DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-03673
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
March 24, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On October 10, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant detailing the security concerns under
Guideline F. 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 answered the SOR in writing on November 5, 2007, and requested an
Administrative Determination by an Administrative Judge (AJ). Department Counsel
issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on November 27, 2007. Applicant filed an
undated response to the FORM.  Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and
exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 50 year old employee of a defense contractor.
Two Notices of Federal tax liens were filed against applicant. In February 2004, a
Notice of Tax lien in the amount of $19,233.00 was filed. And, in June 2005, a Notice of
Tax lien in the amount of $9,155.00 was filed. In April 2007, applicant entered into an
agreement with the IRS requiring him to make monthly payments of $650.00 to the IRS
in exchange for the IRS withdrawing the tax lien notices. Pay stubs applicant provided in
response to the SOR show $650.00 a month in payments are being deducted from his
paycheck. A letter from the IRS he attached to his response to the FORM indicates the
IRS has begun the process of withdrawing the tax lien notices.
A State tax lien in the amount of $5,547.00 was filed against applicant in April
2007. This debt has not been paid. In his response to the SOR, applicant stated it has
not been paid because he is “questioning the amount and would like to see a copy of
the tax return.”
Applicant paid the $2,287.00 Collectibles Mgmt Resour/Enterprising Leasing debt
in January 2006.
The Chase debt appears to be the same debt as the UNIFUND debt, which now
stands at $12,400.23. Applicant entered into a repayment agreement with the creditor
on November 2, 2007 which required applicant to make an initial payment of $1,240.00
by December 2, 2007, and monthly payments of $232.50 thereafter until the debt is paid
in full. There is no evidence that applicant made the required payments.
Applicant satisfied the $467.00 First Premier debt in or before October 2007.
Applicant satisfied the debt to CAP 1 BANK, in the approximate amount of
$1,100.00, in November 2007.
Applicant satisfied the $423.00 Arrow Financial debt in November 2007.
Applicant satisfied the $1,792.00 debt to ANDREWS FCU in November 2007.
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.” (Department of
the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,527 (1988).) In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), the President set out
guidelines and procedures for safeguarding classified information within the executive
branch. The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant
applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” (Exec. Ord. 10865, Section 2.)
3
To be eligible for a security clearance, an applicant must meet the security
guidelines contained in the Directive. Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth personnel
security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions
under each guideline.
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. (Directive, Paragraph E3.1.14.) Thereafter, the applicant is
responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.
(Directive, Paragraph E3. 1.15.) An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating
that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance.” (ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).) “Any doubt as to
whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will
be resolved in favor of the national security.” (Directive, Paragraph E2.2.2.)
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. (Exec. Ord. 10865, Section 7.) It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
has established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Financial Considerations
Paragraph 18 of the new AG sets out the security concern relating to 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.
The AG note several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
Paragraph19.a., an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” is potentially disqualifying.
Under Paragraph 19.c., “a history of not meeting financial obligations” may raise
security concerns. The evidence shows applicant has a history of not meeting his
financial obligations based on an inability or unwillingness to do so. These disqualifying
conditions are therefore applicable.
The guidelines also set out some potentially mitigating conditions. Paragraph
20.a. may apply where “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.” Applicant has
4
not provided any reasonable explanation for his failure to honor his financial
obligations. Accordingly, it is impossible to conclude this behavior will not recur. This
mitigation condition does not apply.
Paragraph 20.d. applies where the evidence shows “the individual initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Applicant has
resolved, or is in the process of resolving, most of the debts listed in the SOR. This
mitigation condition applies.
“Whole Person” Analysis 
Under the whole person concept, the AJ must evaluate an applicant’s security
eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the
circumstances. An AJ should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at
AG Paragraph 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 Paragraph 2c, the ultimate
determination of whether to grant a security clearance must be an overall common
sense 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 man who
accumulated and failed to repay a significant amount of debt. Although he has made
significant progress in dealing with these debts by either paying them or making
arrangements to pay them over time, much of his unsecured debt remains. It is fair to
say he still owes over $30,000.00 in back taxes and approximately $11,000.00 to
UNIFUND. In addition, he has failed to offer any reasonable explanation for
accumulating so much delinquent debt. Without such information, there is no way to
conclude his history of financial difficulties will not recur. Based on these facts, I have
no choice but to conclude applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from
Guideline F.
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
5
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.
                                              
_________________
JOSEPH TESTAN
Administrative Judge