KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: The Applicant has owed over $15,000.00 in past due debts to three creditors since at
least 2004.  He does not have the ability to pay off or otherwise resolve these debts.  He is not
currently eligible for security clearance.  Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-22983.h1
DATE: 09/12/2007
DATE: September 12, 2007
In Re:
------------------------
SSN: ---------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-22983
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
WILFORD H. ROSS
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
The Applicant has owed over $15,000.00 in past due debts to three creditors since at least
2004.  He does not have the ability to pay off or otherwise resolve these debts.  He is not currently
eligible for security clearance.  Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 14, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865 (as amended) and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated
January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed 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.
The Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on January 16, 2007, and requested a hearing.
The case was assigned to another Administrative Judge on February 12, 2007.  Notices of Hearing
were issued on February 16 and March 1, 2007.  The case was reassigned to me on March 6, 2007.
A hearing was held on March 29, 2007, at which the Government presented five documentary
exhibits.  Testimony was taken from the Applicant, who also submitted nine exhibits.  The transcript
was received on April 13, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 60, single and has a high school education.  He is employed by a defense
contractor as a Security Officer, and he seeks to obtain a DoD security clearance in connection with
his employment in the defense sector.
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, based upon the
allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings of fact are entered
as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR.  They are based on the Applicant's Answer to the
SOR, the exhibits and the live testimony.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations).  The Government alleges in this paragraph that
the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is financially overextended and therefore at risk
of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.  The Applicant admitted subparagraphs 1.a.,
1.b., and 1.c. of the Statement of Reasons.  Those admissions are hereby deemed findings of fact.
The Applicant endured a long period of unemployment in 2003-2004.  The majority of his
past-due debts were accrued during that time.  In addition, the Applicant stated that he had been
taken advantage of by a con artist during that time.  The Applicant was trying to make headway in
3
a different field and was working with a person who manipulated the Applicant to continue to pay
bills using his credit cards.  (Transcript at 57-58, Applicant’s Exhibit D at 7.)  He has been working
for his current employer since 2004.  However, he has not been able to repay the vast majority of his
past-due debts since that time.
1.a.  The Applicant admits that he owes at least $8,820.00 on a delinquent credit card
account.  The Applicant has not made any payments on this account in several years.  He intends to
contact this creditor at some point in the future and make payment arrangements.  (Transcript at 41-
44, Government Exhibit 5 at 2.)
1.b.  The Applicant admits that he owes at least $1,264.00 on a second delinquent credit card
account.  The Applicant has not made any payments on this account in several years.  He intends to
contact this creditor at some point in the future and make payment arrangements.  (Transcript at 45-
46, Government Exhibit 5 at 2.)
1.c.  The Applicant admits that he owes at least $5,881.00 on a third delinquent credit card
account.  The Applicant was making payments on this debt in 2003, but has not made any payments
on this account in several years.  He intends to contact this creditor at some point in the future and
make payment arrangements.  (Transcript at 48-49, Government Exhibit 5 at 2.)
The Applicant stated that, as of the date of the hearing, he had been setting aside money to
pay his taxes.  Once his taxes are paid, he can begin again saving money to resolve the indebtedness
to the three creditors set forth above.  (Transcript at 47-48.)
1.d.  The Applicant testified that he had no knowledge of this alleged $53.00 past due debt
to a telephone company until receiving the SOR.  Once he received the SOR he paid this debt off.
(Transcript at 49-51.)  He presented copies of his wireless telephone bill for July 2006 (Applicant’s
Exhibit F) and his home telephone bill for November and December 2006 (Applicant’s Exhibit H).
None of these bills shows this particular past due amount.  This subparagraph is found for the
Applicant.
1.e.  The Applicant denied that he currently has $1,480.00 in money available every month
after he pays his regular debts.  That figure was based on his making overtime on a consistent basis,
something that as of the time of the hearing was not happening.  He stated that $400.00 to $500.00
a month in extra cash is a more likely figure over the past three years.  (Transcript at 51-54.)
However, the Applicant could not answer questions about how he used his extra money,
approximately $18,000.00 over the past three years, even using his own figures.  (Transcript at 67-
68.)
Mitigation.
The Applicant testified that he is very knowledgeable about security practices.  He further
testified that he assisted the Federal Government on an important potential espionage case in the
1990s.  (Transcript at 39-41, Applicant’s Exhibit B.)
4
The Applicant’s work supervisor submitted a letter on the Applicant’s behalf.  He states that
the Applicant is “reliable, trustworthy, and an asset to both myself, and the client.”  (Applicant’s
Exhibit B.)
The Applicant presented evidence showing that he had successfully paid off a past due debt,
not alleged in the SOR, in 2006.  He accepted a payment arrangement offered by a credit card
company and paid them $563.00 on a debt of approximately $2,500.00.  (Transcript at 62-63,
Government Exhibit 5.)
POLICIES
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  Accordingly, the Department of
Defense, in Enclosure 2 of the 1992 Directive, has set forth policy factors which must be given
"binding" consideration in making security clearance determinations.  These factors should be
followed in every case according to the pertinent guideline.  However, the factors are neither
automatically determinative of the decision in any case, nor can they supersede the Administrative
Judge's reliance on his own common sense, as well as his knowledge of the law, human nature and
the ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision.  Because each security clearance case presents
its own unique facts and circumstances, it cannot be assumed that these factors exhaust the realm
of human experience, or apply equally in every case.  Based on the Findings of Fact set forth above,
the factors most applicable to the evaluation of this case will be set forth under CONCLUSIONS,
below.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19, “In evaluating the
relevance of an individual’s conduct, the [Administrative Judge] should consider the following
factors [General Factors]:
(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 pertinent
behavior changes
(7) The motivation for the conduct
(8) The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress
(9) The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.”
5
The eligibility guidelines established in the DoD Directive identify personal characteristics
and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question of whether it is "clearly consistent
with the national interest" to grant an Applicant's request for access to classified information.
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to civilian
workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information twenty-four hours a day.
The Government is therefore appropriately concerned where available information indicates that an
Applicant for clearance may be involved in acts of financial irresponsibility that demonstrates poor
judgement, untrustworthiness or unreliability on the Applicant's part.
The DoD Directive states, "Each adjudication is to be an overall common sense
determination based upon consideration and assessment of all available information, both favorable
and unfavorable, with particular emphasis placed on the seriousness, recency, frequency, and
motivation for the individual's conduct; the extent to which conduct was negligent, willful,
voluntary, or undertaken with the knowledge of the circumstances or consequences involved; and,
to the extent that it can be estimated, the probability that conduct will or will not continue in the
future."  The Administrative Judge 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.  Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, "Any determination under this order...shall be
a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the
loyalty of the applicant concerned."
CONCLUSIONS
It is the Government's responsibility to present substantial evidence to support the finding
of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant's conduct and the granting of a security
clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then shifts to the Applicant to go forward
with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the
Government's case.  The Applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving by substantial evidence that
the Applicant has a history of being unable, or unwilling, to pay his debts in a timely fashion.  Such
evidence shows unreliability, untrustworthiness and poor judgment on the part of the Applicant.
The Applicant, on the other hand, has not introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal,
explanation or mitigation which is sufficient to overcome the Government's case against him, except
in part.  Under Paragraph 1 (Guideline F), as set forth above, subparagraph 1.d. is found for the
Applicant.
The Applicant’s financial difficulties are of a long-standing nature.  Even though they may
have originally been caused by the Applicant being out of work and making a poor business choice,
he has presented insufficient evidence that he will be able to resolve his debts any time in the
foreseeable future.  Rather, the Applicant asks the Government to trust him when he states that he
will pay his debts eventually.  
6
Under Guideline F, the following Disqualifying Conditions are applicable: 19(a) “Inability
or unwillingness to satisfy debts;” and 19(c) “A history of not meeting financial obligations.”  None
of the Mitigating Conditions apply.  The behavior is recent, he is not receiving counseling for the
problem and he has not initiated a good faith effort to repay the creditors or resolve the debts.  I have
considered the fact that the Applicant did have a period of unemployment during which many of the
debts were incurred.  However, the evidence does not show that the Applicant acted responsibly
under the circumstances during that period.
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has failed to overcome the Government's
information opposing his request for a security clearance.  Accordingly, the evidence supports a
finding against the Applicant as to the conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1of the
Government's Statement of Reasons. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as required by
Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1: Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.b.: Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.c.: Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.d.: For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.e.: Against 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 the Applicant.
Wilford H. Ross
Administrative Judge