KEYWORD: Financial; Criminal Conduct
DIGEST: The Applicant has either paid, or is in the process of addressing, all of his admitted past
due debts.  He has sold his house; and as a result, has $100,000 in the bank to address the remaining
$10,000 of debt.  The Applicant has also made arrangements to have his financial status
professionally monitored.  His financial difficulties stemmed from conditions largely beyond his
control, an unexpected medical emergency and a resulting period of unemployment.  Under Criminal
Conduct, the Applicant pled no contest to Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) in 2004,
more than two years ago.  The Applicant has the unqualified support of those who know him, and
is a Reserve Deputy Sheriff.  Mitigation is shown.  Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 06-20281.h1
DATE: 04/12/2007
DATE: April 12, 2007
In Re:
------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-20281
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
RICHARD A. CEFOLA
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
The Applicant has either paid, or is in the process of addressing, all of his admitted past due
debts.  He has sold his house; and as a result, has $100,000 in the bank to address the remaining
$10,000 of debt.  The Applicant has also made arrangements to have his financial status
professionally monitored.  His financial difficulties stemmed from conditions largely beyond his
control, an unexpected medical emergency and a resulting period of unemployment.  Under Criminal
Conduct, the Applicant pled no contest to Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) in 2004,
more than two years ago.  The Applicant has the unqualified support of those who know him, and
is a Reserve Deputy Sheriff.  Mitigation is shown.  Clearance is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 11, 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, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed the reasons 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 the Applicant and
recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be denied
or revoked.
Applicant filed an Answer to the SOR on November 6, 2006.
The case was received by the undersigned on December 22, 2006.  A notice of hearing was
issued on January 19, 2007, and the case was heard on February 5, 2007.  The Government submitted
documentary evidence.  Testimony was taken from the Applicant, who also submitted documentary
evidence.  The transcript (TR) was received on February 13, 2007.  Pursuant to the Applicant’s
request, however, the record was left open until March 16, 2007.  The issues raised here are whether
the Applicant's past Financial Considerations and one incident of Criminal Conduct militate against
the granting of a security clearance.  [The Applicant admits the underlying factual basis for
subparagraphs 1.a., 1.f., 1.g., 1.i. and 2.a.]
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact are based on Applicant's Answer to the SOR, the documents
and the live testimony.  The Applicant is 47 years of age, and is employed by a defense contractor
who seeks a security clearance on behalf of the Applicant.  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.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
The Applicant’s financial difficulties stemmed from conditions largely beyond his control,
an unexpected medical emergency and a resulting period of unemployment, of “[f]ive and a half
months” (TR at page 28 lines 15~22, and at page 30 lines 16~24). He has since sold his house; and
as a result, has $100,000 in the bank to address the remaining $10,000 of debt (TR at page 48 line
3
20 to page 49 line 13).  The Applicant has also made arrangements to have his financial status
professionally monitored (TR at page 46 line 22 to page 47 line 18, and Applicant’s Exhibit (AppX)
A at page 9).
1.a., 1.g. and 1.k.  The Applicant has paid tax liens to his city/county government totaling
$157 (TR at page 35 line 6 to page 36 line 1, at page 41 line 25 to page 42 line 14, at page 44 lines
7~12, and AppX A at pages 3~8).
4
1.b.~1.e.  The Applicant is in the process of addressing student loans in an amount totaling
about $10,000 (TR at page 37 line 3 to page 41 line 2).  He is unable to get an exact accounting of
what he owes (Id).
1.f.  The Applicant disputes a debt to a communications provider in the amount of about $53
(TR at page 41 lines 3~20).  He will pay this debt once the provider demonstrates the debt is the
Applicant’s (Id).
1.h., 1.j., 1.m., 1.o., and 1.p.  The Applicant has paid his debts to various medical providers
totaling about $1,600 (TR at page 42 line 15 to page 43 line 1, at page 43 line 25 to page 44 line 6,
at page 45 lines 12~20, at page 46 lines 7~21, and Government Exhibit (GX) 2).
1.i. and 1.n.  The Applicant has “satisfied in full” a judgment to a bank for a credit card debt
in the amount of about $2,600 (TR at page 43 lines 13~24, at page 45 line 21 to page 46 line 6, and
AppX A at page 10).
1.l.  The Applicant disputes a debt to another communications provider in the amount of
about $121 (TR at page 44 line 13 to page 45 line 11).  He will pay this debt once the provider
demonstrates the debt is the Applicant’s (Id).
Guideline J - Criminal Conduct
2.a.  In September of 2004, the Applicant was arrested and subsequently pled no contest to
DUI (TR at page 31 line 14 to page 32 line 19, at page 49 line 14 to page 50 line 11, and AppX B
at page 1).  He describes what happened in the following colloquy:
Q[uestion]  You said you had a dispute with your wife and you wanted to leave the
scene and you brought a bottle with you.  Did you consume the alcohol in the
driveway and just passed out in your car?
A[nswer]  No, I actually went up the street to a cul de sac that looks over my house
and the valley.  It was 10:00 o’clock at night.  I shut off my car, parked the vehicle
and had a couple of drinks.  I pulled the seat back and went to sleep.
Q[uestion]  So, you never actually drove your car while you were drunk?
A[nswer]  Absolutely not, but it’s still against the law (TR at page 49 line17 to page
50 line 7).
As part of his sentence, the Applicant was placed on summary probation for five years (TR
at page 31 line 14 to page 32 line 19, at page 49 line 14 to page 50 line 11, and AppX B at page 1).
5
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the 1992 Directive set forth both policy factors, and
conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern.  Furthermore, as set forth in the Directive,
each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon
consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication
policy in enclosure 2, including as appropriate:
a. Nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct, and surrounding
circumstances.
b. Frequency and recency of the conduct.
 c. Age and maturity of the applicant.
d. Motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct
was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of
the consequence involved.
e. Absence or presence of rehabilitation.
f. Probability that circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in
the future.
The Administrative Judge, however, can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have
a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or
conclusions based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.
The Government must make out a case under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct), which establishes doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and
trustworthiness.  While a rational connection, or nexus, must be shown between an applicant's
adverse conduct and his ability to effectively safeguard classified information, with respect to
sufficiency of proof of a rational connection, objective or direct evidence is not required.
Then, the Applicant must remove that doubt with substantial evidence in refutation,
explanation, mitigation or extenuation, which demonstrates that the past adverse conduct is unlikely
to be repeated, and that the Applicant presently qualifies for a security clearance.
An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts
to generate funds.  The Government must be able to place a high degree of confidence in a security
clearance holder to abide by all security rules and regulations at all times and in all places.
6
CONCLUSIONS
The Applicant has a “history of not meeting [his] financial obligations,” and an “[i]nability
. . . to satisfy debts.”  These are the first and third disqualifying conditions under Financial
Considerations.  His financial difficulties, however, were caused by circumstances “largely beyond
the . . . [Applicant’s] control (e.g. loss of employment . . . medical emergency . . .),” the second
mitigating condition.  The fourth mitigating condition is also applicable as the Applicant has
“initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve [his] debts.”  He now
has $100,000 in the bank to address any future financial claims
As to his past Criminal Conduct, the first disqualifying condition is applicable, as there is
arguably “a single serious crime.”  The fourth disqualifying condition is also applicable, as the
Applicant “is currently on . . . probation.”  These are countered, however, by the first mitigating
condition, as “so much time has elapsed [more than two years] since the criminal behavior happened,
or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt
on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.”
Furthermore, I am not limited to the mitigating conditions, delineated in the Directive, in
deciding if an Applicant has demonstrated extenuation or mitigation.  Here, the Applicant is a
Reserve Deputy Sheriff with an unrestricted driver’s license (AppX B at pages 1~2).  Those who
know the Applicant, in law enforcement, at the workplace, and in the community, speak most highly
of his character, credibility and trustworthiness (AppX C).  The totality of the Appellant’s conduct
and circumstances, as set forth at length above, clearly warrants a favorable Decision under the
“whole person concept.”  Mitigation is shown; and as such, Guidelines F and J are found for the
Applicant.
Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has rebutted the Government's case regarding his
past financial difficulties, and his isolated Criminal Conduct.  The Applicant has thus met the
mitigating conditions of Guidelines F and J, and of Section E.2.2. of the Directive.  Accordingly, he
has met his ultimate burden of persuasion under Guidelines F and J.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings required by paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: FOR THE APPLICANT
a. For the Applicant.
b. For the Applicant.
c. For the Applicant.
d. For the Applicant.
e. For the Applicant.
f. For the Applicant.
g. For the Applicant.
h. For the Applicant.
i. For the Applicant.
7
j. For the Applicant.
k. For the Applicant.
l. For the Applicant.
m. For the Applicant.
n. For the Applicant.
o. For the Applicant.
p. For the Applicant.
Paragraph 2: FOR THE APPLICANT
a. For the Applicant.
Factual support and reasons for the foregoing are set forth in FINDINGS OF FACT and
CONCLUSIONS, supra.
DECISION
In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge