1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-06694
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace Le’i, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
June 11, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on July 25, 2006 (Government Exhibit 1).  On October 31, 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 December 19, 2007, and requested a
hearing before an Administrative Judge.  Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on January 24, 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 March 4, 2008. The government offered Government Exhibits 1 through
2
4, which were received without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and
submitted Applicant’s Exhibits A through C, without objection. DOHA received the
transcript of the hearing, and the record closed, on March 14, 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 46, single 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 November 2001 as an E-7.  He
worked for a Defense contractor until July 2002.  During 2002 and 2003 the Applicant
attempted to make a living as a real estate agent.  During this time he incurred the
majority of the debt discussed below, but was able to maintain at least minimum
payments using his retirement pay and savings he had accumulated during his military
career.
In 2004 the Applicant was not making any money as a realtor and he had also
exhausted his savings.  At this point he stopped incurring new debt and attempted to
find full-time employment.  He worked at several part time jobs from December 2003 to
June 2006.  None of these jobs paid well or matured into full-time employment.  During
this period he was able to maintain his monthly expenses, but was unable to make any
payments on his now past-due indebtedness.  (Transcript at 33-39; Government Exhibit
2 at 1, 6-8.)
The Applicant began work as a full-time employee for a Defense contractor in
June 2006.  Almost immediately upon beginning work, the Applicant began paying off
his past-due indebtedness.  In July 2006, he paid off his smallest bill, to his cable
company, in the amount of $104.14.  Next, he began paying off his American Express
bill.  This debt, in the amount of $4,043.07, was paid off in February 2007.
(Government Exhibit 2 at 17-20, and Government Exhibit 3 at 2.)    
Subparagraph 1.a.  The Applicant admits that he owes approximately $15,635.00
on this credit card account.  This debt was incurred during the time he was working full-
time in real estate.  His financial situation has improved to the point where he can make
payment arrangements on this debt.  In order to facilitate this, the Applicant has entered
into an agreement with a debt resolution company (Company).  The payments to the
Company begin in March 2008 and the Applicant expects this debt to be paid within a
year.  His current income allows him to complete the payments set forth under
subparagraph 1.c., below, and make the required payments to the Company.
(Transcript at 51-55; Applicant’s Exhibits A, B, and C at 1-13.)
3
Subparagraph 1.b.  The Applicant admits that he owes approximately $36,397.00
on this credit card account.  His financial situation has improved to the point where he
can make payment arrangements on this debt.  In order to facilitate this, the Applicant
has entered into an agreement with a debt resolution company (Company).  The
payments to the Company begin in March 2008 and the Applicant expects this debt to
be paid within 18 months.  His current income allows him to complete the payments set
forth under subparagraph 1.c., below, and make the required payments to the
Company.  (Ibid.)
Subparagraph 1.c.  The Applicant admits that he originally owed $21,997.00 on
this past due credit card debt.  Once he completed paying American Express in
February 2007 the Applicant immediately began paying $1,542.25 per month on this
account.  As of the date of the hearing his balance was approximately $9,200.  The
collection agency debits the amount automatically from the Applicant’s account every
month.  (Transcript at 49-51; Applicant’s Exhibit C at 1, 15-29.)  
As of the date of the hearing he had paid $18,447.36 towards this particular debt.
Since June 19, 2006, when he obtained permanent employment, the Applicant has paid
off $22,594.57 towards all of his past due debts.   
Mitigation
The Applicant had a very successful military career.  He submitted his resume,
which showed that he was a respected non-commissioned officer.  (Government Exhibit
2 at 9-13.)
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.
4
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
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.
5
Similarly 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. and 1.c.  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.@ The Applicant
attempted to begin a career in real estate after leaving the Armed Forces.  For a time he
was able to use credit cards, his retirement pay, and his savings to pay his debts.
When he was unable to make his payments he stopped using the credit cards, and
when he obtained full time employment he immediately went to work paying them off.  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 $3,000.00 a month
towards the older debts.  He has control over his current indebtedness and, for a year
and a half, 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 attempted to succeed
in the real estate business after he left the military.  For reasons not of his making he
was unsuccessful.  For several years he was unemployed or underemployed and
unable to make payments on his past due debts.  Once he was employed full time he
6
immediately began to pay his debts 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 them, 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. 
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.c.: 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