KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant is a 43-year-old network administrator employed by a federal government
contractor.  He amassed about $12,792 in delinquent debts, many being charged off or placed for
collection between 2003 and 2005.  He provided no reasons for his financial problems, and no
evidence of resolving his indebtedness.  He failed to mitigate the security concerns about financial
considerations.  Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-23298.h1
DATE: 08/06/2007
DATE:  August 6, 2007
In re:
-------------------------     
SSN:  -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-23298
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CHRISTOPHER GRAHAM
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Ray T.  Blank, Jr., Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant is a 43-year-old network administrator employed by a federal government
contractor.  He amassed about $12,792 in delinquent debts, many being charged off or placed for
collection between 2003 and 2005.  He provided no reasons for his financial problems, and no
evidence of resolving his indebtedness.  He failed to mitigate the security concerns about financial
considerations.  Clearance is denied.
Item 4 (Security Clearance Application (SF 86), dated March 23, 2005).1
Id. at 1.2
Id. at 2.3
Id. at 5.4
Id. at 8.5
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On March 23, 2005, Applicant submitted a Security Clearance Application (SF 86).   The1
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a security clearance
for Applicant.  As required by Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within
Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6,
Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2,
1992, as amended, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on March 14, 2007, detailing the
basis for its decision – security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the
Directive.  The President issued revised adjudicative guidelines (Guidelines) on December 30, 2005.
DoD implemented them on September 1, 2006.  Pending official amendment/reissue of DoD
Directive 5220.6, the Guidelines are to be used in all cases when the SOR is dated on or after
September 1, 2006.  Because the SOR was issued after September 1, 2006, DoD policy requires that
this case proceed under the revised guidelines. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on April 5, 2007, and requested a decision without
a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted a file of relevant material (FORM) in support of the
government’s case, a copy of which was received by Applicant on May 4, 2007.  Applicant was
afforded the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or
mitigation by June 3, 2007.  He filed no response.  The case was assigned to me on July 19, 2007.
  
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the allegations contained in the SOR.  The 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 same, I make the following additional findings of fact: 
Applicant is a 43-year-old network administrator employed by a federal government
contractor.  He is married and has no children.   He has an associate degree and is continuing his2
work towards a bachelor’s degree.   He has no prior military service.   This is his first application3 4
for a security clearance.5
Applicant has a history of financial problems dating back several years, including a number
of accounts charged off or placed for collection between 2003 and 2005.  The delinquent debts listed
in the SOR totaled approximately $12,792.  In answers to interrogatories, he noted he had contacted
the listed creditors and made inquiries with them to resolve his debts.  He contacted a debt
consolidation counseling service, but as he did not receive responses from creditors, he was not able
Item 5 (Answers to Interrogatories, dated November 30, 2006) at 4-5.6
Item 2 (Applicant’s Answer, dated March 14, 2007) at 1-27
Item 7 (Credit Report, dated October 19, 2006) at 1-4; Item 8 (Credit Report, dated March 6, 2007) at 1-4; Item 5,8
supra, note 6, at 1-9.
Item 5, supra, note 6, at 6.9
Guidelines ¶ 2(c).10
4
to enter into a counseling program.  He indicated he received several responses from creditors, and
that he needed additional information from other creditors.   In his Answer, he stated he had started6
making payments on one account, and that he intended to pay his delinquent bills, but he was unable
to  to do so because he could not send payments until he was sure payments would be posted to the
proper accounts.   As of November 30, 2006, none of these debts were paid.   His monthly budget7 8
attached to his interrogatory answers showed a surplus of $473 per month, after all expenses.  9
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 and mitigating conditions, 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. Guidelines ¶ 2.  An administrative
judge’s over-arching 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.10
Specifically, an administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors
listed at Guidelines ¶ 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.”
Since the protection of the national security is the paramount consideration, the final decision
in each case is arrived at by applying the standard that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being
Guidelines ¶ 2(b).11
“Substantial evidence [is] such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might  accept as adequate to support a
12
conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the record.”  ISCR Case No. 04-11463 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2006)
(citing Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1).  “This is something less than the weight of the evidence, and the possibility of drawing
two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent [a Judge’s] finding from being supported by substantial
evidence.”  Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607, 620 (1966).  “Substantial evidence” is “more than a
scintilla but less than a preponderance.”  See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4  Cir. 1994).th
See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005).  The Administrative Judge [considers] the record evidence13  
as a whole, both favorable and unfavorable, evaluate[s] Applicant’s past and current circumstances in light of pertinent
provisions of the Directive, and decide[s] whether Applicant ha[s] met his burden of persuasion under Directive ¶
E3.1.15.”  ISCR Case No. 04-10340 at 2 (App. Bd. July 6, 2006). 
Executive Order 10865, § 7. 14
5
considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”   In11
reaching this decision, I have drawn conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on the record
evidence , and have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
In the decision-making process, facts must be established by “substantial evidence.”   The12
Government initially has the burden of producing evidence to establish a case which demonstrates,
in accordance with the Directive, that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
or continue an applicant’s access to classified information.  Once the government has produced
substantial evidence of a disqualifying condition, the burden shifts to Applicant to produce evidence
and prove a mitigating condition.  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.”  The burden of disproving a mitigating condition
never shifts to the government.13
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with
the government predicated upon trust and confidence.  It is a relationship that transcends normal duty
hours and endures throughout off-duty hours as well.  It is because of this special relationship the
government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in those individuals to
whom it grants access to classified information.  Decisions under this Directive and the guidelines
include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that an 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.  The scope of an administrative judge’s decision is limited.  Nothing in this
decision should be construed to suggest that I have based this decision, in whole or in part, on any
express or implied determination as to Applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism.  14
CONCLUSIONS
Guidelines ¶18.  The Concern. 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,
6
trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.  An individual who is financially
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.  Compulsive gambling
is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including espionage.  Affluence that cannot be
explained by known sources of income is also a security concern.  It may indicate proceeds from
financially profitable criminal acts
Guidelines ¶19.  Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.
Guidelines ¶ 20.  Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
(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;
(b) 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;
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts;
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which
is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute
or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue; and 
(f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income.
The government established its case under Guideline F.  Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) Guidelines ¶19 (a) (Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts)
and FC DC Guidelines ¶19 (c) (A history of not meeting financial obligations) are applicable.  The
available information demonstrates Applicant has a history of not meeting his financial obligations
from 2003 to the present.  He has been delinquent in payments on numerous accounts, had multiple
accounts charged off or placed for collection.  He provided no evidence that anything more than one
payment had been made.  The disqualifying conditions are applicable.
Various conditions can mitigate the security concerns arising from financial difficulties.
Applicant provided no evidence as to the cause or causes of his delinquent debts, nor a reason why
he has made no effort to resolve indebtedness.  There is no evidence of Applicant establishing a plan
for repayment.  He was given an opportunity to provide documentation of efforts to resolve his
financial difficulties.  He chose not to respond.  Absent sufficient evidence to prove a mitigating
Directive ¶ E.2.2.1.15
Id.16
Id.17
7
condition, I find none of the mitigating conditions are applicable, and I conclude Guideline F against
Applicant.
Whole Person Analysis
“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make
an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance.”   “Available,15
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be
considered in reaching a determination.”   In addition to the disqualifying and mitigating conditions,16
I also considered the “whole person” concept in evaluating Applicant’s risk and vulnerability in
protecting our national interests.   I considered his age (43), his employment, and what might cause17
him to be in continual financial distress.  He has had a  history of financial delinquencies, including
charge-offs and collections,  and he failed to present any evidence showing why he incurred
delinquent debts between 2030 and 2005 that remain unpaid.  The record contains insufficient
evidence to make a determination of why he is indebted and to find any mitigating condition
applicable.  The underlying reasons for his delinquent obligations can only be conjecture.  Therefore,
the totality of the record leads me to conclude that Applicant does not have the ability nor the
reliability to protect classified information, and cannot exercise the requisite good judgment and
discretion expected of one in whom the government entrusts its interests.  I conclude it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security clearance.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required
by 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
DECISION
8
In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.  Clearance is denied.
Christopher Graham
Administrative Judge