1
1                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-07415
SSN: -------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on September
12, 2006. On September 26, 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 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 in writing on October 15, 2007, and requested a
hearing before an Administrative Judge. DOHA received the request on October 22,
2007. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on November 16, 2007, and I
received the case assignment on November 19, 2007. DOHA issued a notice of hearing
on November 21, 2007, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on December 12,
2007. The government offered Exhibits (Ex.) 1 through 5, which were received without
2
objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits A through J,
without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on December 19,
2007. 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 Answer Applicant admitted the factual allegations in SOR subparagraphs
1.a and 1.b. He denied the factual allegations in SOR subparagraphs 1.c and 1.d. He
also provided additional information to support his request for eligibility for a security
clearance.  
Applicant is a 33-year-old married man with one child, age five. He is an
electrical engineer who has been working for his current employer for two years. He
earned a bachelor’s degree in 1998. His employer granted him an outstanding
performance award for 2007 (Exhibit G).
Between 2001 and 2006, Applicant accrued approximately $40,000 of delinquent
debt. Before this period, he had no trouble paying his bills. In mid-2001, however, he
was laid off (Exhibit 1 at 5). For the next five years, he was either unemployed, or
underemployed (see generally, Exhibit 1 at 4, Tr. 41). Unable to make ends meet, he
became overly reliant upon credit cards.
In approximately 2005, Applicant decided to increase his job prospects by
enrolling in graduate school. In September 2006, he graduated, earning a master’s
degree in electrical engineering. Shortly thereafter, his current employer hired him.
Once Applicant’s finances began to stabilize, he began confronting his
delinquencies. In October 2007, he contacted the creditor listed in SOR subparagraph
1.a, and negotiated a settlement agreement (Exhibit A). Under the agreement, he will
pay the creditor $6,540 in increments consisting of a $1,500 initial payment followed by
successive $250 monthly payments (Id.). He has made the first three payments, as
agreed (Exhibits H and I).
SOR subparagraphs 1.b and 1.d constitute the same delinquency. It was
assigned to the collection agent listed in SOR subparagraph 1.d and later transferred to
the collection agent listed in subparagraph 1.b (Exhibits C and E). Through a settlement
agreement, Applicant paid the creditor $1,000 in October 2007, and $250 the next
month (Exhibit J). He will continue to make $250 monthly payments until the debt is
satisfied.
In approximately September 2007, Applicant contacted the creditor listed in SOR
subparagraph 1.c. In response, a representative of the creditor informed him the
account was no longer in its possession (Exhibit B). Using the forwarding information
provided by the representative, Applicant contacted the new collection agent. It did not
have any information about the debt (Tr. 30). 
3
Applicant currently earns $68,000 per year (Tr. 38). During the three previous
years, he earned, on average, $25,000 per year (Tr. 42). Since finishing graduate
school, Applicant has moved to a smaller, less expensive home. In doing so, he
decreased his monthly expenses by $200. Also, his wife took a part-time job in an effort
to assist with the family finances. He has $500 remaining each month after expenses
have been paid (Tr. 39).
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 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 the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
4
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 security concern relating to this guideline 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 potentially disqualifying conditions. Here, the
applicable ones are AG & 19(a), an Ainability 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.”
The guideline also lists several potentially mitigating conditions, addressing
among other things, the cause of the indebtedness, any efforts toward debt resolution,
and the applicant’s current financial status. Here, Applicant’s financial problems did not
begin until he was laid off in 2001. After years of unemployment or underemployed, he
enhanced his job prospects by obtaining a graduate degree, and successfully obtained
a new job. As his finances stabilized, he began contacting creditors. Of his three
remaining delinquencies, he has been satisfying two with monthly payments for the past
two months. Also, although he has not yet confirmed the identity of the third creditor, he
has made good-faith efforts to do so. He has ample monthly income to implement
another payment plan.
This favorable information triggers the application of AG ¶ 20(a), 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,@ 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,” AG & 20(c), Athe person
has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear
5
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control,@and AG ¶ 20(d), the
individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts.
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.
Applicant’s delinquencies were not caused by a history of irresponsible spending.
Instead, they accrued from his inability to support his family after being laid off in 2001.
He then made the prudent decision to enhance his job prospects by earning a master’s
degree, which led to a stable, well-paying job, as anticipated. He reduced his expenses
by moving into a smaller, cheaper apartment, and contacted creditors to initiate
payment plans. His financial situation appears to be well in control. Evaluating this case
in light of the whole person concept, I conclude that Applicant has mitigated the security
concern. 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 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.d: For Applicant
6
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                             
_________________
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge