1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-04665
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
June 16, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application, on June 1, 2004
(Government Exhibit 1).  On July 20, 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 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 August 2, 2007, and requested a
hearing before an Administrative Judge.  Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on August 24, 2007.  The case was originally assigned to another Administrative Judge
on August 29, 2007.  I received the case assignment on December 13, 2007.  Due to
the fact that the Applicant is permanently located in a foreign country, the decision was
The Applicant submitted additional documentation after the date the record closed.  These documents are attached to1
the record as Applicant’s Exhibit O for Identification.  This exhibit was not admitted into evidence and the documents
were not considered in making this decision.
2
made to hold the hearing via video tele-conference.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing
on February 6, 2008, setting the hearing for February 25, 2008. Due to mechanical
difficulties, the hearing was not held on that day.  
The hearing was convened on March 13, 2008.  The Government offered
Government Exhibits 1 through 9, which were received without objection. Applicant
testified on his own behalf and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits A through K, without
objection. The Applicant requested that the record remain open for the submission of
additional documents.  Given his location overseas, the record was held open until
March 31, 2008, for the receipt of additional matters.  The Applicant submitted
Applicant’s Exhibits L, M and N in a timely fashion, all of which were received without
objection.   DOHA received the transcript of the hearing on March 24, 2008.  The record1
closed on March 31, 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 43, divorced and is a retired non-commissioned officer in the
Armed Forces.  He is employed by a defense contractor and seeks to retain a security
clearance previously granted in connection with his employment.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The Applicant retired from the Armed Forces in May 2003 as an E-6.  He began
work as a full-time employee for a Defense contractor in June 2003.
The Applicant married his now ex-wife in August 2002.  She turned out to be an
ex-convict and a con artist.  During their marriage, which ended in April 2004, she ran
up the bills described in the SOR, as well as others.  She also deceived the Applicant
concerning an alleged pregnancy of hers.  Eventually, she was arrested in one State on
a parole violation from another State, was convicted, and her present whereabouts are
unknown.  (Transcript at 43-45; Applicant’s Exhibit H.)  
Beginning in February 2004, the Applicant began paying off his past-due
indebtedness.  That month he paid off NCO Financial.  (Applicant’s Exhibit G.)  In
December 2004, he paid Beneficial.  (Applicant’s Exhibit F.)  Other available records,
including the Applicant’s most recent credit report, dated February 26, 2008, show at
least ten additional paid collection accounts.  (Government Exhibit 2 at 18, 21, 24, 26-33
and Government Exhibit 9.)  Since 2004, the Applicant has paid at least $8,209.14
towards these additional accounts.
3
The Applicant testified that these payments were pursuant to his plan for
resolving his past due indebtedness.  He did not have the funds to pay all of the debts
at once, but as he got funds together, he would contact a creditor and make an
arrangement that he could immediately fulfill.  (Transcript at 65-67.)  As of the date the
SOR was issued, according to all the information available to the Government at that
time, the Applicant still owed four creditors.
Subparagraph 1.a.  The Applicant admits that he owed approximately $12,862.00
for a repossessed automobile that was purchased by his ex-wife.  He began paying
down this account in July 2007.  (Transcript at 40-43, 45-48; Applicant’s Exhibit B.)  The
Applicant successfully paid this debt for a negotiated amount ($12,115.00) on March 24,
2008.  (Applicant’s Exhibits L, M and N.)  
Subparagraph 1.b.  The Applicant admits that he owed approximately $10,075.00
to a credit union.  This debt was related to a loan he took out to pay his ex-wife’s
indebtedness.  The Applicant has been making payments on this debt with an allotment
from his military retirement pay.  (Applicant’s Exhibit A.)  The available records show
that the credit union began crediting his account in December 2004.  He has continued
to make payments on this account by allotment.  As of the date of the hearing he had
paid at least $2,150.00 on this account and still owed $8,008.05.  (Government Exhibit 2
at 19-20; Applicant’s Exhibit C.)  The Applicant testified that, once the debt in
subparagraph 1.a. was paid off, he would increase the payments on this debt to
$2,000.00 a month until it was resolved.  (Transcript at 49-53.)
Subparagraph 1.c.  The Applicant admits that he owed approximately $15,574.00
to the same credit union as subparagraph 1.b.  This debt was related to a loan he took
out to pay his ex-wife’s indebtedness.  The Applicant has been making payments on
this debt with an allotment from his military retirement pay.  (Applicant’s Exhibit A.)  The
available records show that the credit union began crediting his account in October
2004.  He has continued to make payments on this account by allotment.  As of the date
of the hearing he had paid at least $3,400.21 on this account and still owed $11,434.90.
(Government Exhibit 2 at 16-17; Applicant’s Exhibit C.)  The Applicant testified that,
once the debts in subparagraphs 1 and 2 were paid off, he would increase the
payments on this debt to $2,000.00 a month until it was resolved.  (Transcript at 53-55.)
Subparagraph 1.d.  The Applicant admits that he owed approximately $438.00
for a cable bill.  He paid this debt in full on May 10, 2007.  (Applicant’s Exhibit E.)
As of the date the record closed, he had paid $18,103.21 towards the four debts
in the SOR.  Since March 2004 the Applicant has paid at least $26,312.35 towards all of
his past due debts.  His current indebtedness stands at $19,442.95.  Finally, the
Applicant testified that he is able to pay all of his current debts in a timely fashion and
pay his past due obligations as discussed above.  (Transcript at 48-49.)
4
Mitigation
The Applicant had a successful military career.  He submitted documents that
showed he was a respected non-commissioned officer.  (Government Exhibit 2 at 6;
Applicant’s Exhibit J.)
The Applicant also submitted letters from supervisors and co-workers.  They
describe the Applicant as “very honest,” and a “consummate professional.”  (Applicant’s
Exhibit I.) 
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
5
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
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(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise security concerns.
The Applicant admits that he owed the debts set forth in SOR subparagraphs 1.a., 1.b.,
1.c. and 1.d.  The evidence is sufficient to raise this potentially disqualifying condition,
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.@ In addition, AG
¶ 20(b) states that it may be mitigating if “the conditions that resulted in the financial
problems were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g. . . . divorce or separation), and
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.”
 The Applicant was involved in a disastrous marriage with a convicted con artist
who left him thousands of dollars in debt.  While obtaining his divorce he also
immediately went to work paying his past due debts off.  As described at length above,
6
the Applicant had a plan to pay off his past due indebtedness and, for over four years,
has been successfully fulfilling it.  I find the behavior occurred under such unusual
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur, and it does not raise concerns about his
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. The evidence raises this
potentially mitigating condition.  
AG ¶20(c) applies if “there are clear indications that the problem is being
resolved or is under control.”  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 is able to pay his current bills and also pay close to $2,000.00 a month
towards the older debts.  His past due indebtedness has been reduced from over
$45,000.00 to less than $20,000.00  He has control over his current indebtedness and,
for several years, has paid a substantial amount of money towards the arrearage.  I
conclude these potentially mitigating conditions apply.
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 was involved in a bad
marriage with a bad person.  She left him deeply in debt.  Rather than avoid it, he
immediately began to pay his debts once he knew their full extent and has already paid
a substantial amount towards them.  He has a plan to pay all of his debts and is fulfilling
it.  He has behaved reasonably and appropriately in trying to resolve his debts, thereby
AG ¶ 2(a)(6) applies.  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. 
7
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 through 1.d.: For the Applicant
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