1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 07-15001
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace Le’i, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                             
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony,  I
conclude that Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information must be granted.
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on April 26,
2007. On February 8, 2008, 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 acknowledged receipt of the SOR on February 20, 2008. He answered
the SOR in writing on March 6, 2008, and requested a hearing before an administrative
Response to the Statement of Reasons (SOR).1
GE 1 (Applicant’s security clearance application) at 6, 11-19; Tr. 63-66.2
GE 1, supra note 2, at 20-27; Tr. 59.3
Response to SOR - W ife’s statement; AE N (documents on wife’s medical condition); Tr. 31-34, 47.4
2
judge. DOHA received the request on March 10, 2008. Department Counsel was
prepared to proceed on March 20, 2008, and I received the case assignment on March
20, 2008. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on March 24, 2008, and I convened the
hearing as scheduled on May 1, 2008. The government offered four exhibits, (GE) 1
through 4, which were received and admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant
and one witness testified on his behalf. He submitted 17 exhibits, (AE) A through Q,
which were received and admitted into evidence without objection. DOHA received the
transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on May 9, 2008. The record closed on May 1, 2008.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, dated March 6, 2008, Applicant admitted the factual
allegations in ¶ 1.b of the SOR, with explanation. He denied the remaining factual
allegations of the SOR. He also provided additional information to support his request
for eligibility for a security clearance.   1
Applicant graduated from high school, then enlisted in the United States Air
Force. Four years later, he received an honorable discharge. Following his discharge,
he worked as a plumber for several years. He also received an associates degree in
architectural drafting. For the last 10 years, he has worked as an architectural
draftsman. He began work for his current employer, a federal contractor, in August
1998.  2
Applicant met his wife while serving in the military. They married in 1994. They
have three sons, ages 16, 9 and 3. The oldest son is Applicant’s stepson.3
Following the birth of their second son, Applicant’s wife quit her job at a credit
union to remain home and care for their new son. She accepted employment with a
newspaper, which permitted her to work from home, primarily doing telephone
solicitation. Shortly after the birth of their second son, Applicant’s wife became very
depressed, sleeping most of the day rather than working. Doctors diagnosed her with
post partum depression and started treating her with prozac, an anti-depressant.
Because of her illness, she did not work regularly, causing a decline in family income.
She managed the family finances. When their income was not sufficient to meet
ordinary household expenses, she began using credit cards to pay for food, utilities and
other everyday expenses. She hide the financial problems from Applicant.4
In November 2001, a serious car incident occurred in front of their home. A trash
truck ran over one of its employee’s.  Applicant’s wife ran out to help the injured man,
Attachments to response to SOR; AE N, supra note 4; Tr. 35-38, 48-50.5
Attachments to response to SOR; AE I (401K documents); Tr. 38-39, 66.6
Attachments to response to SOR; AE Q (Credit report, dated April 30, 2008); Tr. 39, 42-43, 45-47, 66-67.7
Attachments to response to SOR: AE Q, supra note 7; Tr.42-43, 67.8
3
and called for medical help for a broken leg. While waiting for medical help, she
discovered that the injured man had been disemboweled. He died in the arms of
Applicant’s wife. Shortly after this incident, Applicant’s wife felt tremendous guilt about
her initial call for medical help. Her guilt caused serious depression, to the point she
considered suicide. She eventually sought medical help. Doctors diagnosed her with
complex post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) stemming from her witnessing her
mother’s suicide and borderline personality disorder. She began treatment, which
included therapy and medication. Applicant knew about the post partum depression and
her emotional difficulty with witnessing the death of the trash man. She kept her more
recent diagnoses from him. She continued to manage the family finances and their
financial problems continued. She still did not tell her husband about the problems. In
February 2008, doctors diagnosed her with attention deficit disorder.  5
Applicant’s financial problems increased over a period of time because his wife
continued to use credit cards to pay regular expenses. By 2004, the mortgage holder on
their house started foreclosure proceedings because they had missed their monthly
payments. Applicant obtained a loan on his 401K account and paid the overdue
payments. He repays this loan through regular payroll deductions. He currently owes
less than $1,000 on this debt.6
The family finances continued to decline. One creditor filed a civil action against
Applicant and obtained a judgment against him. Applicant did not know about the court
action as his wife signed for the papers, then hide the information from him. Because
she worked at home, she intercepted overdue notices and other negative information
about their financial problems. She disconnected the telephone in the evening, telling
her husband she was preventing newspaper customers from interrupting their dinner
and evening time. Applicant learned about the court judgment when the creditor
garnished his salary in 2006.7
In 2006, the mortgagor started a second foreclosure procedure on their home as
the mortgage payments were overdue again. Applicant and his wife negotiated a
repayment plan with the mortgagor in early 2006. The parties agreed to a $500 increase
in the monthly payment for two years. Applicant and his wife agreed to a timely payment
or the mortgagor would foreclose on their property. They complied with the terms of this
agreement. They made their final payment in early 2008.8
With the foreclosure and garnishment, Applicant assumed primary responsibility
for the family finances in 2006. He and his wife considered bankruptcy, but he decided
to repay the creditors, as he considered the debts his responsibility. Financial
Tr. 41, 53-55, 72.9
SOR at 1-2; Attachments to response to SOR; AE A to AE F (Verification of debt payments); Tr. 66-75.10
AE G - AE J (Documents showing debts current); AE K (Budget and pay statements); AE K (Tax returns from11
2003-2007); Tr. 40, 56, 80-85, 89.
AE M (Performance evaluations, awards and recommendations); AE P (Boy Scout verification); Tr. 52, 56,12
58.
4
counselors declined to provide any assistance telling them their debt was too high. More
recently, a financial counseling service agreed to help, but Applicant no longer needs
their assistance.9
The SOR lists four other unpaid debts. Applicant negotiated a settlement for each
account listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.b to 1.d and paid the negotiated settlements amount over
the last two years. Applicant used tax return money and sold excess leave back to his
employer twice to repay these debts.  For the debt in ¶ 1.e, Applicant paid this debt
through garnishment. It is paid in full. All the debts listed in the SOR have been paid.
Applicant is current on all his monthly bills. He has a business credit card, but no
personal credit cards.10
Applicant’s wife now works full time. She recently received a significant salary
increase. She now earns approximately $32,500 a year. Applicant earns approximately
$43,000 a year. Household net monthly income totals approximately $5,200 a month,
including $600 in child support from the father of their oldest son. Household monthly
expenses total $4,000, leaving approximately $1,200 a month for unexpected expenses.
Their tax returns for the years 2003 through 2007 reflect a $20,000 increase in
household income.  11
 Applicant’s employer rates his performance as excellent. Recommendations
written by his project leader and a co-worker reflect that Applicant is reliable and
hardworking. He has received regular salary increases and performance awards. He is
respected by his co-workers. Applicant is a den leader for a local boy scout troop. His
wife’s medical condition is under control.12
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 over-arching
5
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.
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. 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
willingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
questions about an individual=s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
6
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. Applicant accumulated some significant delinquent debt over a
period of time, which was referred to collection or resulted in the initiation of foreclosure
proceedings twice and a judgment. 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 worries arose when his wife became ill after the birth of their second son. She
hid the problem and its extent from Applicant for years. While his debt problems began
years ago, the problems continued until the present. This potentially mitigating condition
does not apply. 
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.@ As noted above, some of
the financial problems arose from his wife=s medical problems, as well as loss of her
income during her long period of illness. When Applicant learned of the first foreclosure,
he borrowed money from his 401K account and repaid the overdue mortgage
payments. In 2006, he took over the household finances when he learned about the
extent of the new financial problems. He acted responsibly in identifying and resolving
these debts. I find this potentially mitigating condition is applicable. 
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.@ Applicant attempted to hire financial counselors, but was
rejected because his debt was too high. He also considered bankruptcy, but decided to
pay his debts. Over the last two years, Applicant has negotiated repayments amounts
for his debts and paid these amounts. He honored his commitment to repay his past
due mortgage payments. He has resolved all his delinquent debts, either by payment or
settlement. With his current income, he is now financially sound and prepared for future
contingencies. I conclude these potentially mitigating conditions apply.
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 common sense 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. Applicant’s financial problems
started about eight years ago. Over a period of four years, his debts slowly escalated.
His wife’s depression and PTSD contributed significantly to the problem because she
did not work much and hid the extent of the problem from Applicant. Applicant’s failure
to take an active role in household finances also contributed to the problems. Since
2006, Applicant has completely changed his attitude about his role in the household
finances. He now takes primary responsibility for managing the household finances. He
decided against filing for bankruptcy and to repay his debt, which he has done. He did
not resort to any illegal means to obtain the money necessary to repay his debt. He
negotiated settlements, then used his tax returns and the money from the sale of his
leave to pay the debts. He complied with the terms of his repayment plan with his
mortgagor. He pays all his current bills in a timely fashion. His wife’s medical condition
is under control. She acknowledges her conduct in creating this problem and he
considers the debts his responsibility. He is a dependable and reliable worker. His
employer routinely rates his performance as excellent. He provides a stable domestic
environment for his family. Most significantly, he has taken affirmative action to pay or
resolve the delinquent debts raising security concerns. His debts cannot be a source of
improper pressure or duress. Of course, the issue is not simply whether all his debts are
paidBit is whether his financial circumstances raise concerns about his fitness to hold a
security clearance. His household income has improved significantly in the last five
years and his current debts are easy to manage with his present net monthly income.
He has acted responsibly in resolving his debts, which are insufficient to raise security
concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(1).)  
8
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 APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge