DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-00398
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tom Coale, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
August 29, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On February 27, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant 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 in writing on May 8, 2008, and requested an
Administrative Determination by an Administrative Judge (AJ). Department Counsel
issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on May 15, 2008. Applicant did not file a
response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on July 2, 2008. Based upon a
review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 43 year old employee of a defense contractor.
Applicant admits that as of February 20, 2008, she was indebted to the following
creditors in the following approximate amounts: an unidentified medical provider $50.00;
Final Asst (Nordstroms) $285.00; Capt Recov (Pepco) $805.00; Metro Adjt (Capitol
Beltway) $481.00; NCC Busn (Park Forest Apt) $431.00; Metro Adjt (Enterprise)
$227.00; ACC (Providian) $1,384.00; Verizon Maryland $202.00; Zenith Acquis
$150.00; Dept of Educ $4,469.00; JKIII Koon (Auto) $6,735.00; IMAG/FBOFD
$1,608.00; Diners/Citi $3,588.00; Certegy $115.00; and AFFL Fin (Auto) $15,321.00. All
of these debts were either placed for collection or charged off.
Applicant admits that as of June 23, 2007, she was indebted to the following
creditors in the following approximate amounts: AAC (Gateway) $3,288.00; Allied Coll
$172.00; Americredit $14,644.00; IC Systems $332.00; Marauder Corp $2,053.00; NCO
Fin/99 $234.00; Paragonway $436.00; GECC $774.00; Yourbank $1,915.00; and
Cypress Creek $1,682.00. All of these debts were placed for collection.
Applicant denies she was indebted to four of the creditors listed in the SOR. With
respect to SOR Allegation 1.b., Exhibit 6 establishes the existence of the $577.00
Nationlse debt. With respect to SOR Allegation 1.k., applicant provided proof that the
$502.00 child/family support debt has been resolved. With respect to SOR Allegation
1.u., the $275.00 Finn Assis debt appears to be the same debt as the Final Asst
(Nordstrom) debt noted above. With respect to SOR Allegation 1.ac., the existence of
the $249.00 tax lien is established by Exhibit 5.
In her response to the SOR, applicant claims to have paid off one $50.00 medical
debt. Although she attached a copy of a $50.00 money order, it is unclear which debt
she addressed with this payment. She also claims that after she received the SOR, she
contacted or tried to contact the other creditors listed in the SOR, and with respect to
the ones she contacted, she made payment arrangements with them. The only
documentation she provided to support her claim of payment arrangements were copies
of 15 checks made payable to various creditors. There is no evidence that the creditors
ever received or cashed these checks, but even if I concluded they received and
cashed them, they do not corroborate applicant’s statements that payment
arrangements were reached with these creditors.
In her SOR response, applicant stated that this “whole ordeal has taught me a
valuable lesson. I have taken the necessary steps to correct my mistakes and debts.”
She further stated that her financial delinquencies were caused by situations beyond
her control, which appear to be a marital separation and her husband becoming
disabled. 
Letters from two of applicant’s coworkers and a friend were attached to her SOR
response. The authors of these letters state applicant is reliable and honest. 
3
Policies
The President has “the authority to . . . control access to information bearing on
national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to
occupy a position that will give that person access to such information.” (Department of
the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,527 (1988).) In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), the President set out
guidelines and procedures for safeguarding classified information within the executive
branch. The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant
applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” (Exec. Ord. 10865, Section 2.)
To be eligible for a security clearance, an applicant must meet the security
guidelines contained in the Directive. Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth personnel
security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions
under each guideline.
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in
the SOR that disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to
classified information. (Directive, Paragraph E3.1.14.) Thereafter, the applicant is
responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.
(Directive, Paragraph E3. 1.15.) An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating
that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance.” (ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).) “Any doubt as to
whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will
be resolved in favor of the national security.” (Directive, Paragraph E2.2.2.)
A person granted access to classified information enters into a special
relationship with the government. The government must be able to repose a high
degree of trust and confidence in those individuals to whom it grants access to
classified information. The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not a
determination as to the loyalty of the applicant. (Exec. Ord. 10865, Section 7.) It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
has established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to Financial Considerations is set forth in
Paragraph 18 of the new AG, and is as follows:
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
4
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate
funds.
The AG note several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
Paragraph 19.a., an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” is potentially
disqualifying. Under Paragraph 19.c., “a history of not meeting financial obligations” may
raise security concerns. The evidence shows applicant has a history of an inability or
unwillingness to pay her debts. Accordingly, these disqualifying conditions are
applicable.
The guidelines also set out mitigating conditions. Paragraph 20.a. may apply
where “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.” Applicant has a large number of
outstanding delinquent debts that she failed to address until after she received the SOR.
Her indifference toward these debts casts doubt on her current judgment and reliability.
This mitigation condition is not applicable.
Under Paragraph 20.b., it may be mitigating where “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.” Applicant
failed to provide specific details to support a finding that her present financial
delinquencies were caused by factors largely beyond her control. And, the evidence
does not support a finding that she acted responsibly under the circumstances. This
mitigating condition is not applicable.
Evidence that “the 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 Paragraph 20. c. This mitigation condition does not apply.
Paragraph 20.d. applies where the evidence shows “the individual initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Applicant claims
that after she received the SOR, she contacted or tried to contact her creditors to work
out payment arrangements. She further claims that she successfully made payment
arrangements with many of her creditors. Applicant’s failure to offer credible evidence
corroborating her claim of payment arrangements makes her claim suspect. But even if
her claim was accepted as true, her efforts, initiated after she received the SOR, hardly
qualify as a good faith effort to repay overdue creditors. This mitigating condition does
not apply.
“Whole Person” Analysis 
Under the whole person concept, the AJ must evaluate an applicant’s security
eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances.
An AJ should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG Paragraph
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
(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 Paragraph 2c, the ultimate
determination of whether to grant 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 is a mature woman who
has a recent history of ignoring her financial obligations. She claims that after she
received the SOR, she made payment arrangements with most if not all of the creditors
she was able to contact. This uncorroborated claim is highly suspect. But even if
accepted as true, her failure to act until after she received the SOR indicates she was
motivated by self interest, and not by any sense of obligation to her creditors. Her
conduct reflects adversely on her current judgment, reliability and trustworthiness.
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from Guideline F.
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
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.
                                              
_________________
JOSEPH TESTAN
Administrative Judge