1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 07-07253
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace Le’i, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: *************************, Personal Representative
April 25, 2008
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on September 19, 2005 (Government Exhibit 1).  On September 25, 2007, the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
detailing the security concerns under Guideline F concerning the 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
President Bush on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department of Defense
for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant submitted an Answer to the SOR on October 17, 2007, and requested
a hearing before an Administrative Judge.  Department Counsel was prepared to
proceed on November 27, 2007.  I received the case assignment on December 3, 2007.
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
2
through 7, which were received without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf,
called one additional witness, and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits A through C, without
objection. I granted Applicant’s request to keep the record open until February 29, 2008,
to submit additional matters.  On February 27, 2008, he submitted Applicant’s Exhibit D,
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
denied.
Findings of Fact
The Applicant is 56, married and has an advanced degree.  He is employed by a
defense contractor as a Linguist and seeks to obtain a security clearance in connection
with his employment.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The Applicant has two debts that are seriously past due.  
1.a. The Applicant was hospitalized in August 2003 due to heart problems
related to high blood pressure.  He went to two hospitals and some procedures were
done.  At that time the Applicant was separated from his wife, living in a different state,
and unable to practice his profession.  He was working as a security guard and not
making a lot of money.  Accordingly, he could not pay the bills in full as they came due.
The Applicant testified that he paid a little on each bill every month, from $5.00 to
$50.00.  He accepts the fact that as of the day of the hearing he still owes money on his
medical bills, but he is disputing the amount he is alleged to owe.  (Transcript at 84-95.)
The three credit reports in the record indicate that the Applicant owes
approximately $21,000.00 in past due medical debts.  (Government Exhibits 2, 3 and 5.)
The Applicant also submitted documentation from the current creditor/collection agency,
which alleges the same debt.  (Government Exhibit 4 at 14-15.)  The Applicant disputes
this amount.  He believes the debt for his hospitalization should be in the neighborhood
of $2,100.  He submitted records showing that he contacted the collection agency by
mail in August 2007, and telephone in October 2007.  (Applicant’s Exhibit B.)  He
testified that he had not had any further contacts and, as of the day of the hearing, he
had received no response from them.  (Transcript at 111-112.)  The Applicant
repeatedly stated that he would pay for his just medical bills, but that he did not think he
received $21,000.00 worth of medical care.  (Transcript at 117-122.)  After the hearing
was concluded, the Applicant filed a dispute with the credit reporting services
concerning this debt.  (Applicant’s Exhibit D.)
The Applicant submitted copies of his medical bills to DOHA in his Interrogatories
(Government Exhibit 4.)  These documents indicate that the Applicant was receiving
bills from two hospitals, an ambulance service, and various medical providers.  The
Applicant submitted documentation from one hospital that his Financial Hardship
3
Application was granted at 100% of his billing.  (Government Exhibit 4 at 6, Applicant’s
Exhibit A.)  He also submitted billing statements from a doctor and an ambulance
company showing that they were accepting his small monthly payments for several
years on his accounts through August 2007.  From the available records, the Applicant
has paid each of these creditors about half of their bill.  (Government Exhibit 4 at 23-
31.)  These two debts are the only ones that were being paid after 2005.  From July
2005 through September 2007, the Applicant was serving overseas with the United
States Armed Forces in support of the Global War on Terror.  His wife paid these bills
during his absence.  (Transcript at 87, 99, 123-124.)  At the hearing, neither the
Applicant or his wife were able to say when the last payment was made to any of his
creditors.  (Transcript at 60-61.) 
Using the original bills that the Applicant submitted in Government Exhibit 4, a
total original amount of at least $6,764.75 is found owing.  This does not include the bill
from the hospital which forgave the Applicant’s debt.  The Applicant’s records also show
total payments of $1,405.00.  Therefore, by the Applicant’s own figures, he still owes at
least $5,359.75 in medical bills.  Of that amount, $1,183.75 is owed to the doctor and
ambulance company, who have been accepting the Applicant’s payments.  This means
the Applicant owes at least $4,176.00 in medical bills that he is not currently paying, and
indicates that he will not pay until he receives what he finds to be a correct and current
billing.
1.b. The Applicant and his wife used an accountant to prepare their joint tax
return.  His normal charge for this was $225.00 a year.  They separated in 2000.  The
accountant prepared tax returns for each of them that year and charged each of them
$465.00.  The Applicant paid $232.00 on this account on May 22, 2001, and protested
to the accountant about what he felt was the excessive price.  The Applicant’s wife also
submitted a check for $232.50.  (Applicant’s Exhibit C, Transcript at 32-40.)  The
Applicant feels that he has a legitimate dispute with this accountant and refuses to pay
anything more on this bill.  (Transcript at 122.)  After the hearing was concluded, the
Applicant filed a dispute with the credit reporting services concerning this debt.
(Applicant’s Exhibit D.)
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 ¶
4
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.
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
5
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 inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), a history of not meeting financial obligations may raise
security concerns. Based on the state of this record, I am unable to determine the total
past due indebtedness of the Applicant regarding subparagraph 1.a.  The Applicant has
at least $4,176.00 in past due medical bills, which have been due and owing for several
years. This does not include the two medical debts that the Applicant has been paying
over the years.  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
may be mitigated 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=s
financial difficulties arose in 2003.  However, he still owes a considerable amount of
debt as of the date of the hearing, no matter whose figures are used.  This mitigating
condition is not applicable to this case.  
AG ¶ 20(b) states that the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where the
conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s
control (e.g., loss of employment . . . unexpected medical emergency, . . . separation),
and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.  The Applicant was laid
off from his job.  He and his wife separated and he had to move to another state, where
he was underemployed and hospitalized.  For a period of time he made small payments
on his medical debts.  He disputes the amount he owes for some of the debts.
However, he has not acted responsibly or in a timely manner.  He has not contacted the
collection agency since last year, and it was only after the hearing that he filed a dispute
with the credit reporting agencies Even taking into consideration his service overseas
from 2005 through 2007, I cannot find, under these particular circumstances, that the
Applicant has acted responsibly.
The Applicant has initiated a good-faith effort to pay off some of his creditors.
Consequently, AG ¶ 20(d) is arguably applicable.  As stated earlier, based on the state
of this record, I cannot determine with any kind of certainty how much the Applicant
currently owes in past due medical debts.  Given that fact, I cannot find that there are
clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control, as required by
AG ¶ 20(c).
AG ¶ 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
6
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.  The Applicant has filed disputes about both
allegations with the credit reporting firms.  However, based on the state of the record, I
can find that only the one with regards to the accountant is legitimate at this time.
Therefore, subparagraph 1.b. is found for the Applicant.
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 is a hard-working,
professional person who has had some tough times.  However, by his own admission,
the Applicant is nowhere near being able to pay off even the medical debt he admits he
owes in any reasonable period of time.
Of course, the issue is not simply whether all the Applicant’s debts are paid - it is
whether his financial circumstances raise concerns about his fitness to hold a security
clearance.  Under AG ¶ 2(a)(3), this conduct is recent.  Given the state of the record, I
am not convinced that the Applicant has a good grasp of his actual debt situation.  Nor
has he been diligent in figuring these figures out.  Accordingly, I cannot find that there
have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6).  Therefore, at the
present time, I cannot find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or duress (AG ¶2(a)8)), or that the likelihood of recurrence is close to nil
(AG ¶2(a)9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and/or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude the Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
considerations.  If the Applicant can plainly and clearly resolve the questions
surrounding his total indebtedness, and how he intends to resolve it, he may be eligible
for a security clearance in the future.  He is not eligible now.  
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has not successfully overcome the
Government's case opposing his request for a DoD security clearance.  Accordingly, the
7
evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary
allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the Government's Statement of Reasons.
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 THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For the Applicant 
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
_________________
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge