1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
                                                          )       ISCR Case No. 06-15685
SSN:                     )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace Le’i, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: David S. Grossman, Esquire
January 31, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on December 8,
2004. On February 15, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines
F and E for Applicant. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the revised
adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and
effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant responded to the SOR (RSOR) in writing on September 12, 2007, and
requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. I received the case assignment on
November 1, 2007. DOHA initially issued a notice of hearing on November 8, 2007, and
I convened the hearing as scheduled on November 26, 2007. Because of difficulties
with his first attorney, Applicant had engaged a new attorney shortly before the hearing.
Since his new attorney did not have all of the relevant documents, when he appeared at
the first hearing, the case was continued.  A new notice of hearing was issued on
2
November 28, 2007, and I convened the hearing for a second time on Jan 8, 2008. The
Government offered Exhibits (Ex.) 1 through 5, which were received without objection.
Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits A through G, without
objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on January 17, 2008. I
granted Applicant’s request to keep the record open until January 22, 2008, to submit
additional matters.  He timely submitted five character letters and three additional letters
regarding his finances, which have been marked collectively as Exhibit H, and entered
into evidence without objection. The record closed on January 22, 2008. Based upon a
review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to
classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
In his RSOR Applicant admitted SOR allegations1.a., 1.c., 1.d., and 1.e., and he
denied 1.b., 2.a., and 2.b. The admitted allegations are incorporated herein as findings
of fact. 
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including
Applicant's Answer to the SOR, the admitted documents, and the testimony of
Applicant, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make the additional findings of
fact: 
Applicant is 44 years old. He is currently married and was married once before,
and he has two children and one stepchild.  He served in the United States Navy from
1982 to 2003
Applicant works for defense contractors, and he seeks a DoD security clearance
in connection with his employment in the defense sector.
The SOR lists 5 allegations regarding financial difficulties under Adjudicative
Guideline F. All of the allegations will be discussed in the same order as they were listed
in the SOR:
1.a. This overdue debt to Creditor 1 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,340.
Applicant testified that this debt resulted from medical treatment received by his
daughter, when she was with his former wife. He had insurance that would have paid
this bill, but his former wife never notified him so that he could submit it to the insurance
carrier for payment. In 2005 he learned of this bill and submitted it to his insurer, but
unbeknownst to him it was not resolved. He resubmitted it when he learned it was still
outstanding, and his insurance company sent him a statement (Exhibit A) establishing
that they paid $713.52 on the claim, leaving an outstanding balance of $178.38 that
Applicant is to pay. While Applicant believed that the insurance company should have
paid the entire amount, as he was active duty military at the time of the claim, he
indicated that he would pay the $178.38 once he has ascertained whether it should be
reimbursed to the health care provider or to the collection agency. In a post hearing
document, (Exhibit H), Applicant submitted a letter from the carrier explaining that there
had been some communication problems between the carrier and the health provider,
3
which was the reason for the delay in payment, but at no time was it the fault of
Applicant. I find that Applicant has acted responsibly and made a good faith attempt to
resolve this debt, and that this debt is or will be paid shortly.
1.b. This overdue debt to Creditor 2 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $71.
Applicant testified that he was unaware of this debt. He has contacted the creditor three
or four times, giving them his social security number and his previous home address,
but they have no record of this debt. Applicant indicated that he would resolve this debt
if it could be identified by the creditor. I find that Applicant has acted responsibly and
made a good faith attempt to resolve this debt.
1.c. This overdue debt to Creditor 3 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $9,784.
Applicant acknowledged that this had been a debt of his former wife and him, but he
has yet to pay this debt. In a post hearing document, (Exhibit H), Applicant submitted a
letter from the creditor establishing that they would accept a payment of $6,150.29 by
February 2, 2008, as settlement in full on this debt.   At the hearing, Applicant testified
that his current wife has been involved in a workers compensation lawsuit, as she has
been off work since August 2004, from a back injury. They are anticipating a payment
as this case was set to be heard on January 29, 2008. His wife is also in the process of
receiving a lump sum payment of approximately $31,000 as a pension payment from
her former employer (Exhibit G). Applicant plans to use proceeds from either of these
sources to settle this debt. 
1.d. This overdue debt to Creditor 4 is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,111.
Applicant testified that he will begin having $190 deducted each month from his
retirement account to pay off this debt. Exhibit C establishes that $190.15 will be
deducted monthly, beginning February 1, 2008, to pay off this debt.
1.e.  This overdue debt to Creditor 5 is cited in the SOR in the amount of
$46,203.83, for past due child support.
Applicant testified that he had been current on his child support, but in 2004 he
became unable to pay his child support for one year, because he was unemployed, His
former wife brought the case to child services. Applicant testified that child support
services made a three year miscalculation, and incorrectly assessed him as overdue in
his child support payment the amount of $54,000. Together with his former wife he went
back to child services to explain their error and the case was audited again and
according to Applicant, he is now current on his child support, and his requirement is
that he pay $1,000 a month.  Exhibit B, a series of documents from Child Support
Services Department dated October 2, 2007, shows that Applicant has paid a total of
$79,916 in child support with a total still owing of $2,092.93. Applicant testified that,
although he has only been ordered to pay $1,000 a month, he actually paid $2,000 a
month from October 2004 until November 2007, so that he would pay his child support
and eliminate his arrearage. I find that Applicant has been responsible with his child
support requirements, and he is now current on his child support. 
 
4
2.a. Applicant executed a signed Security Clearance Application (SCA) which is
listed on the SOR as August 26, 2004, but that was actually December 8, 2004, (Exhibit
1). At the hearing, the SOR was amended to show the corrected date. Question #38
asks,  “In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debt(s)?”
Applicant answered “No” to this question. The Government alleges that Applicant
should have answered “Yes” to this question and included the debts listed as 1.b.
through 1.d., in the SOR.
2.b. Question #39 of the SCA asks,  “Are you currently over 90 days delinquent
on any debt(s)?” Applicant answered, “No” to this question and again listed no debts.
Again, the Government alleges that Applicant should have answered “Yes” to this
question and included the debts listed as 1.b. through 1.d., in the SOR.
Applicant averred that through oversight he did not list the debts on the SOR. He
testified credibly that he did not intend to mislead the Government in either of the
questions he completed on his SCA.
Applicant cited several factors for his previous financial difficulties. When he left
the Navy he was unemployed for a period from January 2003 to February 2004, while
he was waiting for his current position to be ratified by the Government. He did pursue
other employment opportunities during this period of time, but he was unsuccessful. His
current wife also became disabled and stopped working in August 2004, as discussed
above.
Applicant testified that his current finances are in good order and he does not
have any other overdue debts. His wife is planning to go back to work in March 2004,
and his retirement pay from his service in the Navy will also increase, because his
former wife will receive a smaller percentage, as the child care arrearage has been
resolved. Applicant’s wife will also be receiving child support payments from her former
husband. In total, Applicant’s income and his retirement pay, together with his wife’s
pay, and his wife’s child support will allow Applicant to be able to pay all his current and
future bills in a timely manner.
Finally, Applicant offered into evidence five character letters from individuals who
know or have known him in his professional or private life (Exhibit H). One is from a
Brigadier General and another from a Captain in the United States Air Force. Two
others were from Air Force personnel and a fifth letter is from a personal friend, who has
known Applicant for more than 25 years.  They all spoke in extremely laudatory terms of
his high integrity, reliability, and dedication to his job. 
Policies
When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
Administrative Judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
5
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole person concept.” The Administrative Judge must consider all available,
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision.   
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” 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.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends
normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a
high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified
information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the
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.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the
national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The trustworthiness concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG ¶ 18: 
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
6
protect [sensitive] information. An individual who is financially
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate
funds. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise trustworthiness concerns.  Under
AG ¶ 19 (a), an Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG  ¶ 19 (c), a history of not meeting financial obligations may raise
security concerns. Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt and was unable to
pay some obligations for a period of time. The evidence is sufficient to raise these
potentially disqualifying conditions, requiring a closer examination.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate
trustworthiness concerns arising from financial difficulties.
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
Under AG ¶  20 (b), it may be mitigating where 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. As noted above, some of
the financial problems arose from Applicant’s loss of employment, the dissolution of his
marriage, and the disability and loss of employment of his current spouse.  Applicant
acted responsibly in continuing to pay his child support as soon as he was able, even
paying more than was required just to remove the arrearage.  I find this potentially
mitigating condition is a factor for consideration in this case. 
AG ¶  20 (d) is also applicable as the evidence is clear that Applicant has
initiated a good-faith effort to repay his overdue creditors and otherwise resolve his
debts. 
 Applicant is now more financially sound and better prepared for future
contingencies. I conclude these potentially mitigating conditions apply.
GUIDELINE E, PERSONAL CONDUCT
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual's reliability, 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.
While AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying, I find that none apply in this case. As discussed above, Applicant was
7
credible in his testimony that he did not knowingly furnish the Government with false or
incomplete information regarding his finances on questions 38 and 39 of the SCA that
he completed. 
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The Administrative Judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 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) 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.”
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole person concept.       
I have considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions under
Guidelines F and E, in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case.
Based on all of the reasons cited above, including Applicant’s reasons for his previous
financial difficulties, his conscientious efforts to resolve his overdue debts, his excellent
economic condition today, his long service in the United States Navy, and the positive
letters of recommendation, I find that the record evidence leaves me without questions
or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance under the
whole person concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant mitigated the security
concerns. 
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 1, Guideline F: 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
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: For Applicant
8
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge