DATE: December 10, 2007
In Re:
--------------------------
SSN: -----------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-02133
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
WILFORD H. ROSS
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Jennifer I. Goldstein, Esquire, Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
The Applicant has owed approximately $10,000.00 in past due debts to seven creditors since
at least 2000.  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.
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On May 29, 2007, 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 June 21, 2007, and requested a hearing.
The case was received by the undersigned on August 6, 2007, and a Notice of Hearing was issued
on August 7, 2007.
A hearing was held on September 5, 2007, at which the Government presented six
documentary exhibits.  Testimony was taken from the Applicant, who also submitted two hearing
exhibits and one post-hearing exhibit.  The transcript was received on September 14, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 43, married to his second wife and has a Bachelor of Science degree.  He
is employed by a defense contractor as an engineer, and he seeks 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 in his answer all of the
allegations in the SOR with the exception of subparagraph 1.l.  Those admissions are hereby deemed
findings of fact.
The Applicant has been married twice.  His first marriage ended in divorce in 2000.  He
alleges that many of his financial problems occurred as a result of the divorce.  (Transcript at 20.)
While he was still married to his first wife, the Applicant filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the
Bankruptcy Code.  (SOR subparagraph 1.m.)  He received a discharge in bankruptcy in August 1999.
(Transcript at 41-42.)  (SOR subparagraph 1.n.)
After he was divorced, the Applicant filed for protection under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy
Code in May 2001.  (SOR subparagraph 1.k.)  The Applicant did not want to proceed with the
bankruptcy, and his case was dismissed.  (Transcript at 42-43.)  (SOR subparagraph 1.l.)
3
  The current status of the debts alleged in the SOR is as follows:
1.a. The Applicant admits that he owes a past due medical bill for $50.00.  The available
credit reports do not provide contact information for the creditor and the Applicant has not been able
to find such information.  This debt remains unpaid.  (Transcript at 24-26, 53-55; Government
Exhibits 2 and 3.)
1.b. The Applicant admits that he owes a past due debt to a bank in the approximate
amount of $3,576.00.  This debt has not been paid.  The available evidence indicates that the original
creditor has sold this debt.  The Applicant states that he is in negotiation to pay this debt, but he has
presented no evidence to support this statement.  (Transcript at 26-27, 61-63; Government Exhibits
2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 at 7; Applicant’s Exhibit B at 5.)
1.c. The Applicant admits that he owes a past due debt to his ex-wife’s lawyer in the
amount of $5,692.19.  The Applicant made a payment arrangement with the attorney on September
4, 2007, agreeing to pay $250.00 a month until the debt is paid off.  He has made one payment.
(Transcript at 27-28, 66; Applicant’s Exhibit A.)
1.d. The Applicant admits that he owes a past due debt to McDonnell Douglas Federal
Credit Union in the amount of $166.00.  This debt has not been paid.  According to the Applicant,
this credit union went out of existence at the same time McDonnell Douglas was bought by Boeing.
He has been in contact with the successor in interest to the credit union, but has been unable to either
confirm or deny that there is an amount now owing.  (Transcript at 28-30.)
1.e. The Applicant admits that he owes a past due credit card debt to Providian in the
amount of $835.00.  This debt has not been paid.  The Applicant states that this debt was run up by
his ex-wife without his knowledge.  The debt has been charged off and the successor in interest to
Providian will not accept payments on the account.  (Transcript at 30-31, 45.)
1.f. The Applicant admits he owes a past due utility bill in the amount of $530.00.  The
Applicant testified that this debt was paid by his ex wife.  (Transcript at 32-33.)  The Applicant
submitted a copy of his latest utility bill from the same company.  It shows a past due amount of
$222.63 as of August 2007.  (Applicant’s Exhibit C at 4.)
1.g. The Applicant admits that he owes a past due credit card debt to Nuvision in the
amount of $102.00.  This debt has not been paid.  The evidence concerning this allegation is mixed.
The Applicant stated that he is in negotiation with his ex wife to have her pay this debt.  (Transcript
at 33-34.)  He also stated in April 2007 that he had been in negotiations with this creditor himself.
(Transcript at 78-79; Government Exhibit 6 at 7.)
1.h. This debt has been paid in full.  (Transcript at 35-38; Applicant’s Exhibit C at 3.)
This debt was paid off by the Applicant’s wife refinancing her house and paying off the debt in the
amount of $5,375.00.
1.i. The state tax lien has been paid off and lifted.  (Government Exhibit 6 at 7-9.)
4
1.j. The Applicant admits owing $4,442.35 in past due homeowners association dues.
The debt has been paid.  (Transcript at 41.)
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.”
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.
5
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 long-standing and continuing financial problems (Guideline F).  
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, subparagraphs 1.h., 1.i., and 1.j. are found for the Applicant as he has
successfully paid these debts in full.
The Applicant’s financial difficulties are of a long-standing nature.  Even though they may
have originally been caused by the aftermath of his divorce, 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.  In fact, he had no
answer when asked why he had not resolved these debts earlier.  (Transcript at 62-63.)  He also has
no specific plan as to how he intended to pay off the rest of his past due debts.  (Transcript at 80-82.)
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
6
of the Mitigating Conditions apply.  The behavior is recent, he is not receiving counseling for the
problem and he has not yet initiated a good faith effort to repay the creditors or resolve the debts.
I have considered the fact that the Applicant may have had financial problems during the pendency
of his divorce, during which many of the debts were incurred.  Specifically, I have considered the
Applicant’s arguments and evidence concerning subparagraphs 1.a., 1.b., 1.c., 1.d., 1.e., 1.f., and 1.g.
However, under the particular facts of this case, the evidence does not show that the Applicant acted
responsibly under the circumstances during that period, or afterwards.
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 1 of 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.: Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.e.: Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.f.: Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.g.: Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.h.: For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.i.: For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.j.: For the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.k.: Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.l.: Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.m.: Against the Applicant.
Subparagraph 1.n: 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