1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 07-00693
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace Le’i, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
April 30, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on February 14, 2006 (Government Exhibit 1).  On October 3, 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 filed an Answer to the SOR on October 26, 2007, and requested a
hearing before an Administrative Judge.  Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on January 7, 2008.  I received the case assignment on January 9, 2008.  DOHA issued
a notice of hearing on January 15, 2008, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on
February 21, 2008. The government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 4, which
2
were received without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted
Applicant’s Exhibits A through E, without objection. I granted Applicant’s request to keep
the record open until February 29, 2008, to submit additional matters.  On February 25,
2008, he submitted Applicant’s Exhibit F, without objection. DOHA received the
transcript of the hearing on February 29, 2008. The record closed on February 29,
2008.  Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony,
eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
The Applicant is 39, single and has a Bachelor of Science degree.  He is
employed by a defense contractor as a network security manager and seeks to retain a
security clearance previously granted in connection with his employment.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.b.  These two debts are actually part of the same debt
to the same financial institution (Credit Union).  The Applicant has been in a years long
dispute with the Credit Union, and it’s successor collection agencies, about the validity
and amount of this debt.  He has also attempted to settle this debt over the years.
The Applicant bought an automobile from the Credit Union in 1996.  The original
loan amount was $19,000.00.  The car had many problems and for two years the
Applicant attempted to fix them.  In 1998 he got in a dispute with the Credit Union
concerning their reimbursing him for auto repairs he states were authorized by them.
He refused to pay any more on the loan for the car until he was reimbursed, and the car
was eventually repossessed, also in 1998.  When the car was repossessed the
Applicant still owed about $15,000.00.  (Transcript at 27-43.)
Since that time the Applicant has repeatedly attempted to reach a resolution with
either the Credit Union or its collection agencies.  The Applicant spoke at great length
about his problems with how the Credit Union and the collection agencies have handled
his account.  He submitted written evidence confirming that, on several occasions, he
has made reasonable offers to resolve this situation.  His most recent written offer was
made on February 6, 2007.  He last spoke with the financial institution about this debt
about two weeks before the hearing.  The Applicant is willing to resolve this dispute, and
has the money to do so, but no one will work with him to resolve the situation.
(Government Exhibit 2 at 2-6; Applicant’s Exhibit F at 3-8; Transcript at 50-55, 76-83,
90-98.)
Subparagraph 1.c.  The Applicant has consistently denied that he has ever had
an account with Bank One, or that he owes any money to this creditor.  Once again, the
Applicant thoroughly documented his attempts since at least 2004 to resolve this
There are three credit reports in evidence.  Both debts in the SOR are referenced in Government Exhibit 4, dated March1
10, 2006.  The Applicant disputed the Credit Union account and it was removed from his credit file, as shown in
Applicant’s Exhibit A, dated September 30, 2006; and Government Exhibit 3, dated December 11, 2007.  The Bank One
debt does appear in Applicant’s Exhibit A, but not in Government Exhibit 3.
3
situation.  (Government Exhibit 2 at 7-8; Applicant’s Exhibits A, B and F at 10-12;
Transcript at 43-49, 56-70.)1
Mitigation
The Applicant submitted evidence showing that on at least one occasion his
identity has been confused with someone else’s concerning other debts.  (Government
Exhibit 2 at 13-14; Transcript at 49-50, 66-70.)
The Applicant is a member of the Reserves, as well as working for a Defense
contractor.  He submitted documentation from his Armed Service showing that he is a
respected non-commissioned officer who is considered to have great potential.
(Applicant’s Exhibits C, D and E.)
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  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(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.  In addition, the Administrative Judge may also rely on his own
common sense, as well as his knowledge of the law, human nature, and the ways of the
world, in making a reasoned 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.
4
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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized by President Eisenhower in Section 7 of Executive Order
10865, “Any determination under this order . . . shall be a determination 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. The Applicant admits that he owed the debts set forth in SOR
subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.b. In addition, there is some documentary evidence showing
that he may owe the debt in subparagraph 1.c.  The evidence is sufficient to raise these
potentially disqualifying conditions, requiring a closer examination.
5
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
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.@ Almost ten
years ago, the Applicant got into a reasonable dispute with the Credit Union, a dispute
he has been totally unable to resolve, despite his best efforts.  I find the behavior
occurred under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur, and it does not
raise concerns about her current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. The
evidence raises this potentially mitigating condition. 
Evidence that Athe individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts@ is also mitigating under ¶ 20(d).  The Applicant
never denied he owed the Credit Union some amount of money.  To the best of his
ability over several years he attempted to resolve this situation without success.  With
regards to Bank One, he has consistently denied having an account with them or owing
them money, and thoroughly documented his disputes about that debt.  I conclude
these potentially mitigating conditions apply.
Finally, ¶ 20(e) states that it may be mitigating where “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.”  As set forth at length above, the
Applicant has a legitimate dispute with both creditors.  He has thoroughly documented
his efforts to resolve these debts.  This mitigating condition clearly applies to the facts of
this case.
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.
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case.  The Applicant has a good credit
history, with the exception of the debts of concern here.  He has legitimate disputes with
these creditors, and has behaved reasonably and appropriately in trying to resolve
6
them.  Under the particular circumstances of this case, I find that there is little to no
potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress (AG ¶2(a)8)), and that the
likelihood of recurrence is close to nil (AG ¶2(a)8)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant 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 THE APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c.: For the Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
_________________
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge