1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 07-06149
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
On September 24, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline
F. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry (February 20, 1990), 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 on October 25, 2007, and requested a hearing
before an Administrative Judge. I received the case assignment on November 19, 2007.
DOHA issued a notice of hearing on November 26, 2007, and I convened the hearing
as scheduled on December 13, 2007. During the hearing, I received four Government
exhibits, five Applicant exhibits, and the testimony of two Applicant witnesses. DOHA
received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on December 12, 2007. Based upon a review of the
2
case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted. 
Findings of Fact
In his Answer, Applicant denied all of the SOR allegations except subparagraph
1.e.
Applicant is a 37-year-old, married man with six children ranging in age from four
to eighteen. The three oldest children live with their mother, his ex-wife. The younger
three children with Applicant and their mother, his current wife. He has been married to
his current wife since 2003. 
Applicant has a high school education, and has taken some college courses. He
works as an electronics technician for a defense contractor. His job duties include
testing military equipment. (Exhibit 1 at 2). He has been in this line of work for
approximately 14 years.
Applicant is highly respected on the job. His supervisor characterizes him as one
of the most trustworthy individuals he had ever met. (Tr. 59). Applicant frequently works
overtime to complete assigned projects. (Exhibit A).
In 1997, Applicant quit his job, and started a wine wholesale business. (Tr. 39).
Shortly thereafter, he sold that business and opened a liquor store. (Tr. 48). His
business was unsuccessful, prompting him to dissolve it in 1999. At or about the same
time his business was struggling, his first marriage was disintegrating. He and his first
wife divorced in 1998.
Applicant returned to his electronics technician job in 2000. Between 2000 and
2002, he experienced a series of layoffs that collectively resulted in three months
without income. (Tr.49). By 2007, he had accrued nine delinquencies in the approximate
amount of $10,900. 
SOR subparagraph 1.a is a medical bill. He satisfied it in July 2007. (Exhibit 4 at
7). SOR subparagraph 1.b is a late monthly membership fee owed to a health club to
which Applicant belonged in 2000. The health club continued to bill him after he
informed them he was terminating his membership contract. Later that year, when
Applicant discovered this debt on his credit report, he attempted to contact the club to
dispute the charge, and discovered that it had gone out of business (Tr. 23). In July
2007, after discovering it was on his credit report, he wrote the credit reporting agency,
and informed it of the dispute. (Exhibit 4 at 3).
Compare the matching account numbers in the November 2005 credit report (Exhibit 2 at 4), the1
September 2007 credit report (Exhibit 3 at 7), and the December 2007 credit report (Exhibit D at 1 and 2).
Compare the matching account numbers in the November 2005 credit report (Exhibit 2 at 4) and the2
September 2007 credit report (Exhibit 3 at 2).
3
SOR subparagraphs 1.c and 1.i are duplicates.  Applicant researched this debt,1
and discovered the creditor was an automobile insurance underwriter. (Tr. 24). He then
disputed it, and notified, in writing, his credit reporting agency of the dispute. (Exhibit 4
at 3). The dispute has not yet been resolved.
SOR subparagraphs 1.d and 1.e are duplicates.  In approximately 1998,2
Applicant financed the purchase of a truck. (Tr. 29). It was repossessed in 2001 after his
payments grew delinquent. After the truck was resold, the deficiency note was assigned
to another creditor. (Tr. 25). Applicant never received notice of assignment, and did not
know a deficiency existed until he discovered the debt on his credit report when he
attempted to buy another car. (Tr. 31). In July 2007, he wrote the current creditor
requesting information validating its status as the current holder of the deficiency note.
(Exhibit 4 at 3). He will not pay the creditor until he verifies it is the appropriate payee.
SOR subparagraphs 1.f and 1.g are delinquencies owed to the same creditor.
(Tr. 32). Applicant does not recognize the creditor. He has left three phone messages in
an effort to identify and resolve the bills, and has not received a response. (Tr. 32, 33).
The creditor listed in SOR subparagraph 1.h is a collection agent for a phone
company. (Exhibit 4 at 10). In October 2006, Applicant negotiated a settlement. (Exhibit
4 at 11), and he satisfied it two months later. (Exhibit 4 at 12, Copy of Cancelled
Check).
SOR subparagraph 1.j is a delinquent home utility bill, and SOR subparagraph
1.k is a delinquent utility bill from his failed business. (Tr. 38). In July 2007, Applicant
entered an agreement to satisfy these debts through electronic monthly payments. (Tr.
41, Exhibit B). By October 2007, he had satisfied both. (Tr. 41). 
Applicant owns a home and two automobiles. (Tr. 42). He purchased the home
three years ago. He satisfied the car note on one car in 2004 (Tr. 54), and is current on
both his mortgage and the remaining car note.
In response to Government interrogatories, Applicant, in July 2007, submitted a
budget. (Exhibit 4 at 13). Currently, he has approximately $200 of monthly, remaining,
after-expense income.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
Administrative Judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
4
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 overarching
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 an 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).
5
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “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” (AG
¶ 18). Moreover, “an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to
engage in illegal acts to generate funds” (Id.).
Here, Applicant’s financial problems trigger the applicability of AG & 19(a), “an
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,@ AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial
obligations,” and AG ¶19(e), “consistent spending beyond one’s means, which may be
indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-
income ratio, and/or other financial analysis.”
Applicant’s divorce and business failure both occurred in the late 1990s. These
unfortunate circumstances were followed by a series of layoffs between 2000 and 2002.
Collectively, these problems significantly contributed to his subsequent financial
indebtedness. Since 2006, he has been resolving his delinquencies by either satisfying
them in their entirety, or arranging settlement plans. The only unresolved ones are
either those whose respective creditors he has been unable to contact, or those that he
has disputed. With respect to the disputed debts, he wrote the credit reporting agency in
July 2007, and provided a comprehensive outline of the basis of each dispute
Although the unresolved delinquencies include an automobile deficiency, the
largest listed in the SOR, I conclude Applicant’s explanation for not yet satisfying it was
reasonable given his credibility displayed at the hearing, the cause of his indebtedness,
and the good-faith manner in which he has been attempting to resolve it. AG ¶¶ 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,” 20(c), “. . . . there are clear indications that the problem is
under control,” 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” and 20(e) “the individual has a reasonable basis
to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and . . .
provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue,” apply. Applicant has mitigated the
financial considerations security concern.
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
6
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.
Applicant’s delinquencies were caused by circumstances beyond his control.
None were reflective of any extravagant spending. Since 2006, he has been
methodically resolving them. His financial management skills appear significantly
competent enough for him to successfully incorporate additional debt payments into his
budget if the credit reporting agency concludes he must pay the disputed creditors.
Evaluating this case in light of the whole person concept, I conclude he has mitigated
the financial considerations security concern. 
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
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.k: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                             
_________________
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge