DATE:  November 27, 2007
In re:
-----------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-08015
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MICHAEL H. LEONARD
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
D. Michael Lyles, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has a history of unresolved financial problems, which are ongoing. He has done
little to demonstrate that he will resolve the financial problems in a satisfactory manner. Clearance
is denied. 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a security clearance case. Applicant contests the Defense Department’s intent to deny
or revoke his eligibility for a security clearance. Acting under the relevant Executive Order and DoD
 Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2,1
1992, as amended (Directive).
 See Memorandum from the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, dated August 30, 2006, Subject:2
Implementation of Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (December
29, 2005). 
2
Directive,  the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a statement of reasons1
(SOR) to Applicant on July 27, 2007. The SOR is equivalent to an administrative complaint and it
details the factual basis for the action. The issues in this case fall under Guideline F for financial
considerations. 
In addition to the Directive, this case is brought under the revised Adjudicative Guidelines
for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (Revised Guidelines) approved by
the President on December 29, 2005. The Revised Guidelines were then modified by the Defense
Department, effective September 1, 2006. They supersede or replace the guidelines published in
Enclosure 2 to the Directive. They apply to all adjudications and other determinations where an SOR
has been issued on September 1, 2006, or thereafter.  The Directive is pending revision or2
amendment. The Revised Guidelines apply here because the SOR is dated after the effective date.
Applicant replied to the SOR on August 22, 2007. He elected to have his case decided on the
written record in lieu of a hearing.
On September 27, 2007, the government submitted its written case consisting of all relevant
and material information that could be adduced at a hearing. This so-called file of relevant material
(FORM) was mailed to Applicant and received by him on October 15, 2007. He replied to the
FORM with a one-page memorandum, dated October 17, 2007. The case was assigned to me
November 2, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the record evidence as a whole, the following facts are established. 
Applicant is a 41-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has worked for his current
employer since October 2002. 
Applicant has a history of unresolved financial problems, which are ongoing. The SOR
alleges, and Applicant does not dispute, that he has 12 delinquent debts ranging from $34 to $6,621
for a total of about $12,274. The 12 debts include 7 unpaid medical accounts placed for collection
for a total of $685 (SOR ¶ 1.a). 
Applicant’s adverse financial history is established by a September 2006 credit report and
a July 2007 credit report (Exhibits 5 and 6). For example, the first credit report reveals one unpaid
judgment for $1,597 and 17 collection accounts. The second credit report confirms Applicant’s
adverse financial history as of July 2007. 
 Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“it should be obvious that no one has a ‘right’ to a3
security clearance”); Duane v. Department of Defense, 275 F.3d 988, 994 (10  Cir. 2002) (“It is likewise plain that thereth
is no ‘right’ to a security clearance, so that full-scale due process standards do not apply to cases such as Duane’s.”).
 Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.4
 Directive, ¶ 3.2. 5
 Directive, ¶ 3.2. 6
 ISCR Case No. 02-18663 (App. Bd. Mar. 23, 2004).7
 Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.14.8
 Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.9
 Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.10
 Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 11
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002) (citations omitted).12
3
Applicant has been unable to repay any of the debts in the SOR or otherwise resolve his
indebtedness. The debts were incurred during Applicant’s marriage and he has since divorced. He
had hoped that his spouse would share in the responsibility to repay these debts, but it appears he is
now assuming responsibility for the debts.  His plan is to start repaying these debts with his
anticipated tax returns next year. Other than his one-page memorandum in response to the FORM,
Applicant did not provide any documentary information about the debts in the SOR.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND POLICIES
No one has a right to a security clearance.  As noted by the Supreme Court in Department3
of Navy v. Egan, “the clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations
should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  A favorable decision establishes eligibility of an4
applicant to be granted a security clearance for access to confidential, secret, or top-secret
information.  An unfavorable decision: (1) denies any application; (2)  revokes any existing security5
clearance; and (3) prevents access to classified information at any level and retention of any existing
security clearance.  Under Egan, Executive Order 10865, and the Directive, any doubt about whether6
an applicant should be allowed access to classified information will be resolved in favor of
protecting national security.
There is no presumption in favor of granting, renewing, or continuing eligibility for access
to classified information.  The government has the burden of presenting evidence to establish facts7
alleged in the SOR that have been controverted.  An applicant is responsible for presenting evidence8
to refute, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts that have been admitted or proven.  In addition, an9
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision.  In Egan,10
the Supreme Court said that the burden of proof is less than the preponderance of the evidence.  The11
agency appellate authority has followed the Court’s reasoning, and a judge’s findings of fact are
reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard.12
 Executive Order 10865, § 7.13
 Revised Guidelines at 13–14 (setting forth the disqualifying and mitigating conditions). 14
 Revised Guidelines at 13. 15
 DC 1 is “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.” 16
 DC 3 is “a history of not meeting financial obligations.” 17
4
The Revised Guidelines set forth adjudicative guidelines to consider when evaluating a
person’s security clearance eligibility, including disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating
conditions (MC) for each guideline. In addition, each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial
commonsense decision based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information, the
pertinent criteria and adjudication factors, and the whole-person concept. A person granted access
to classified information enters into a special relationship with the government. The government
must be able to have a high degree of trust and confidence in those persons to whom it grants access
to classified information. The decision to deny a person a security clearance is not a determination
of an applicant’s loyalty.  Instead, it is a determination that the applicant has not met the strict13
guidelines the President has established for granting eligibility for a security clearance.
CONCLUSIONS
Under Guideline F for financial considerations,  a security concern typically exists due to14
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.”  Similarly, an individual who is15
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,
which are ongoing. His history of financial problems is a security concern because it indicates
inability to satisfy debts  and a history of not meeting financial obligations  within the meaning of16 17
Guideline F. The record evidence is more than sufficient to establish these two disqualifying
conditions. Also, the record evidence supports a conclusion of financial irresponsibility. 
All of the mitigating conditions under Guideline F have been considered and none apply in
his favor. The most pertinent mitigating condition is MC 2—conditions (to include a divorce) that
resulted in the financial problems were largely beyond a person’s control—but it does not apply.
Although he attributes his financial problems to his marriage, separation, and divorce, he did not
present sufficient evidence to show that he acted responsibly under the circumstances. On this
skimpy record, this MC cannot be applied.  
Applicant presented little in the way of favorable information, and his good intentions and
future plans are not sufficient evidence to overcome the security concern raised by the government’s
5
evidence. Indeed, what is missing here is: (1) a realistic approach for resolving his delinquent debts;
(2) documented actions taken in furtherance of that approach; and (3) a measurable improvement
to his situation. At this point, it is likely that his history of financial problems will continue. 
To conclude, Applicant did not present sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, or mitigate
the financial considerations security concern. Applicant did not meet his ultimate burden of
persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision. In reaching this conclusion, the whole-person
concept was given due consideration and that analysis does not support a favorable decision. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
SOR ¶ 1–Guideline F: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs a–f: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
or continue eligibility for security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied. 
Michael H. Leonard
Administrative Judge