1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 07-06498
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
On January 15, 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 March 4, 2008, and requested an administrative
determination. On March 25, 2008, the government prepared a File of Relevant
Materials (FORM), and provided it to Applicant for a reply if he so wished. Applicant did
not reply. The case was assigned to me on July 7, 2008. Based upon a review of the
FORM, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations. He is a 45-year-old married man
with two children, ages 17 and 14. He earned a bachelor of science degree in 1984, and
works for a contractor as a flight test engineer.
Applicant has six delinquent debts (SOR subparagraphs 1.a through 1.f) totalling
approximately $13,000. SOR subparagraph 1.a is a utility bill, SOR subparagraph 1.c is
a credit card account, and SOR subparagraph 1.f is a mortgage on a home purchased
in 2000 (Item 11 at 5). There is no record evidence identifying the nature of the
remaining SOR delinquencies.
Applicant attributes his financial problems to poor financial management, and his
wife’s loss of income resulting from back surgery (Item 6 at 2). Also, he overextended
his finances on the 2000 home purchase, and he cannot balance its mortgage
payments with his other living expenses (Id.). 
Applicant has paid some of his debts sporadically over the past two years (Item 6
at 7 through 14). In January 2008, he was charged for overdrawing his bank account
more than 15 times (Item 7 at 26). Some time that month, he retained a financial advisor
(Id. at 36). With the assistance of the counselor, he prepared a budget that lists all of his
debts and his expenses (Id. at 36 through 40) It does not include a debt payment plan.
Since February 2008, Applicant has been attempting to sell his home (Item 8).
Currently, he is “entertaining a contract on the property in the amount of $130,000
(Answer; Settlement Statement, as listed in Item 7 at 17.). He anticipates that the sale
of the property will generate income to satisfy his remaining debts. He owes
approximately $167,000 on the mortgage (Item 6 at 4). 
Applicant has $41,000 in his 401k plan. He has borrowed against this account to
satisfy debts in the past. He is precluded from borrowing any further from the account
(Item 6 at 4). 
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. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a
scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.” The
3
administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person,
past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
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. 
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 financial struggles
trigger 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 contends his finances were strained by his wife’s income loss resulting
from a major surgery, but he did not provide any specific details such as when the
surgery occurred, and the length of time it disabled his wife. 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,”
does not apply.
Applicant’s consultation with a financial counselor in January 2008 triggers the
application of AG ¶ 20(c ), “the person has received or is receiving counseling for the
problem . . .” Its applicability, however, has limited probative value because he provided
no evidence of its nature and extent or whether he actually followed the counselor’s
advice.
Similarly, AG ¶ 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” applies, but has limited probative value.
Anticipating that the sale of his home will generate income to alleviate his financial
burden, Applicant has diligently been marketing his home, and a buyer has contracted
to purchase it. Settlement has not occurred, however. Until the real estate deal is
finalized, any profit Applicant may earn is merely speculative. Moreover, a promise to
satisfy a debt in the future is not indicative of the reform and rehabilitation required to
4
mitigate a financial considerations security concern (ISCR Case No. 01-08410 (May 8,
2002). 
Applicant 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) the 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 have considered the whole person
concept factors in the financial considerations section above, and that analysis does not
support a favorable decision. 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.f: Against Applicant
5
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