DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-01113
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline H. Jeffreys, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
August 21, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On March 16, 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 April 9, 2008, and requested an
Administrative Decision by an Administrative Judge (AJ). Department Counsel issued a
File of Relevant Material (FORM) on May 15, 2008. Applicant filed a response to the
FORM in June 2008. The case was assigned to me on June 23, 2008. Based upon a
review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted.
2
Rulings on Procedure
In the FORM, Department Counsel moved to amend the SOR by deleting
allegations 1.a. and 1.b. and replacing them with the following:
You are indebted to the Department of Education on a defaulted student
loan account, in the approximate amount of $47,002.97. As of March 25,
2008, this debt has not been paid.
The motion is granted and the SOR is so amended.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 37 year old employee of a defense contractor. He is married with
five children.
As of February 21, 2008, applicant was indebted to U.S. Department of
Education (DOE) on account of a defaulted student loan in the amount of $47,159.85.
In February 2008, prior to the issuance of the SOR, applicant contacted the DOE
about establishing a repayment plan. An agreement was reached, effective March 17,
2008, requiring applicant to make monthly payments of $385.00. As of June 10, 2008,
applicant has, pursuant to the agreement, made three monthly payments of $385.00.
In an October 2007 Questionnaire For Sensitive Positions (QFSP), applicant
indicated he incurred the debt in June 2003 and stated the following:
I have been paying consistently on my student [loan] for two years and
currently I have been informed that I’m still in default. Have worked out
payment plan and have been paying for two year[s] straight out of my
check.
From the evidence in the FORM, it appears that applicant incurred the student
loan debt well before 2003. Since 2003, he has made sporadic payments, either
voluntarily or through wage garnishment, to the student loan creditor.
During an October 2007 interview with an OPM investigator, applicant stated his
unemployment and/or underemployment prevented him from repaying his student loan.
Before he joined his current employer in August 2007, applicant had been
employed as a public school teacher where his final annual salary was $34,339.00. He
currently earns $62,500.00 from his defense contractor employer. In addition, he has
two part  time jobs which provide him with at least an additional $10,000.00 in annual
income.
Numerous individuals submitted letters in support of applicant. In general,
applicant is described as an honest, hard working family man.
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 being unable to
pay his student loan debt. 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.” 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
presented credible evidence that from about 2001 to about August 2007, his income
was insufficient to repay his student loan and support his wife and children. It appears
that this was not due to a lack of trying as his QFSP indicates he worked two other jobs
while employed as a public school teacher. This mitigating condition is 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 applies as
applicant has reached a repayment agreement with the creditor, has lived up to that
agreement, and now appears to have sufficient income to continue with the agreed
upon payments until the debt is satisfied.
Paragraph 20.d. applies where the evidence shows “the individual initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Although
applicant could have reached out to the DOE sooner than he did, he did establish a
repayment plan acceptable to the creditor. This mitigating condition is applicable.
“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) 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 2.c., the ultimate
5
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 has had great difficulty
repaying a student loan debt. This does not appear to be a case where an applicant
took the money and decided to just ignore the obligation to repay it. Rather, it appears
that his failure to repay the debt as he had agreed was based on the simple fact that,
after providing the necessities for his wife and children, he did not have the funds to
repay it. Since being hired by his current employer in 2007 at a salary almost twice as
much as his previous school teacher salary, he has had the financial means to repay his
student loan debt, and he has begun to do so. Based on his excellent work ethic, and
the very favorable character reference letters received into evidence, I conclude that in
all likelihood, applicant will continue to make his regular payments to the DOE until his
debt is satisfied. Under the circumstances, I conclude applicant successfully mitigated
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: FOR APPLICANT
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
_________________
JOSEPH TESTAN
Administrative Judge