1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-11316
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
On October 22, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its denial of Applicant’s
security clearance. Specifically, it alleged facts which raise concerns under Guideline F.
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 on November 28, 2007, and requested an
administrative determination. On March 19, 2008, the government prepared a File of
Relevant Materials (FORM). Applicant replied on April 22, 2008, and the case was
assigned to me on May 2, 2008. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings,
exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In her Answer, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations except
subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b, 1.j, 1.n, and 1.p through 1.q. I make the following additional
findings of fact.
Applicant is a 34-year-old woman with five children. She is estranged from her
husband, who is currently incarcerated. They are seeking a divorce. She has custody of
three of her children. It is unclear from the record who has custody of the other children.
She works as a receptionist for a defense contractor. The record contains no evidence
of her highest level of education.
Applicant has approximately $15,000 of delinquent debt. She owes
approximately $10,000 of this delinquency to an automobile creditor (SOR
subparagraph 1.r), and approximately $1,000 consists of several medical accounts
(SOR subparagraphs 1.f through 1.l). All of these debts were accumulated while
Applicant was living with her husband. He is not assisting with debt repayment (Reply).
The SOR alleges approximately $7,000 of delinquent child support payments
(SOR subparagraphs 1.a and 1.n). Applicant denied these debts and provided evidence
that they were current. She provided no evidence supporting her contention that the
other contested delinquencies, as noted above, were either satisfied, in the process of
being satisfied, or were not her responsibility.
Applicant contends that she is in the process of satisfying the admitted SOR
delinquencies. She provided no supporting documentation. Also, she presented no
documentation of any financial counseling or other efforts to repair her finances.
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, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a 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.
3
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. 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 an 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
Under this guideline, “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” (AG
¶ 18). Moreover, “an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to
engage in illegal acts to generate funds” (Id.). 
Applicant successfully contested SOR subparagraphs 1.a and 1.n. I resolve
these in her favor.
The remaining debts listed in the SOR continue to be delinquent. AG & 19(a), “an
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,@ AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial
obligations,” and AG ¶ 19(e), “consistent spending beyond one’s means, which may be
4
indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-
income ratio, and/or other financial analysis,” apply. 
Applicant’s delinquencies were accrued during her marriage, and her estranged
husband, currently incarcerated, has not assisted her in satisfying them. She has not,
however, provided any evidence that she has taken any steps to either resolve the
delinquencies or seek professional counseling. Consequently, although her financial
troubles were caused by circumstances beyond her control, she has not established
that she has acted responsibly under the circumstances. AG ¶ 20(a), “the 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,”
does not apply.
Applicant’s failure to demonstrate efforts at rehabilitation also renders the
remaining mitigating conditions inapplicable. She has not mitigated the financial
considerations security concern.
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.
With five children to support, and an estranged, incarcerated husband who
provides no help, Applicant is facing an extraordinarily difficult situation. She has not,
however, demonstrated any evidence of efforts to improve her situation. Although her
contention that she cannot currently afford to make progress on her debts is
understandable, she failed to demonstrate efforts at exploring alternative avenues of
mitigation including financial counseling, and assistance with budgeting. Absent
evidence of payment or efforts at organizing her finances, I cannot conclude that the
financial considerations security concern has been mitigated.
5
This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot
or will not attain the state of true reform and rehabilitation necessary to justify the award
of a security clearance. The awarding of a security clearance is not a once and a
lifetime occurrence, but is based on applying the factors, both disqualifying and
mitigating, to the evidence presented. Under Applicant’s current circumstances, a
clearance is not recommended, but should she be afforded an opportunity to reapply in
the future, having developed a payment plan, sought counseling, and begun paying
delinquent obligations, she may well demonstrate persuasive evidence of her security
clearance worthiness. However, a clearance at this time is not warranted. Having
evaluated the whole person factors in the analysis set forth in the Financial
Considerations section above, I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant Applicant access to classified information. Clearance is denied.
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: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.b - 1.m: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.n: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.o - 1.r: 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.
                                             
_________________
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge