documents that are found in the case file, including Applicant’s responses
to the SOR and FORM.  In attachments to his response to the SOR, Applicant established that he
had paid off the debts cited in 1.f and 1.g.  However, he had not documented the paying off or other
resolution of the remaining delinquent debts cited in the SOR, and totaling about $20,894.  In her
response to the FORM, she explains the circumstances behind her problems and adds that she is
“making an effort to pay off my accounts.”  To date, however, she has not documented either
payments or any other efforts at resolving the debts.
The overall record shows a history of delinquent debts, most of which have not yet been
resolved despite the passage of significant time since the beginning of the present security clearance
investigation and adjudication.  Applicant’s statement that three of her debts had been written off
(Item 5) may or may not have been meant as a denial of responsibility, but it at least suggests a lack
of understanding of the effect of such thinking and/or conduct on her eligibility to hold a security
clearance.
The Concern: An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage
in illegal acts to generate funds. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: 1. A history
of not meeting financial obligations; and 3. Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: None that are established by the
record; e.g., 1. The behavior is still recent; 2. It was not an isolated incident; 3. There is no showing
5
that the conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person's control (e.g., loss
of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or
separation); There is no evidence that Applicant has received or is receiving counseling for the
problem and there are no clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and
6. Applicant’s efforts at resolving her delinquent debts is, in context, minimal, and does not yet show
that she has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
Likewise, under the Directive’s whole person concept, I come to the same conclusion.  In
summary, the Governments evidence makes a prima facie case against Applicant, and Applicant’s
evidence does not come anywhere near meeting her obligation to refute the overwhelming negative
evidence.  The evidence compels the conclusion that Applicant currently lacks the judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness required of anyone seeking access to the nation’s secrets.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings as required by Section 3, Paragraph 7 of Enclosure 1 of the Directive are
hereby rendered as follows:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) Against the Applicant
Subparagraph  l.a.           Against the Applicant
                Subparagraph 1.b.               Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.          Against the Applicant
                Subparagraph 1.d.               Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.           Against the Applicant
                Subparagraph 1.f.               For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g.           For the Applicant
                
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances 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.
BARRY M. SAX
Administrative Judge
6