DATE:  October 15, 2007
In re:
-------------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-01935
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
SHARI DAM
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Candace L. Le’i, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is 30 years old and employed by a federal contractor. He accumulated a number
of debts over the past eight or nine years that he has not resolved or paid. Some of the debts are owed
to the court for numerous traffic citations and a minor criminal offense. He failed to mitigate the
security concerns raised by financial considerations and criminal conduct. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The individual Items are marked as Government Exhits (GX).1
2
On July 20, 2006, Applicant electronically submitted a security clearance application (SCA).
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 (Jan. 2, 1992), as
amended, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on May 25, 2007, detailing the basis for its
decision-security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J
(Criminal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines (Guidelines) issued on December 29, 2005, and
implemented by the Department of Defense effective September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on June 25, 2007, and elected to have his case
decided on the written record. On July 17, 2007, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant
Material (FORM), containing seven Items, and mailed it to Applicant.  He received it on July 30,1
2007, and had 30 days to file additional materials, which he declined to do. On September 14, 2007,
the case was assigned to me.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the entire record, including Applicant’s admissions in his answer to all of the
allegations in the SOR, I make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is 30 years old. He is single and has three children whom he supports along with
his fiancé. In April 2006, he began his current position as an alarm monitor/drafter for a federal
contractor. He applied for a SCA in July 2006. (GX 4).
Applicant admitted that he filed for bankruptcy twice. In April 2000, he filed a Chapter 7
Bankruptcy in which he listed assets of $1,215 and liabilities of $6,192. The following August, the
court discharged his liabilities. In January 2001, he filed a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, listing assets of
$1,215 and liabilities of $2,847. In July 2002, the court dismissed the bankruptcy. 
In May 2000, the police arrested Applicant and charged him with Theft, 3  degree, forrd
leaving a restaurant without paying the bill. He pled guilty and the court fined him $250, which
remains unpaid. From 1998 through December 2003, he accumulated approximately $6,000 in fines
for traffic violations that remain unpaid. He has been unable to pay those fines due to his previous
limited income. He hopes to pay them as soon as his fiancé obtains a job. (GX 5 at 3).
Based on his SCA, responses to Interrogatories (GX 5), February and April 2007 credit
reports (GX 7 and 8), and his answers to the SOR, Applicant owes about $7,116 to various creditors
and $6,250 to the court. In his SCA, he indicated that he intended to dispute the debts listed in ¶ 1.f
and ¶ 1.g. (GX 4 at 42 and 44). He stated he “was in the process of paying off everything” he owed
and intended to use a settlement from an accident to help pay the debts. (Id. at 49). He did not
provide any documentation to prove that he disputed or paid any debts, including the fines. To-date,
all of the debts listed in the SOR are unresolved.
In May 2007, Applicant submitted a budget with his response to the Interrogatories. His net
monthly income is about $3,200 and expenses are $2,900, leaving him approximately $300 that
3
could be used to reduce his delinquent obligations. (AX 5 at 7). Although he listed his outstanding
student loan on the budget, he did not list any of the debts noted in the SOR.
POLICIES
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S.
518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has “the authority . . . control access to
information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently
trustworthy to occupy a position . . .  that will give that person access to such information.” Id. at
527. The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility
for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb.
20, 1960). Each security clearance decision “must be a fair and impartial common sense
determination based upon consideration of all relevant and material information and the pertinent
criteria and adjudication policy.” Directive ¶ 6.3. An applicant “has the ultimate burden of
demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). The decision to deny an
individual a security clearance is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant.
See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the
President and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
In an evaluation of an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an administrative judge
must consider the “Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified
Information.” The revised Guidelines set forth potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and
mitigating conditions (MC), which are used to determine an applicant’s eligibility for access to
classified information.
In addition to evaluating those disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each guideline,
the adjudicative process requires a thorough consideration and review of all available, reliable
information about the applicant, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, to arrive at a balanced
decision. The essence of scrutinizing all appropriate variables in a case is known as the “whole
person” concept. 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.”
CONCLUSIONS
Upon consideration of all facts in evidence and application of the appropriate adjudicative
factors and legal standards, I conclude the following with respect to the allegations set forth in the
SOR:
4
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Guideline ¶ 18 articulates the Government’s concern regarding financial problems. “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
acts to generate funds.”
Based on Applicant’s admissions and credit reports, the Government raised potential
disqualifications under Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) 19(a) (“inability
or unwillingness to satisfy debts”), and FC DC 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial
obligations”). Applicant admitted responsibility for the delinquent debts listed in the SOR and
acknowledged he has not had the resources to manage his debts from approximately 1998 to the
present. After the Government produced substantial evidence of those two disqualifying conditions,
the burden shifted to Applicant to mitigate or rebut the allegations. 
Five Financial Considerations’ Mitigating Condition (FC MC) under Guidelines ¶ 20(a)-(e)
are potentially applicable: 
(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.
Based on my evaluation of the record evidence as a whole, I conclude Guideline ¶ 20(a) does
not apply. Applicant’s problems date back to 1998, include the filing of two bankruptcies and the
discharge of $6,000 of debt, and continue into the present. The financial problems span an eight or
nine year period and there is no evidence that they are being resolved. All of these facts cast doubt
on Applicant’s reliability and good judgment. Applicant did not submit any information to support
the application of Guideline ¶ 20(b). Nor did he produce documentation indicating that he received
financial counseling, such that the problems are being resolved or under control, as required by
Guideline ¶ 20(c). He did not provide any evidence to establish that he made a good-faith effor to
5
resolve any debt under Guideline ¶ 20(d). Although he stated he intended to dispute two debts, he
failed to produce evidence that he filed a dispute, hence, Guideline ¶ 20(e) does not apply.
Guideline J - Criminal Conduct
Under Guideline ¶ 30, “Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability,
and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to
comply with laws, rules and regulations.”
One Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (CC DC) could raise a security concern and
be disqualifying in this case: “a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.” Guideline ¶ 31(a).
Applicant admitted that from May 1998 through December 2003, he accumulated a number of fines
related to traffic violations and that in May 2000, he was arrested for Theft, 3  Degree, to which herd
later plead guilty. The Government produced substantial evidence of that CC DC, and the burden
shifted to Applicant to produce evidence of a mitigating condition.
Two Criminal Conduct Mitigating Conditions (CC MC) under Guideline ¶ 30 are potentially
applicable:
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and
does not case doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment; 
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited to
the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or
constructive community involvement.
Although Applicant was arrested and convicted in May 2000, seven years ago, he has
received traffic citations that span May 1998 through December 2003. Based on the ongoing nature
of those traffic offenses for more than five years, sufficient time has not elapsed under Guideline ¶
30(a), and his good judgment remains in question. Guideline ¶ 30(d) does not apply because he has
not paid the $6,000 in fines, which would demonstrate some rehabilitation, nor submitted any
evidence of a good employment record, completion of his education, constructive community
involvement, or even remorse for his multiple criminal infractions, regardless of their nature.
Whole Person Analysis
In addition to the enumerated disqualifying and mitigating conditions, I considered the
totality of the evidence in view of the “whole person” concept, including Applicant’s age and his
candid disclosure of his numerous debts, and unpaid fines. I also took into account the fact that the
debts and traffic violations were the result of voluntary behaviors. I reviewed his current budget and
noted the lack of provisions for repayment of his delinquent debts, despite being aware of the
problem since the time he completed a SCA in July 2006 or responded to the Interrogatories in May
2007. Without an established budget and a track record of consistent financial management
6
demonstrating reliability and maturity, I am concerned that his financial problems will recur. Until
he pays his traffic fines, I cannot find that he has sufficiently rehabilitated himself or shown a
commitment to exercising trustworthiness, reliability or good judgment. Accordingly, Guidelines
F and J are found are found against him.
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:
Paragraph1: Guideline F (Financial Considerations) AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through1.j: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2: Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly not
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. Clearance is denied.
Shari Dam
Administrative Judge