1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 07-08275
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Rita C. O’Brien, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on October 17,
2005. On October 18, 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 acknowledged receipt of the SOR on November 13, 2007, and
requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. DOHA received the request on
January 17, 2008, and I received the case assignment on January 17, 2008. DOHA
issued a notice of hearing on January 28, 2008, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on February 15, 2008. The government offered Exhibits (Ex.) 1 through 4
which were received without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and
Applicant’s answer, dated November 13, 2007.1
GE 1(Security Clearance Questionnaire, dated October 17, 2005).2
Applicant’s second wife was abusive to his three children from his former marriage. Applicant did not want3
them in the home with his second wife.
GE 2 (Answer to interrogatories, dated August 28, 2007).4
2
submitted Exhibits A through D, without objection. He also presented the testimony of
one witness. At Applicant’s request, I kept the record open until February 25, 2008.
Applicant timely submitted a document that I marked as Exhibit E. Department Counsel
had no objection to the submission. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.)
On February 26, 2008. 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 to the SOR, dated November 13, 2007, Applicant admitted the
factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a-1.d, of the SOR, with explanations.  He provided additional1
information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance. 
Applicant is a 53-year-old employee of a defense contractor. Applicant served on
active duty in the U.S. Navy from 1979 until 1999. He received a top-secret security
clearance while he was on active duty in the Navy. He retired as an officer (O-5
Commander) from the Navy in 1999.  He has not held a clearance for the last few2
years.
Applicant’s first marriage ended in divorce in 1991. He has four children from that
marriage. In 1994, Applicant remarried. He has one son as a result of that marriage. He
and his second wife separated in 2002. Applicant’s second wife refused to work during
the marriage. When Applicant retired his income was less. He and his second wife
could not pay all their bills. They had three mortgages on the family home which was
eventually foreclosed. He also had boarding school bills for three children.  Applicant3
filed for Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in May 2001, because he wanted to pay all his
creditors.  4
After Applicant retired from the Navy, he worked in the financial services industry.
His work did not succeed as a result of the impact of September 2001. He took various
jobs but they were low paying.  He was also supporting his children and his estranged
wife and paying the mortgage on the family home. The pastor of his church gave him
temporary living quarters until he could find a place to live in 2002.
In 2003, Applicant’s second wife filed an order for support. Applicant could not
afford an attorney to represent him. The amount of court ordered support and mortgage
payment totaled 100% of Applicant’s income according to Applicant. During that time
Applicant worked many jobs. He worked as a teacher and a janitor at night. He worked
Id.5
GE 3 (Credit Bureau Report for Applicant).6
AE D (Order of Child Support withholding).7
 Tr. 40.8
3
during the summer in construction work. However, he continued to pay under the
bankruptcy plan. The bankruptcy was discharged in 2004. At the same time, he could
barely afford all his living expenses. He fell behind in the support payments. Applicant’s
very contentious separation has lasted for five years. During this time, Applicant has
paid all that he could to the state for child support and spouse support. Applicant has
been paying into a state account for spouse/child support steadily since February 2003.
This order required Applicant to pay approximately $1,869 a month. He has asked the
local department to provide him with a history of his payments. He received the printout
but it has one account number. It is not clear how the money has been allotted.  5
. 
In 2005, Applicant began his current employment with a contractor. His salary
fluctuated but he earned a steady income. His salary ranged from $80,200 in the first
year to $52,000 in 2007. This was the result of different work under different contracts.  
In August 2007,an amended order for child support was issued. Applicant has
$450 a month deducted from his civilian pay. His Navy retirement pay ($3,266 a month
gross) has an allotment of $1,417 for the spousal/child support account. The account
balance has been steadily decreasing. Applicant’s balance as of February 8, 2008 is
$12,642.98. The balance on May 30, 2006 was $17,584. Thus, Applicant has paid
almost $5,000 in arrearage in the past 18 months. 
Applicant petitioned for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in May 2001. His delinquent debts
were discharged in bankruptcy after his three years of payments in October 2004 (¶
1.a).The SOR alleges additional debt in the total amount of approximately $19,000.  6
Allegation ¶ 1.b in the amount of $14,321 is for an account past due for spouse
support to the state. However, Applicant has provided documentation that he has been
paying through garnishment or allotment (at his request) an amount since the 2003
court order.  7
Allegation ¶ 1.c is a civil judgment for $900. This is the result of Applicant’s
second wife living in the home after their separation. Applicant was negotiating with her
over this debt.  He did not learn of this judgment until several months after it occurred.
However, it is still unpaid. He will pay it if she does not.8
Allegation ¶ 1.d in the amount of $4,236 is for state income tax (2001). This
occurred during the marital separation. Applicant acknowledges the tax debt is not paid.
AE E.9
AE A (Letter from  LCDR US Navy (Ret).10
4
He is increasing his monthly tax withholding by $100 beginning in March 2008.   It is not9
clear how this will affect the tax debt. However, he plans to repay the taxes with the
money that will result from lower support payments.    
Applicant’s current monthly net income is approximately $2,250 (this amount is
the remainder after the garnishment and allotment payments). After monthly deductions
and expenses, he has a net remainder of $275. 
Applicant has not received any financial counseling. However, he has a
garnishment of $1,417 a month which goes toward the spousal/child support account to
the state. He even called the contact person at the state to see if he could pay more into
the account. 
Applicant’s fellow Navy aviation officer has maintained a 30-year friendship with
Applicant. He recommends Applicant highly. He believes that Applicant’s financial
difficulties stem from his failed marriage and not from any character defect. He
commends Applicant as honest, trustworthy, loyal, extremely reliable and with
unquestionable personal character.  10
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,
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. 
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 “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 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 delinquent debt and was unable to pay some
obligations for a period of time. He petitioned for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2001. 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(a), the disqualifying condition
6
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 worries arose before 2001. He accumulated some delinquent debt due to his
retirement from the military, his wife’s refusal to work and his lower income in the civilian
world. His separation in 2002 exacerbated his debt problems. While the separation,
pending divorce, and underemployment may have precipitated the debt, the inquiry
does not end at that point. The Applicant’s problems have been ongoing and he has not
resolved his tax debt. He has been active in paying his child/spousal support despite an
arrearage. He has been paying since the 2003 court order. His actions after being
gainfully employed do not raise concerns about his current reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment. This potentially mitigating condition applies in part. 
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.@ As noted above, the
financial problems arose from his separation, retirement, lower earnings and court
order. He acted responsibly by working two jobs at a time and living modestly during his
underemployment. I find this potentially mitigating condition is a factor for 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 has not received counseling and has not resolved
the delinquent 2001 tax debt. However, he filed bankruptcy and paid his creditors under
the plan until 2004 when the bankruptcy was discharged. He has been paying by
garnishment or allotment under the court order to the state for child/spousal support. He
is now in a financially sound situation. He will begin to pay his 2001 tax debt now that he
has more income. I conclude these potentially mitigating conditions apply in part.
AG ¶ 20(e) applies where the evidence shows “the individual has a reasonable
basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past due debt which is the cause of the problem
and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.” In this case, Applicant’s second wife caused
the $900 judgment. He has not paid the amount because he was negotiating with her to
do so. He will pay the judgment if she does not. I conclude this potentially mitigating
condition applies in part.
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
7
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 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 served in the U.S. Navy
for 20 years and retired as an officer. He held a top secret clearance during that time.
He has an excellent recommendation from a retired navy officer who knew Applicant.
Granted, he filed bankruptcy in 2001. However, this is a legal means of debt resolution.
His debts under the bankruptcy plan were discharged in 2004. His very contentious
separation and lower income after retirement caused his financial problems from 2002
onward. He has been paying on his court ordered child/spousal support. He is now
earning more money and can address his 2001 tax debt. Of course, the issue is not
simply whether all his debts are paidBit is whether his financial circumstances raise
concerns about his fitness to hold a security clearance. Applicant has addressed his
delinquent debts. He reported his financial information during his security investigation.
He has been proactive in paying his debts. He will address his 2001 tax debt within the
year. He has met his burden of proof in this case to overcome the government’s case. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated 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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
8
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 granted.
                                              
_________________
NOREEN A. LYNCH
Administrative Judge