DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
--------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-07324 
SSN: ------------------- ) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOWE, Philip S., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on December 21, 
2006. 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 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=s receipt for the SOR is dated July 13, 2007. He answered the SOR in 
writing on August 6, 2007, and requested his case be decided on the written record in lieu 
of a hearing.  
 
 
 
1 
 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
On December 11, 2007, Department Counsel submitted the Department=s written 
case.  A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to the 
Applicant. He was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, 
extenuation, or mitigation.  Applicant received the file on December 17, 2007.  Applicant did 
not file a response to the FORM within the 30 day time allowed that would have expired on 
January 16, 2008. I received the case assignment on March 13, 2008. Based upon a 
review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified 
information is denied. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
In his Answer to the SOR, dated June 25, 2007, Applicant admitted the factual 
allegations in && 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, and 1.d of the SOR, with explanations. 
 
Applicant is 30 years old, married, and works for a defense contractor. (Item 5) 
 
Applicant admits he owes $109 to a debt collector for a telephone bill.  Applicant 
admits he owes $9,083 to a bank on a credit card debt.  He also admits he owes $8,718 to 
another credit card company.  Lastly, Applicant admits he owes $37,874 to another bank 
on a credit card debt.  Applicant sent letters to each collector or creditor in 2006 and 2007, 
seeking Avalidation@ of these debts, but has not paid any of these delinquent debts.  (Items 
4, 6, 7, 8) 
 
Applicant=s Answer refers to a cost of living increase, his real estate taxes 
increasing, and his home remodeling business failing in 2005.  He provides no explanation 
of these statements, or supporting documentation to show the context within which he did 
not repay the delinquent debts listed in the SOR. (Item 4) 
 
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, the administrative judge applies the guidelines 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 Awhole 
person concept.@ The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information 
about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. 
 
 
 
3 
 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG & 2(b) 
requires that A[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 Awitnesses 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 Ain 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 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 substantial delinquent debt.  He has not paid them, and 
 
 
4 
 
 
offers no reasonable, good-faith explanation as to why he has not paid these debts listed in 
the SOR.  Merely sending response letters to creditors without negotiating a settlement, 
arranging installment payments, or paying the debts in full, shows an unwillingness to pay 
his debts. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions, 
requiring a closer examination. 
  
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security 
concerns arising from financial difficulties. 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 hints at a business downturn in his Answer, but does not explain 
what he means.  Nor does he explain what Acost of living increases@ he blames for his 
inability to repay these debts.  Neither does he explain how the debts arose from his 
business, or if they came from his personal spending habits.  The burden of proof is on him 
to show that the mitigating conditions should apply to him.  He failed in this burden.  I do 
not find this potentially mitigating condition is a factor for consideration in this case.  There 
are no other mitigating conditions which could apply under these facts.  
 
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): A(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of 
the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the frequency and recentcy 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. It is unclear from Applicant=s answer when 
and how his financial problems arose, and what were the basis for these debts which are 
now delinquent. (See AG & 2(a)(4).) Applicant does not explain in any detail how his debts 
occurred, what efforts he made to repay them, or avoid such problems in the future. (See 
AG & 2(a)(2).)  Applicant provided no information concerning efforts to repay the debts or 
behavioral changes to remedy the situation.  Applicant owes about $56,000 and refuses to 
make good-faith efforts to repay these debts.  He has not repaid even the $109 phone bill. 
(See AG & 2(a)(6).)  The potential for coercion, exploitation or duress exists because of the 
size of the debt, which will affect his credit ratings, thereby causing him to take advantage 
 
 
5 
 
 
of any method to extricate himself from this predicament, including coercive methods by 
other persons. (See AG & 2(a)(8).) Applicant voluntarily entered into these debts, and it is 
likely he will continue in his refusal to repay them. (See AG & 2(a)(5) and (9).) 
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and substantial doubts as to 
Applicant=s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns arising from his 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:   Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.d:   Against 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. 
 
 
 
                                                   
_________________ 
PHILIP S. HOWE 
Administrative Judge