1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-08112
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
HOWE, Philip S., Administrative Judge:
On September 28, 2006, Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application
(SF 86). On October 29, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F
to 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 answered the SOR in writing on November 16, 2007. He requested his
case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. 
On December 26, 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
2
refutation, extenuation, or mitigation.  Applicant received the file on January 7, 2008.
Applicant did not file a response to the FORM within the 30 day time allowed that would
have expired on February 6, 2008. I received the case assignment on March 27, 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 all the factual
allegations in the SOR.  He also provided additional information to support his request
for eligibility for a security clearance.  
Applicant is 36 years old, married and undergoing a divorce, and has two
children.  He works as a software engineer for a defense contractor.  The SOR lists 15
delinquent debts, including a mortgage loan debt of $141,841 resulting from his June
2007 home foreclosure, defaulted student loans totaling $140,786 on which Applicant
has not made any payments since May 2007, an auto repossession debt balance of
$16,879, three credit card debts totaling $5,581, medical debts of $1,351, a collector
owed $130, another creditor or collector owed $8,123, and a collector owed $3,370.
These debts total $318,061. (Items 1, 6-8)
Applicant filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in December 2004.  It was terminated or
dismissed on March 20, 2007, for Applicant’s failure to continue making the court-
ordered payments. (Items 4, 7)
Applicant attributed his financial difficulties to his separation and pending divorce
from his wife.  Applicant presented no evidence concerning the details of his debts,
income during the marriage, or other specific information concerning his finances.  He
did not provide any information on repayment plans for his delinquent debts.
Applicant’s credit reports of February 27, 2007, and October 17, 2007, show the debts
listed in the SOR as being due and owing. (Items 5-8)
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 “whole person concept.” The administrative judge must consider
3
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.
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 to obtain 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. 
4
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 a significant amount of delinquent debt and
has been unable or unwilling  to pay some obligations for a period of time. 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 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
provided no evidence that makes this mitigating condition (MC) applicable.
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 suggested his
divorce affected his financial status, but provided insufficient evidence to substantiate
his three sentence statement that a divorce was pending and his marital difficulties
caused his financial problems.  His written presentation is not sufficiently persuasive for
application of this MC.
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.@ AG ¶ 20(e) applies if 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.”  Applicant did not submit any evidence to support these
MC; hence, they do not apply.
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.”
5
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. When these problems began,
Applicant was a mature adult. (See AG & 2(a)(4).) He accumulated $318,000 of debt,
did not submit any persuasive and credible evidence that he has a repayment plan or
repaid any of these debts. (See AG & 2(a)(2).) Applicant has not undergone any
significant behavioral changes or sought credit counseling. (See AG & 2(a)(6).)  The
magnitude of his debts could be a source of improper pressure or duress. (See AG &
2(a)(8).)  His debts, the number and amount, are a security concern. (See AG &
2(a)(1).)  
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and 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.  I conclude the financial considerations security concern against
Applicant.  I conclude the “whole person concept” against Applicant. 
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 to 1.o: 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