1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-04491
SSN: ------------------ )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jennifer I. Goldstein, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 27, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions (SF-86), on March
13, 2006 (Government Exhibit 1).  On September 16, 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 9, 2007, and requested a
hearing before an Administrative Judge.  Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on January 15, 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 February 26, 2008. The government offered Government Exhibits 1
2
through 8, which were received without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf
and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits A through L, without objection.  DOHA received the
transcript of the hearing on March 6, 2008. The record closed on March 6, 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 56 and married.  He is employed by a defense contractor as an
aircraft mechanic and seeks to retain a security clearance previously granted in
connection with his employment.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Subparagraph 1.a.  The Applicant denied this allegation.  This alleged past due
debt with Bank of America is shown on several of the Government’s credit reports under
two different account numbers.  (Government Exhibit 2 at 2 and Government Exhibit 3
at 2.)  The Applicant provided a letter from the creditor referring to both account
numbers and stating, “The above referenced obligation with Bank of America was
settled in full and closed.”  (Applicant’s Exhibit A.)
Subparagraph 1.b.  The Applicant denied this allegation.  The Applicant has
consistently denied that he has ever had a past due account with Citi, or that he owes
any money to this creditor, or their collection agency.  The record shows that the
Applicant has attempted to resolve this situation since 2006.  (Government Exhibits 2 at
4, 5 at 3, 6 at 3; Applicant’s Exhibits C, E and H; Transcript at 64-72.)  Applicant’s
Exhibit H at page 1 is a letter from one of the collection agencies on this account.  This
letter is dated August 10, 2007, and states, “Information provided by you regarding this
account has been forwarded to the Customer Service Department for Research.”  The
Applicant also submitted three different credit reports, each dated June 18, 2007.  None
of these credit reports shows the debt to Citi or any of its successors.  (Applicant’s
Exhibits J, K and L.)
Mitigation
The Applicant’s credit history shows that, in the last few years, he has been
timely in his payments to the vast majority of his creditors.  His most recent credit report,
Government Exhibit 6, shows over 30 accounts and, with the exception of the two
accounts in the SOR, all are timely or have been paid and closed.  The Applicant
testified that he has refinanced his house twice in the past several years and used the
money to pay off most of his debts.  Many of these debts were accrued during a time
when he had employment difficulties.  (Transcript at 32-35, 38-40.)  He usually pays
more than the minimum payment due to his creditors on a monthly basis.  The Applicant
further stated that he has more than sufficient funds to pay the creditor in Subparagraph
1.b., but he does not believe the debt to be his.  (Transcript at 72-94.)
3
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
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
4
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.  Despite his denials, there is some documentary evidence showing
that he may owe the debts in subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.b.  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(b), the disqualifying
conditions may be mitigated where Athe conditions that resulted in the financial problem
were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment . . .), and the
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.”  The Applicant was laid off
several times between 2000 and 2003.  He refinanced his house in order to pay his
credit card debt.  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
successfully showed that he does not owe Bank of America any money.  With regards
to Citi and its collection agencies, he has consistently denied owing them money, and
thoroughly documented his disputes about that debt.  I conclude this potentially
mitigating condition applies.
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, and has successfully resolved one of them.  This
mitigating condition clearly applies to the facts of this case.
5
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
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)(9)). 
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: For the Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.b: For the Applicant
6
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