KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant is 42 years old and works for a federal contractor. Since 2004, he accumulated
a significant amount of debt that he has not paid or resolved. He did not mitigate the security
concerns raised by financial considerations. Clearance is denied. 
CASENO: 06-11520.h1
DATE: 08/30/2007
DATE:  August 30, 2007
In re:
-----------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-11520
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
SHARI DAM
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Julie R. Edmunds, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
       Applicant is 42 years old and works for a federal contractor. Since 2004, he accumulated a
significant amount of debt that he has not paid or resolved. He did not mitigate the security concerns
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
When unredacted this document contains information
EXEMPT FROM MANDATORY DISCLOSURE under the FOIA
Exemption 6 applies
2
raised by financial considerations. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 10, 2005, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-86). The
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a security clearance
for Applicant. As required by Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 ¶ E3.1.2 (Jan.2, 1992), as
amended, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant on March 30, 2007, detailing
the basis for its decision-security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of
the revised adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued on December 29, 2005, and implemented by the
Department of Defense effective September 1, 2006.
On April 24, 2007, Applicant filed his Answer and elected to have the case decided on the
written record in lieu of a hearing. On June 4, 2007, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant
Material (FORM), containing six Items, and mailed Applicant a complete copy on June 4, 2007.
Applicant had 30 days from receipt of the FORM to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant received the FORM on June 12, 2007, and chose not to file any
additional information. The case was assigned to me on August 15, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the entire record, including Applicant’s admissions in his Answer to the SOR, I
make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is a 42-year-old technician who works for a federal contractor. He began his
current position in August 2004. Prior to this job, he was unemployed for approximately one year.
In March 2005, he completed a SF-86. (Item 4). He subsequently received an interim security
clearance. (Item 3).
In March 2007, the Government filed a SOR, alleging that Applicant has four delinquent
debts which total $15,0858. In his Answer, Applicant admitted owing the debts and stated that he
was unable to resolve them previously because of a period of unemployment. Although he is now
employed and is current with his obligations, his salary is insufficient to repay the debts. (Item 3).
In his October 2006 statement, he acknowledged that because he was unable to pay the delinquent
debts, they were charged off by the creditors. He never negotiated a repayment plan for them. (Item
6). A budget that he submitted with the statement indicated that he was making monthly payments
on three different obligations, and had very little money left after paying all of his expenses. (Id. at
4). A March 2007 credit report confirms that his financial problems began in 2004. (Item 5). 
3
POLICIES
In an evaluation of an applicant’s security suitability, an administrative judge must consider
the “Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information”
(Guidelines). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the Guidelines are
divided into Disqualifying Conditions (DC) and Mitigating Conditions (MC), which are used to
determine an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These Guidelines are not inflexible ironclad rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge should apply these Guidelines in
conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. Guideline ¶ 2. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. Because the
entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person
concept,” an administrative judge should consider all available, reliable information about the
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. Guideline ¶ 2(c).
Specifically, an administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors
listed at Guideline ¶ 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 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.
Granting an applicant’s clearance for access to classified information is based on a high
degree of trust and confidence in the individual. Accordingly, decisions under the Directive must
include consideration of not only the actual risk of disclosure of classified information, but also
consideration of any possible risk an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently compromise
classified information. Any doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to classified
information must be resolved in favor of protecting classified information. Directive ¶ E2.2.2. The
decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a judgment about an applicant’s
loyalty. Exec. Or. 10865, § 7. Instead, it is a determination that an applicant has not met the strict
guidelines established by the Department of Defense 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. Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531
(1988). The Directive presumes a rational connection between past proven conduct under any
disqualifying conditions and an applicant's present security suitability. 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 present evidence in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation sufficient
to overcome the position of the Government. Directive ¶ E3.1.15 provides, “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, and [applicant] has the ultimate burden of
persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”
CONCLUSIONS
4
Upon consideration of all facts in evidence and after application of the appropriate
adjudicative factors and pertinent legal standards, I conclude the following with respect to the
allegations set forth in the SOR:
Guideline F: Financial Considerations
Guideline 18 articulates the Government’s concern regarding financial problems. “Failure
to live within one’s means 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 a risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.”
Based on the evidence, including Applicant’s admissions and credit report, the Government
raised a security concern under two Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions: Guideline
¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial
obligations). Since 2004, Applicant has a history of being unable to meet his financial obligations.
After the Government produced substantial evidence of those two disqualifications, the
burden shifted to Applicant to produce evidence of mitigation. Four Financial Considerations
Mitigating Conditions are potentially applicable under this Guideline. Because Applicant’s financial
troubles began in approximately 2004 and continue to the present, Guideline ¶ 20(a) (the behavior
happened so long ago, 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) is not applicable. Applicant’s financial problems arose as a result of a period of
unemployment, which triggers the application of Guideline ¶ 20(b) (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), and the individual
acted responsibly under the circumstances). However, Applicant did not produce any evidence
indicating that he took steps to manage his debts during his unemployment, which is necessary for
the full application of this mitigating condition.
Guideline ¶ 20 (c) (the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and
there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control) is not applicable.
Applicant has not participated in counseling for his financial difficulties or provided information that
the problems are resolved or under control. In addition, Applicant admitted that he has not taken
steps to resolve the debts, which is necessary for application of Guideline ¶ 20(d) (the individual
initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts).
“Whole Person” Analysis
In addition to the enumerated disqualifying and mitigating conditions, I considered the
general adjudicative guidelines related to the whole person concept under the Directive. Applicant
is 42 years old, sufficiently mature to be fully responsible for his obligations. His decision not to
address any of the delinquent debts (including a $41 telephone debt) when he learned in October
5
2006 of the Government’s concerns, demonstrates a lack of good judgment. While I recognize the
impact that a year-long period of unemployment could have on one’s financial status, his decision
to abandon his obligations without contacting his creditors, especially after he secured employment,
also exhibited a lack of reliability. Until he establishes a budget, documentinsa repayment plan, and
establishes a track record of consistent financial management, I am concerned that he will continue
having financial difficulties, despite assertions to the contrary.
After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions and the facts in the context of the
whole person, I conclude he has not mitigated the security concerns pertaining to financial
considerations. For the reasons stated, I conclude he is not eligible for access to classified
information 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 as follows:
Paragraph 1: Guideline F (Financial Considerations) AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances and evidence presented in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant a security clearance to Applicant. Clearance is denied.
Shari Dam
Administrative Judge