1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-15125
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
On January 10, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security 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 January 28, 2008, and requested an
administrative determination. On February 21, 2008, the government prepared a File of
Relevant Materials (FORM). Applicant replied on March 24, 2008. Department counsel
did not object to the admission of the reply, and the case was assigned to me on May
12, 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. She is a 53-year-
old married woman with three children, ages 30, 19, and 15. The oldest two children are
from previous marriages. She served two stints in the U.S. Navy. The first was from
1974 through 1978 and the second was from 1982 through 1990. On both occasions
she was honorably discharged. She served in the National Guard from 1993 to 1997. 
Applicant works for a defense contractor as a flightline technician. She is highly
respected on the job. A coworker describes her as “an extremely hard worker willing to
go the extra mile to complete her tasking” (Reference letter of March 4, 2008, as
included in the Reply).
Applicant has a history of financial problems. They began when her then
husband left her in approximately 1988 when she was pregnant. Over the next two
years, she unsuccessfully struggled to manage her bills and support her family. In 1990,
she filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (Item 7). She scheduled approximately $14,700 of
debt which was discharged through this process. 
At some time during the early 1990s, Applicant started a business. The record
contains no description of it. It failed after a major hurricane devastated the local
economy. At the time, Applicant and her family lived at her father-in-law’s home on a
military base. When he passed away, they had to move. For the next several years,
Applicant struggled to locate affordable housing, in part, because apartment rental costs
skyrocketed after the hurricane (Answer). Her finances again grew delinquent. 
In 1999, Applicant again filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy (Item 6). Approximately
$51,000 of scheduled, unsecured debt was discharged.
Since the 1999 bankruptcy, Applicant has again experienced financial problems.
Currently, her delinquent debt totals approximately $21,700. It includes phone bills,
utilities, medical expenses, credit card accounts, and income tax bills.
Through the help of a law firm, Applicant has consolidated nearly all of her
delinquencies and organized a payment plan. Through the plan, approximately $257
monthly is applied to the delinquencies. She is researching any of her delinquencies not
included in the plan, and adding them to it after she verifies them. There is no record of
when Applicant entered the plan, or when the delinquencies will be satisfied.
Applicant also contends she is satisfying some of her delinquencies through
payment plans she arranged independently of the one she organized with the law firm’s
help. She provided no documentation of these efforts.
3
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.
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 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).
4
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.). Here, Applicant’s 20-year history of
financial problems triggers the application of 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 indicated by excessive
indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-income ratio, and/or other
financial analysis.”
Applicant’s financial problems experienced through approximately 2000 were
caused primarily by a failed marriage, a failed business, and an economic downturn that
occurred in her community after a natural disaster. However, these financial problems
recurred, and no such potentially mitigating factors appear to have contributed to the
recurrence. Also, the resulting financial delinquencies are still largely outstanding.
Neither AG ¶ 20(a), “the 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,” nor AG ¶ 20(b), “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,” apply.
Applicant has organized a payment plan, and has begun making payments.
Although she retained a law firm to help organize her debts, she did not establish
whether it is providing her with any counseling services. Moreover, she provided no
documentation of her repayment history, nor did she establish when she began
executing the plan, or when the plan would be complete. AG ¶ 20(d), “the individual
initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,”
applies, but AG ¶ 20(c ), “the person has received or is receiving counseling for the
problem and/or there are clear indications the problem is being resolved or is under
control,” does not.
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): 
5
(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. 
The negative security inference generated by Applicant’s two bankruptcy
discharges is offset somewhat by the circumstances that generated the underlying
financial conditions. However, Applicant’s financial problems recurred after the second
discharge, and no such mitigating circumstances contributed to the recurrence.
Applicant’s steps at debt resolution constitute good-faith efforts to resolve her financial
problems. She failed, however, to provide corroborating documentary evidence of these
efforts. Consequently, these good-faith efforts are outweighed by the longstanding
delinquent debt history and its recurrent nature. Evaluating this case using the whole
person factors, 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 - 1.t: 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