DATE:  October 15, 2007
In Re:
---------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-21472
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
ROBERT J. TUIDER
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
John B. Glendon, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has a history of indebtedness following a period of time when she was a single
mother, which was further exacerbated by loss of work following severe work-related injuries and
other non-reimbursed medical problems. She has returned to work, and paid, made payment
arrangements, or made a good-faith effort to pay the nine debts listed in the Statement of Reasons.
Applicant presented sufficient information to explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concern.
Clearance is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
G o v e rn m e n t  E x h ib i t  ( G E )  1 ( S ta n d a rd  F o rm  ( S F )  8 6 ,  S e c ur i ty  C le a ra n ce  A p p l ic a t io n )  w a s1
s ig n e d  b y  A p p l ic an t  o n  D e ce m b er  5 ,  2 0 0 6 .  G E  2  i s  a n  e le c t ro n ic  v e rs io n  o f  he r  S F  8 6  d a te d  M a y 5 ,
2 0 0 5 .
O n  A u g .  3 0 ,  2 0 0 6 ,  th e  U n d e r  S e c r e ta r y  o f  D e fe n s e  ( I n te l l ig e n c e )  p u b l i s h e d  a  m e m o r a n d u m2
d i r e c t in g  a p p l ic a t io n  o f  r e v is e d  A d j u d i c a t iv e  G u id e l in e  to  a l l  a d j u d i c a t io n s  a n d  o t h e r  d e te r m in a t io n s
m a d e  un d e r  th e  D i re c t ive  a n d  D e p a r tm e n t  o f  D e fen se  (D o D )  R e g u la t io n  5 2 0 0 .2 -R ,  P e rso n n e l  S e c u r i ty
P r o g ra m  (R e gu la t io n ) ,  d a te d  J an .  1 9 8 7 ,  a s  a m e nd e d ,  in  w h ic h  th e  S O R  w as  is su e d  o n  o r  a f te r  S ep .  1 ,
2 0 0 6 .  T h e  r e v ise d  A d ju d ic a t iv e  G u id e l in e s  a re  ap p l ic a b le  to  A p p l ic a n t ’s  c a se .
G E  1 ,  su p ra  n .  1 . i s  th e  b a s i s  fo r  th e  fac t s  in  th i s  p a ra g ra p h ,  un le ss  o the rw ise  s ta ted .  3
2
On December 5, 2006, Applicant submitted a Security Clearance Application (SF 86).  On1
March 14, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to her, pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information
Within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended and modified, and Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive),
dated January 2, 1992, as amended, modified and revised.  2
The SOR alleges security concerns under Guidelines F (Financial Considerations). The SOR
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 her,
and recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be
granted, continued, denied, or revoked.
In an answer dated and notarized on April 2, 2007, Applicant responded to the SOR
allegations and requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me on June 14, 2007. On August 3,
2007, DOHA issued a notice of hearing scheduling the case to be heard on September 17, 2007. The
hearing was held as scheduled. On September 26, 2007, DOHA received the transcript (Tr.). I left
the record open until September 23, 2007 to afford the Applicant an opportunity to submit additional
material. She timely submitted additional material, which was marked and appended to the record.
FINDINGS OF FACT 
In her reply to the SOR, Applicant admitted all indebtedness. Her admissions are
incorporated herein as findings of fact. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence of
record, I make the following findings of fact.  
Applicant is 48 years old.  She graduated from high school in June 1977. Tr. 26. She has3
been married to her third husband since November 1997. She was married to her first husband from
June 1979 to January 1982, and married to her second husband from July 1984 to April 1993.  Her
first two marriages ended by divorce. She has a 21-year-old daughter, who was born during her
second marriage. Applicant has been employed by a defense contractor as a field manager since
April 2005. Tr. 26. She has successfully held security clearances intermittently since 1981 and has
held her current interim secret security clearance since 2005. 
3
Applicant has a history of financial problems. The SOR lists nine unpaid debts ranging from
$46 to $12,496, exceeding $23,000. Two of the largest debts are for automobile loans in which
Applicant fell behind during periods of time she and/or her husband were out of work due to injuries.
Of those nine debts, Applicant paid off six debts, made payment arrangements on two debts, and is
making a good faith attempt to resolve the remaining one debt.
Applicant attributes her financial difficulties to being a single mother following her
separation and divorce from her second husband, her husband’s two severe work-related accidents,
her one severe worked-related accident, and four operations which either interrupted her ability to
work and/or for which there were uncovered medical expenses. In total, her husband was out of work
for seven years recovering from his accidents and she was out of work for two-and-one-half years
recovering from her accident. With Applicant and her husband now working full-time, they have
restored their income stream and are able to remain current. They also received settlements from
their accidents, which they have used to pay off debts that arose while they were unable to work.
Applicant submitted a post-hearing budget that reflects a joint net remainder of
approximately $1,300. Her hearing and post-hearing materials reflect an earnest effort to document
good-faith attempts to achieve financial stability. She recognizes the importance of overcoming her
indebtedness and the adverse impact non-payment of debts may have on her clearance. She consulted
with a financial counselor and determined it would be more cost effective and efficient for her to
deal with her creditors directly. Applicant’s supervisor as well as a co-worker testified on her behalf.
Applicant also submitted eight letters of reference. AE A through H. Her witnesses and reference
letters strongly support the notion Applicant is a trusted and valuable employee who is making a
significant contribution to the national defense.
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”
(Guideline[s]), which sets forth adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations
for each guideline, the adjudicative 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 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.
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)
 “S ub s ta n t ia l  e v id e nc e  [ i s ]  s u c h  re le va n t  e v id e nc e  a s  a  r e aso n a b le  m in d  m ig h t  a c ce p t4
a s  a d eq ua te  to  su p p o r t  a  c o n c lu s io n  in  l ig h t  o f a l l  th e  c o n t r a ry  e v id en c e  in  th e  r e c o rd .”   IS C R
C a se  N o .  0 4 -1 1 4 6 3  a t  2  (A p p .  B d .  A u g .  4 ,  2 0 0 6 )  (c i t in g  D i re c t ive  ¶  E 3 .1 .3 2 .1 ) .  “T h is  i s
s o m e th in g  le s s  th a n  th e  w e ig h t  o f  th e  e v id e n c e ,  a n d  th e  p o s s ib i l i ty  o f  d r a w in g  tw o  in c o n s is te n t
c o n c lu s io n s  f ro m  th e  e v id e n c e  d o e s  n o t  p re v e n t  [ a  J u d g e ’s ]  f in d in g  f ro m  b e in g  su p p o r te d  b y
su b s ta n t i a l  e v id e n c e .”  C o n s o lo  v .  F e d e r a l  M a r i t im e  C o m m ’ n ,  3 8 3  U .S .  6 0 7 ,  6 2 0  ( 1 9 6 6 ) .
“S u b s ta n t ia l  e v id e n c e”  is  “m o re  th a n  a  sc in t i l la  b u t  l e ss  th a n  a  p re p o n d e r an c e .”  S e e  v .
W a sh in g to n  M e tro .  A re a  T ra n s i t  A u th . ,  3 6  F . 3 d  3 7 5 ,  3 8 0  ( 4  C i r .  1 9 9 4 ) .th
 “T h e  A d m inis t ra t ive  J u d g e  [c o n s id e rs ]  th e  r e c o rd  e v id e n c e  a s  a  w h o le ,  b o th  fa v o ra b le5
a n d  u n fa v o r a b l e ,  e v a lu a te [ s ]  A p p l ic a n t ’s  p a s t  a n d  c u r re n t  c i r c u m s t a n c e s  in  l ig h t  o f  p e r t in e n t
p ro v is io n s  o f  th e  D ire c t iv e ,  a nd  d e c id e [s ]  w he th e r  A p p l ic an t  ha [s ]  m e t  h is  b u rd e n  o f  p e r su a s io n
u n d e r  D i re c t ive  ¶  E 3 .1 .1 5 .”  IS C R  C a se  N o .  0 4 -1 0 3 4 0  a t  2  (A p p .  B d .  Ju ly  6 ,  2 0 0 6 ) .  
4
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
considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”
Guideline ¶ 2(b). In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable,
logical and based on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing
inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
In the decision-making process, the Government has the initial burden of establishing
controverted facts by “substantial evidence,”  demonstrating, in accordance with the Directive, that4
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 “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.” Directive ¶ E3.1.15.
The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No.
02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005).5
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 include, by necessity,
consideration of the possible risk 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.  Executive Order 10865, § 7. 
CONCLUSIONS
Revised Guidelines at 13-14 (setting forth the disqualifying and mitigating conditions).
6
DC 19(a) is “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.”
7
DC 19(c) is “a history of not meeting financial obligations.”
8
MC 20(d) “is the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
9
debts.”
MC 20(b) “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the persons control
10
(e.g., loss of employment,  . . . unexpected medical emergency, . . .a death, divorce or separation), and the individual
acted responsibly under the circumstances.”
5
Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate legal
precepts, factors, and conditions, including those described briefly above, I conclude the following
with respect to the allegations set forth in the SOR:
Under Guideline F for financial considerations,  a security concern typically exists due to6
significant unpaid debts.  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,
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. An individual who is financially
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal or unethical acts to general funds to meet
financial obligations. Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be
irresponsible, unconcerned, negligent, or careless in properly handling and safeguarding classified
information.
The record evidence supports a conclusion that Applicant has a history of financial problems.
Her history of financial problems is a security concern because it indicates inability or unwillingness
to satisfy debts  and a history of not meeting financial obligations  within the meaning of Guideline7 8
F. The record is more than sufficient to establish these two disqualifying conditions.
Applicant received credit in mitigation.  The most pertinent mitigating condition is the fourth
MC  of Guideline F, because Applicant has made a good-faith effort to repay or settle the nine debts9
listed in the SOR. Her good-faith effort is established by her actions. With the help of work-related
settlements, and she and her husband returning to full-time status, Applicant has the funds to pay off
her creditors. She also receives credit in mitigation under the second MC  as a result of she and her10
husband’s loss of work through injuries, she and her husband’s extensive medical problems, and her
being a single mother following her separation an divorce. 
And unlike many applicants in financial cases, Applicant verified her actions by providing
substantial documentary proof of payment or settlement of her debts.  Applicant has addressed her
financial problems, has cash left over, and is otherwise living within her means. Although she can be
faulted for taking too long to address her indebtedness, she has since taken action to minimize and
overcome concerns about her financial situation. Her history of successfully maintaining security
clearances without incident stemming back to 1981 and her positive employment record weigh
heavily in her favor in assessing her security eligibility under the “whole person” analysis.
S e e  IS C R  C a se  N o .  0 4 -0 6 2 4 2  a t  2  (A p p .  B d .  Ju n e  2 8 ,  2 0 0 6 ) .  11
6
Based on the record evidence as a whole, Applicant presented sufficient evidence to explain,
extenuate, or mitigate the financial considerations security concern.  Likewise, she has met her
ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision.
I take this position based on the law, as set forth in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.
518 (1988), my “careful consideration of the whole person factors”  and supporting evidence, my11
application of the pertinent factors under the Adjudicative Process, and my interpretation of my
responsibilities under the Guideline. Applicant has not mitigated or overcome the government’s case.
For the reasons stated, I conclude she is eligible for access to classified information.
FORMAL FINDINGS
SOR ¶ 1 - Guideline F: For Applicant
Subparagraphs a - i: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all 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 Applicant. Clearance is granted.
Robert J. Tuider
Administrative Judge