Item 1.1
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
           DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-05632
SSN: -------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on January 18,
2005. On July 13, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for
Applicant.  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified1
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 answered the SOR in writing on October 15, 2007. Although not
explicitly stated in the response, the assigned Personnel Security Specialist and
Department Counsel reported that she requested that her case be decided by an
See  AJ Exhibit I (documents pertaining to Applicant’s election of administrative determination).2
The government submitted eight items in support of the allegations.3
Item 4.4
Item 5 at 4.5
Item 3, Encl. 1.6
2
Administrative Judge on the written record without a hearing.  Department Counsel2
submitted the Government’s written case on October 25, 2007.  A complete copy of the
file of relevant material (FORM)  was provided to Applicant, and she was afforded an3
opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation.
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of her copy of the FORM on
November 5, 2007, and returned it to DOHA. She provided no further response to the
FORM within the 30-day period she was given to do so, did not request additional time
to respond, and made no objection to consideration of any evidence submitted by
Department Counsel. I received the case assignment on January 15, 2008. Based upon
a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 45-year-old employee of a defense contractor with no prior military
service. She was divorced in October 2002. In the General Remarks section (question
43) of her SF 86, she stated that she is a single parent of one or more children.
However, no children were listed in response to question 9 on her SF 86, so further
detail is unavailable. She has been continuously employed since 1997, except for one
month of unemployment in February 2003.  Her personal financial statement, dated4
June 4, 2007, reflects about $630 in monthly surplus of family income over expenses.5
In her answer to the SOR, dated October 15, 2007, and her sworn answers to
financial interrogatories, dated June 4, 2007, Applicant admitted the truth of all factual
allegations in ¶¶ 1.a, through 1.af of the SOR, with explanations. Her admissions are,
with the exceptions noted below, corroborated by the credit bureau reports (CBR) in
Items 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the FORM, and are incorporated herein as findings of fact. For
ease of comprehension, the 32 delinquent debts alleged in the SOR will be broken into
three groups involving judgment, medical, and consumer debt allegations. 
SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.d, 1.ae and 1 af allege six judgment debts totaling $4,701.
Applicant correctly noted, in her response to the SOR, that the debts alleged in ¶¶ 1.a
and 1.ae are the same judgment debt, originally in the alleged amount of $225. She
submitted proof of one $20 payment to the collection agency to whom the debt was
assigned.  This receipt also shows the collection agency now claims an outstanding6
balance of $575.05 on this debt, after the $20 payment. Applicant also correctly
responded that the $371 judgment debts alleged in ¶¶ 1.c and 1.af are the same, but
Item 5, Equidata CBR, dated May 18, 2007, at page 10 of 16.  7
This figure values the ¶ 1.a debt at the SOR-alleged $225, rather than the $575 now claimed by the8
collection agency.
Item 3, Encl. 2. 9
See Item 7 at 1; Item 8 at 2. The amounts alleged, $235 and $79, respectively, are correct, and their mis-10
designation as medical accounts in the SOR is not considered a fatal variance.
Item 3, Encl. 3; Item 8 at 2. Applicant provided no proof of her claim that she had made arrangements to11
pay $10 per month toward this debt beginning in November 2007. 
Item 3 at 1, Encl. 4.12
Compare Item 3, Encl. 4, with Item 8 at 3 (debt reported delinquent as of June 2006).13
3
claimed that she could not contact the creditor. In fact, the CBR she submitted with her
response to financial interrogatories shows that this judgment debt was paid on
December 1, 2005.  Accordingly, Applicant owes three judgment debts, as alleged in ¶¶7
1.a, 1.b, and 1.d, in the total amount of $3,701.  8
SOR ¶¶ 1.e through 1.y allege 21 medical bills in collections, totaling $4,131.
Applicant admitted to all of them, claiming they were consolidated in a repayment
program and some had been paid. She submitted an account statement and several
“paid-in-full” receipts for medical bills paid under this program.  The first receipt9
corresponds to the $50 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.l, but none of the other receipts
correspond to debts alleged in the SOR. Contrary to the SOR allegations in ¶¶ 1.r and
1.s, and Applicant’s admissions thereto, those debts are for telephone bills to two
different companies as opposed to medical accounts.  Accordingly, their total of $31410
will be subtracted from the medical group and added to the consumer debt category
below. Applicant owes 18 delinquent medical debts, as alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.e through
1.k, 1.m through 1.q, and 1.t through 1.y, in the total amount of $3,767.
SOR ¶¶ 1.z through 1.ad allege five credit card and consumer-credit debts that
are charged off or in collections, totaling $5,577. Applicant admitted owing them. She
submitted a collection agency’s offer, dated September 5, 2007, to settle the ¶ 1.z debt
for a lesser amount. She provided no proof of any payment toward this offer, the
payment coupon that was to accompany payment remained attached to the copy of the
offer letter, and the debt remained unpaid on her October 25, 2007 CBR.  Appellant11
claimed to have negotiated a reduced settlement for the $920 debt alleged in ¶ 1.aa,
and submitted a collection agency’s settlement offer letter.  This offer actually involved12
a different and more recent delinquent credit card debt to a different bank that was not
included in the SOR.  There is no evidence of resolution of the alleged debt. In13
response to the SOR, Applicant claimed (without documentation) to have made
arrangements to start repaying the debts alleged in ¶¶ 1.ab, and 1.ac, at $10 per month
Item 3 at 1.14
Item 5 at 7.15
Item 5, Equidata CBR, dated May 18, 2007, at pages 3 of 16, and 5 of 16.16
4
each starting in November and December 2007.  In her June 4, 2007, response to14
interrogatories, she said she had arranged to start payments on these two debts at the
end of that month.  She provided no proof of any payment toward either debt. Finally,15
Applicant claimed that the $1,468 debt alleged in ¶ ad was the same as the debt alleged
in ¶ 1.z. This is incorrect, since the latter debt is for a bank-issued credit card and the
former is owed to a collection agency for a fitness center.  Applicant owes these five16
credit card and consumer-credit debts in the total amount of $5,577 as alleged.
Including the $314 in telephone account debts, improperly alleged as medical debts
above, the total of her seven non-judgment and non-medical debts is $5,891.
Combining these three groups produces a total of 28 delinquent debts still
outstanding, in the amount of $13,359, toward which Applicant provided no evidence of
payment or other resolution. The record CBRs reflect that some of these debts first
became delinquent in every year since 1999, with no evidence of any single
precipitating event. Applicant provided no other evidence of good character,
trustworthiness or judgment in mitigation. 
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.
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.
5
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. Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that “Any determination under
this order adverse to an applicant 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.” 
A person who applies for access to classified information seeks to enter 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.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security 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
protect classified 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 security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant accumulated a significant number and amount of
delinquent debts over the past eight years. She was either unable or unwilling to repay
these debts, despite submitting a personal financial statement reflecting an apparent
ability to do so. Excluding the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c, and 1.l, which were paid,
Applicant demonstrated no effort to resolve any of the remaining $13,359 of proven
delinquent debt. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying
conditions, requiring a closer examination and balancing of resulting security concerns
with any potentially mitigating matters.
6
The guideline includes several conditions that could mitigate security concerns
arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), disqualifying conditions may be
mitigated where Athe 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.@ Applicant=s financial
issues have been a continuing problem since at least 1999. Her disregard of these
financial obligations is ongoing, and continues to raise concerns about her current
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. The evidence does not support this
potentially mitigating condition. 
Under AG & 20(b), it may be mitigating where Athe 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.@ Applicant’s
delinquencies arose on a regular basis, with new delinquent debt reported in every year
since 1999. These delinquencies preceded and followed her 2002 divorce, with no
evidence of recent responsible action to address them. Although 18 of the 28 debts
involved medical bills, these only involved 28% ($3,767 out of $13,359) of the amount
past due. This potentially mitigating condition is not supported as a factor for significant
consideration in this case. 
Evidence that Athe 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@
is potentially mitigating under AG & 20(c). Similarly, AG & 20(d) applies where the
evidence shows Athe individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.@ Applicant neither asserted nor provided evidence of either of
these conditions, except with respect to the $371 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.c (which she
did not even realize was reported as being paid), and the $50 debt alleged in ¶ 1.l,
which she paid. I conclude these potentially mitigating conditions do not apply.
Applicant reported surplus monthly income, yet regularly incurs delinquent debt.
She has made minimal effort to address or resolve the delinquent debts established by
the Government, even after receiving notice of the security concerns raised by these
issues. This supports the inference that she remains financially overextended and,
therefore, at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. It further indicates
a lack of judgment and unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, thereby raising
substantial questions about her reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to safeguard
classified information.
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
7
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 considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a mature individual who
is responsible for her choices and conduct. She provided no information to show that
any of these debts arose due to circumstances largely beyond her control. Applicant
has been employed almost continuously throughout the period that these debts became
delinquent, and reports having the means to begin resolving these delinquent debts
should she choose to do so. She has chosen not to resolve them without valid
justification. There is no evidence of rehabilitation or permanent behavioral change. She
submitted no evidence demonstrating that risk of coercion or duress is not significant
Her ongoing disregard of lawful obligations, especially after receiving notice of the
security concerns raised thereby, creates continuing doubt about her trustworthiness
and reliability. She offered no other evidence to mitigate these concerns. 
Overall, the record evidence creates substantial doubt as to Applicant’s eligibility
and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has
not mitigated the security concerns arising from her financial considerations. 
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: Against Applicant
8
Subparagraph 1.n: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.t: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.u: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.v: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.w: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.x: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.y: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.z: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.aa: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ab: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ac: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ad: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ae: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.af: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge