1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-00250
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace Le’i, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
May 29, 2008
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on December 8,
2003 (Government Exhibit 1).  On August 13, 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 Answers to the SOR on September 11, 2007, and November
16, 2007, and requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge.  Department
Counsel was prepared to proceed on January 13, 2008.  I received the case
assignment on January 25, 2008.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing on February 6,
2008, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on March 4, 2008.  The Government
2
offered Government Exhibits 1 through 10, which were received without objection.
Applicant testified on his own behalf, called one witness, and submitted Applicant’s
Exhibits A and B, without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing on
March 14, 2008.  The record closed on that date.  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 29, divorced and has a high school diploma.  He has one child
with his ex-wife, and another child with his current girlfriend.  He is employed by a
defense contractor as a Refurbisher and seeks to retain a security clearance in
connection with his employment.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The Applicant admits all of the allegations in the SOR.  The Applicant submits
that the majority of his financial problems began when he was a young man serving in
the military.  However, the Applicant also admits that he has recently spent a
considerable amount of money helping the mother of his second child with expenses.
The mother is in the military and is deploying overseas along with her now one year old
child.  (Transcript at 41-43.)  The Applicant also stated that, with the exception of the
creditor in subparagraph 1.g., he has not been in contact with any of his creditors since
2006.  (Transcript at 31-33.)
On February 27, 2008, the Applicant signed an agreement with a Consumer
Credit Counseling Service (Service) to repay all of his past due indebtedness.
(Applicant’s Exhibit A.)  As of the date of the hearing he had not completed all the
requirements to begin the program and had made no payments to the Service as of the
date of the hearing.  The Service estimates that the Applicant will repay all of his past
due indebtedness under their plan by 2012.  (Transcript at 43-52; Applicant’s Exhibit A
at 4.)
1.a. The Applicant admits that he is indebted to Wells Fargo Bank in the
amount of at least $7,652.00.  This was the remaining debt for an automobile that was
repossessed.  The Applicant has made no payments on this debt and has no current
intention to make payments on this debt.  If he fulfills his agreement with the Service,
this debt is due to be paid off in 2012.  (Government Exhibit 6 at 3; Applicant’s Exhibit A
at 4; Transcript at 27.)
1.b. The Applicant admits that he is indebted to a collection agency on an
account placed for collection by Zales in the amount of $748.00.  The Applicant has
made no payments on this debt and has no current intention to make payments on this
debt.  If he fulfills his agreement with the Service, this debt is due to be paid off in 2011.
(Government Exhibits 3 at 7, and 6 at 4; Applicant’s Exhibit A at 4; Transcript at 29.)
3
1.c. The Applicant admits that he is indebted to Portfolio on an account placed
for collection by Sears in the amount of $2,621.00.  The Applicant has made no
payments on this debt and has no current intention to make payments on this debt.  If
he fulfills his agreement with the Service, this debt is due to be paid off in 2011.
(Government Exhibits 3 at 1, and 6 at 3; Applicant’s Exhibit A at 4.)
1.d. The Applicant admits that he is indebted to WFNNB on an account placed
by a jeweler in the amount of at least $467.00.  The Applicant has made no payments
on this debt and has no current intention to make payments on this debt.  This debt is
not included in his agreement with the Service.  (Government Exhibits 3 at 6, and 6 at
4.)
1.e. The Applicant admits that he is indebted to Household Bank in the amount
of at least $1,009.00.  The Applicant has made no payments on this debt and has no
current intention to make payments on this debt.  This debt is not included in his
agreement with the Service.  (Government Exhibits 3 at 4, and 6 at 2.)
1.f. The Applicant admits that he is indebted to Glopayrec, the successor in
interest to Check Rite, in the amount of $50.00 for an insufficient funds check.  The
Applicant has made no payments on this debt and has no current intention to make
payments on this debt.  If he fulfills his agreement with the Service, this debt was due to
be paid off in March 2008.  As stated earlier, the Applicant has made no payments to
the Service.  (Government Exhibits 2 at 3; Applicant’s Exhibit A at 4; Transcript at 29.)
1.g. The Applicant admits that he is indebted to a law firm in the amount of at
least $27.00 for an insufficient funds check.  The Applicant has made no payments on
this debt and has no current intention to make payments on this debt.  This debt is not
included in his agreement with the Service.  The Applicant contacted this creditor in
2006.  (Government Exhibit 6 at 3; Transcript at 29, 31-33.)
1.h. The Applicant admits that he is indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of at least $460.00.  The Applicant has made no payments on this debt and has
no current intention to make payments on this debt.  This debt is not included in his
agreement with the Service.  (Government Exhibits 3 at 2, and 6 at 2; Transcript at 29-
31.)
1.i. The Applicant admits that he is indebted to Midland on an account placed
for collection by a telephone company in the amount of $1,863.00.  The Applicant has
made no payments on this debt and has no current intention to make payments on this
debt.  If he fulfills his agreement with the Service, this debt is due to be paid off in 2011.
(Government Exhibits 8 at 3; Applicant’s Exhibit A at 4; Transcript at 34.)
1.j. The Applicant admits that he is indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of at least $9,249.00.  This was the remaining debt for an automobile that was
repossessed.  The Applicant has made no payments on this debt and has no current
intention to make payments on this debt.  If he fulfills his agreement with the Service,
4
this debt is due to be paid off in 2012.  (Government Exhibit 6 at 6; Applicant’s Exhibit A
at 4; Transcript at 27.)
1.k. The Applicant admits that he is indebted to Verizon in the amount of at
least $178.00.  The Applicant has made no payments on this debt and has no current
intention to make payments on this debt.  This debt is not included in his agreement
with the Service.  (Government Exhibit 6 at 6; Transcript at 34.)
1.l. The Applicant admits that he is indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of at least $149.00, for medical services.  The Applicant has made no payments
on this debt and has no current intention to make payments on this debt.  This debt is
not included in his agreement with the Service.  (Government Exhibit 6 at 5; Transcript
at 34-35.)
1.m. The Applicant admits that he is indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of at least $77.00 for an insufficient funds check.  The Applicant has made no
payments on this debt and has no current intention to make payments on this debt.  If
he had fulfilled his agreement with the Service, this debt was due to be paid off in May
2008.  (Government Exhibit 6 at 5; Applicant’s Exhibit A at 4; Transcript at 35-36.)
1.n. The Applicant admits that he is indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of at least $466.00.  The Applicant has made no payments on this debt and has
no current intention to make payments on this debt.  This debt is not included in his
agreement with the Service.  (Government Exhibit 6 at 5; Transcript at 37.)
1.o. The Applicant admits that he is paying back child support for the child he
had with his ex-wife.  As of the date of the SOR, the amount of this debt was $3,301.00.
In March 2007, the Internal Revenue Service applied his tax refund of $1,050.00 to part
of this debt.  The Applicant was not clear as to what his current indebtedness was.  He
is currently having his child support obligation taken directly out of his paycheck.
(Government Exhibit 6 at 6, 9; Applicant’s Exhibit B; Transcript at 38-39.)
1.p. The Applicant admits that a judgment was entered against him for a
repossessed automobile in 2007.  The amount of the judgment was $4,980.00.  His pay
is being garnished to pay this judgment.  The Applicant was not clear as to what his
current indebtedness was.  (Government Exhibit 7 at 1; Applicant’s Exhibit B; Transcript
at 27.  
The records indicate that the past due debts discussed above total $25,016.00.
This excludes subparagraphs 1.o. and 1.p.  The current totals of these two debts is
unknown.  The Service estimates his indebtedness, including debts that were not
included in the SOR, at $30,327.00, excluding the same two debts.  (Applicant’s Exhibit
A at 4; Transcript at 44-45.)
5
Mitigation
The Applicant’s supervisor testified.  He described the Applicant as a person who
is of good character.  The witness did not believe the Applicant to be any kind of a
security risk.  (Transcript at 61-71.)  
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.
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
6
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 has over $25,000.00 in past due debts, which have
been due and owing for several 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 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 difficulties arose primarily between about 2001 and 2004.  However, the
Applicant made no attempt to even begin to try to pay these debts voluntarily until just
before the hearing.  This mitigating condition is not applicable to this case.  
The Applicant has barely begun any efforts to use the Service to resolve his
indebtedness.  As of the date of the hearing, he had not even completed compiling the
paper work the Service needs to do their job.  Under the particular facts of this case, I
cannot find that the Applicant has initiated a good-faith effort to pay off his creditors.
Accordingly, AG ¶20(d) is not applicable. 
7
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,
highly respected, professional person who has made poor decisions concerning his
debts.  Just as an example, one of the Applicant’s debts is for $27.00.  This debt has
been owing for five years.  Even after receiving the SOR, the Applicant has made no
attempt to pay this very small debt.
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 Applicant’s complete
failure to begin to resolve these debts until just days before the hearing, I cannot find
that there have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶2(a)(6).  Accordingly, 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.  
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
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.
8
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
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.p.: Against 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