DATE:  December 20, 2007
In re:
----------------------
SSN:  ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-07181
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
ERIN C. HOGAN
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Gina L. Marine, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Security concerns raised about Applicant's history of traffic violations are mitigated due to
Applicant successfully completing all sentences related to his traffic violations and demonstrating
an increased level of maturity. The security concern raised under financial considerations due to a
Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in 2004 is also mitigated. Applicant demonstrated that he is currently
financially stable. An unforeseen lay-off caused the financial problems which lead to Applicant's
bankruptcy. Clearance is granted.
STATEMENT OF CASE
This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive1
5220.6, dated January 2,1992, as amended and modified (Directive).
 Tr. at 4 - 5. 2
 Tr. at 14, 16-17. 3
 Gov 3. 4
2
On August 30, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued  Applicant
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) stating they were unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue a security clearance.  The SOR, which is in essence the1
administrative complaint, alleges security concerns under Guideline E, Personal Conduct, and
Guideline F, Financial Considerations, of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued on
December 29, 2005, and implemented by the Department of Defense effective September 1, 2006.
In a sworn statement dated September 20, 2007, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations
and elected to have a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on
October 10, 2007. On October 25, 2007, a notice of hearing was sent scheduling the hearing for
November 9, 2007. The hearing was held as scheduled. The Applicant waived the 15 day notice
requirement provided in the Directive. The government offered three exhibits which were admitted
as Government Exhibits (Gov) 1-3 without objection. The record was held open until December 10,
2007, in order to allow Applicant to submit additional documents.  Applicant timely submitted a 27
page document that was admitted as AE A without objection.  The transcript was received on
November 20, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
In his SOR response, Applicant admits to the all of the allegations in the SOR. In addition,
after a thorough and careful review of the pleadings and exhibits, I make the following findings of
fact.
Applicant is a 28-year-old man employed with a Department of Defense contractor who is
applying for a security clearance. He has been with his current employer for over a year. He is single
and has no children. In June 2006, he earned a Bachelor's Degree in Electronic Engineering.2
In early 2004, Applicant encountered financial problems as a result of being laid off from his
full-time job and the break up of an eight year relationship. He was laid off from his job due to a
work force reduction. He found a part-time job in July 2004, but did not find full-time employment
until the end of 2004.  His annual salary was $14,000; a substantial reduction from his $26,000
annual salary from his prior employer.   3
On May 18, 2004, Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy.  He listed total assets of $1,150,
and total liabilities of $16,963. The bankruptcy was discharged on August 24, 2004.4
On December 27, 2006, Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) in relation to his employment with the defense contractor. He listed his
 Gov 1. 5
 Id.6
 Tr. at 15, 31.7
 Answer to SOR (The government provided no evidence in support of SOR ¶¶ 1.a -1.o. However, Applicant8
admitted the allegations in his response to the SOR. As a result, the government was not required to present evidence
pertaining to allegations which Applicant has admitted. Directive ¶ E3.1.14.)
 Tr. at 28-32. 9
 Tr. at 33. 10
 Tr. at 22.11
 AE A at 12-15.12
 Tr. at 24.13
3
bankruptcy in response to question 27a.   In response to question 23d "Have you ever been charged5
with or convicted of any offense(s) related to alcohol or drugs?", he answered "yes" and listed a
February 2005, Operating While Intoxicated charge. He also answered "yes" in response to question
23f "In the last 7 years, have you been arrested for, charged with, or convicted of any offense(s) not
listed in response to a, b, c, d, or e above? (Leave out traffic fines of less than $150 unless the
violation was alcohol or drug-related.)." He listed a March 2006 arrest for failure to use a turn signal;
driving on a suspended license; and possession of cannabis. All charges were dropped except the
driving on a suspended license.  The cannabis in the car belonged to another passenger in the car.6 7
Applicant's subsequent background investigation revealed that between March 1996 and
August 2004, he was cited for 13 traffic offenses ranging from Failure to Maintain Safety Belts;
Speeding; Failure to Obey Signal Device, Operation Without Registration; Operating a Vehicle with
License Suspended (Financial).(SOR ¶¶ 1.a -1.m).  Applicant was fined and ordered to pay court8
costs for each of these offenses. He completed the sentences imposed that were the result of his OUI
arrest in February 2005 (SOR ¶ 1.o), and his arrest in March 2006 for Operating a Vehicle with a
Suspended License (SOR ¶ 1.n). His driver's license was reissued on April 3, 2007.  He is still9
paying his attorney fees in relation to the DUI charge and the telephone company for the damage
caused when his car ran into a telephone poll. He has learned a lesson and has had no traffic violation
since March 2006.10
Since his bankruptcy, Applicant's financial situation has stabilized.  Three months prior to
the hearing, he purchased a home.  His mother is an accountant and is helping him with his budget
and making sure that he spends his money wisely.  His current budget indicates that he is capable11
of meeting his monthly expenses. His monthly income is approximately $3,015.59. In December
2007, his expenses will be approximately $1,643.37.  He will have approximately $1,372 left over
each month after expenses.   He has one open credit card which has a current balance of $300.12 13
 Tr. at 26; AE A at 16-27..14
 AE A at 6-11.15
 AE A at 2.16
 AE A at 4.17
 AE A at 3, 5. 18
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988). 19
 Revised AG, dated August 2006, ¶15. 20
4
Two weeks prior to the hearing he took out a $5,000 home improvement loan. He will be required
to pay $154/month over the next 60 months beginning in December.14
Applicant's recent performance evaluation which closed out on September 27, 2007, states
that he is fully successful in his job. His manager "has confidence in his abilities." He notes that
Applicant is still learning and will expand his knowledge within the next year.  Several of15
Applicant's best friends wrote letters on his behalf. A co-worker who has worked with Applicant
since 2002, states Applicant is dependable and trustworthy. He further adds that he is "organized
efficient, extremely competent and has an excellent rapport with people..."  Another co-worker who16
has known him for 15 years states that he is trustworthy, efficient and timely.  Two other individuals17
made similar favorable comments.18
POLICIES
The President has “the authority to . . . 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.”  In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding19
Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), the President set out guidelines and
procedures for safeguarding classified information within the executive branch. 
To be eligible for a security clearance, an applicant must meet the security guidelines
contained in the Directive.  The revised Adjudicative Guidelines, approved by the President on
December 29, 2005 and implemented by the Department of Defense, effective September 1, 2006,
sets forth personnel security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions under each guideline.  The adjudicative guidelines at issue in this case are: 
Guideline E - Personal Conduct: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of
candor, dishonesty, or an unwillingness to comply with rules an regulations can raise
questions about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid
answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with
the security clearance process.20
 Revised AG, dated August 2006, ¶ 18. 21
 Revised AG, dated August 2006, ¶ 2(a). 22
 Id.23
 Directive ¶ E3.1.14.24
 Directive ¶ E3.1.15.25
Revised AG, dated August 2006, ¶ 2(b).26
5
Guideline F - Financial Considerations: 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.21
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those
which could mitigate security concerns pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines, are set forth and
discussed in the conclusions below.
“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make
an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk.”   An administrative22
judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the available,
reliable information about the person.  An administrative judge should consider the following
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 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.  23
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in the SOR
that disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified
information.  Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain,24
extenuate, or mitigate the facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.  The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.25
“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be
resolved in favor of the national security.”  26
A person granted access to classified information enters into a special relationship with the
government.  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.  The decision to deny an individual
a security clearance is not a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant. It is merely an indication
that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President has established for issuing a
clearance.
6
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards. I make the
following conclusions.
Personal Conduct
Applicant's extensive history of traffic violations raise a security concern under the personal
conduct guideline. He was issued 15 traffic citations over a ten year period between March 1996 and
March 2006.  Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) ¶ 16(c) (credible adverse
information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination
under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person
assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness
to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not
properly safeguard protected information) applies.  Applicant's extensive history of traffic violations
raises questions about his judgment, trustworthiness, and willingness to comply with rules and
regulations.
While Applicant's traffic offense history is extensive, he was in his late teens when he first
started to incur traffic offenses.  He is now more mature and responsible. He has completed all of his
court requirements.  He has not had an additional traffic offense in 20 months. For these reasons,
Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition (PC MC) ¶ 17(c) (the offense is so minor, or so much time
has passed, or the behavior, is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that
it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment) applies.  
Financial Considerations
In 2004, Applicant experienced financial difficulties which resulted in his filing a Chapter 7
bankruptcy. 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)
applies. 
The concern under Financial Considerations can be mitigated. Applicant's financial situation
has been stable since his bankruptcy discharge in March 2004. He has been able to purchase a home
and is not over extended on credit card debt. Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC)
¶ 20 (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) applies.
FC MC ¶ 20(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)
applies in that Applicant ultimately decided for bankruptcy due to being laid off and unemployed for
several months.  In addition, he incurred additional expenses after an eight year relationship ended.
7
He has demonstrated that he is now financially stable. The circumstances leading to the bankruptcy
were beyond his control and he acted responsibly under the circumstances.  
FC MC ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts) applies.  Applicant resolved his delinquent debts through bankruptcy which
is a legal way to resolve one's debts. He has not incurred additional delinquent debt since his
bankruptcy discharge.  His current financial situation is stable.
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The
objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person’s
life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for assignment to sensitive duties.
Indeed, the adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a number of variables in considering the
“whole person” concept. It recognizes that we should view a person by the totality of their acts,
omissions, motivations and other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits, taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful
analysis.
I have considered all the evidence and the “whole person” in evaluating Applicant’s security
worthiness. I considered Applicant's current financial situation, the circumstances beyond his control
which led to his filing for bankruptcy, the favorable recommendations from friends and co-workers,
and his ownership of his past problems indicating a growth in maturity. Applicant is financially stable
and has a plan in place to avoid financial problems in the future. The security concerns raised under
financial considerations and personal conduct are mitigated. Based on the evidence in the record, it
is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. Clearance is
granted.
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:
Paragraph 2. Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: For Applicant
8
Subparagraph 1.n: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: For Applicant
Paragraph 2. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the evidence presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with
the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. Clearance is granted.
                                               
Erin C. Hogan
Administrative Judge