1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 06-26618
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on December 15, 2005 (Government Exhibit 1).  On January 3, 2008, the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for 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 January 31, 2008, and requested a
hearing before an Administrative Judge.  Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on March 20, 2008.  I received the case assignment on March 25, 2008.  DOHA issued
a notice of hearing on May 16, 2008, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on May
20, 2008. The government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 6, which were
2
received without objection. Applicant testified on her own behalf and submitted
Applicant’s Exhibits A through H, without objection.  Pursuant to her request, the record
was left open for the Applicant to submit additional documentation.  On June 4, 2008,
the Applicant submitted Applicant’s Exhibit I, which was received without objection.
DOHA received the transcript of the hearing on June 3, 2008. The record closed on
June 4, 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 49 and single.  She is employed by a defense contractor and
seeks to obtain a security clearance in connection with her employment.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Subparagraph 1.a.  The Applicant denied this allegation because the allegation
mistakenly said that a vehicle was repossessed.  This alleged past due debt for
$4,370.00 actually concerns a timeshare that the Applicant purchased with her then
partner.  The partner refused to pay her part of the timeshare costs, and the timeshare
was repossessed.  The Applicant’s testimony was very vague as to whether she
currently owed any money on this debt or not.  (Transcript at 23-32.)  
The credit report dated December 30, 2005 is the only one of four credit reports
that refers to this debt.  It says, “Merchandise was taken back - may be a balance due.”
(Government Exhibit 3.)  (Emphasis supplied.)  In addition, this entry shows no past due
amount. 
Subparagraph 1.b.  The Applicant denied this allegation concerning a $40.00
medical debt.  The Applicant testified that she had asked her father to pay this debt for
her in about 2006 and believes that he had paid the debt.  (Transcript at 31-32.)  For
reasons set forth under “Analysis,” below, I find this testimonial evidence to be truthful
and worthy of belief.
Subparagraph 1.c.  The Applicant originally denied owing this debt for
$10,972.00.  She subsequently was able to determine that it was her debt.  The
Applicant made arrangements to pay this debt in two installments and did so.  The
creditor indicates that this debt has been “settled in full.”  (Transcript at 32-36;
Applicant’s Exhibits E and I.)
Subparagraph 1.d.  The Applicant has consistently denied owing this $1,175.00
debt to a bank.  She believes it to be the result of identity theft committed by her former
partner.  (Transcript at 37-38; Government Exhibit 2 at 3.)
Subparagraph 1.e.  The Applicant denied owing this $137.00 medical debt in her
Answer.  She testified, “I think I made the payment on that, but I can’t find the
3
paperwork.”  (Transcript at 38.)  Government Exhibits 5 and 6, credit reports dated
March 19 and May 16, 2008, respectively, state that this debt is “Paid Collection.”
Subparagraph 1.f.  The Applicant admits owing this debt in the amount of
$10,361.00.  She testified that only recently had she been able to find the collection
attorney handling this account.  The Applicant’s partner is willing to pay this debt.
(Transcript at 34-36; Applicant’s Exhibit D.)
Applicant’s Exhibit I at page 5 shows that she has been in touch with this creditor
since the hearing.  The exhibit shows that the Applicant has made arrangements to
settle this account for $5,698.38, no later than June 16, 2008.  For reasons stated under
“Analysis,” below, I find this statement to be truthful and worthy of belief.    
Mitigation
Applicant’s Exhibit A consists of four letters.  Two are from her Field Service
Manager and Company Vice President.  (Applicant’s Exhibit A at 1-2.)  Her manager
states, “She is a hard working and very punctual employee who has earned the trust of
every supervisor she has worked for while performing [her job].”  (Applicant’s Exhibit A
at 1.)
Two friends describe the Applicant as “honest,” “dependable” and “hard working.”
(Applicant’s Exhibit A at 3-4.)
The Applicant’s most recent credit report and budget (Government Exhibit 6;
Applicant’s Exhibit C) shows that she is taking control of her financial situation.  She
testified that she has no outstanding bills and is able to live within her means.
(Transcript at 39.)
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
4
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
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. 
5
The Applicant testified at great length about her financial situation, and submitted
written evidence following the hearing.  For the following reasons I find her testimonial
evidence, as well as her documentary evidence, to be credible and worthy of belief.
First, the Applicant freely admitted the debts that she does owe.  Second, the Applicant
admitted at the hearing that two debts, which she thought were the same, had turned
out to be different.  Third, the Applicant fulfilled promises made at the hearing to make a
payment on one debt and contact the creditor in another debt.
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under AG &
19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.  Similarly
under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise security
concerns.  The evidence shows, and the Applicant admits, that she had some problems
paying her bills in the past.  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.  Evidence that Athe individual initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts@ is mitigating under ¶
20(d).  The Applicant successfully showed that she has paid the debts in allegations 1.c.
and 1.e.  In addition, she credibly testified that she had asked her father to pay the
$40.00 medical debt and believed that he had paid it (1.b.), and that she had made a
payment arrangement regarding the only open debt (1.f.).  I conclude this potentially
mitigating condition applies.
Finally, ¶ 20(e) states that it may be mitigating where “the individual has a
reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the
problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or
provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue.”  The Government has not met its
burden to show that the Applicant owes any money with regards to subparagraph 1.a.,
since the only credit report concerning that debt says that there “may be a balance due.”
In addition, as set forth at length above, with regards to a bank and its collection
agencies, she has consistently denied owing them money due to her former partner
stealing her identity (1.d.).  For the reasons stated above, I find this denial to be credible
and worthy of belief.  This mitigating condition clearly applies to the facts of this case.
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,
6
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 has had some credit
problems in the past.  She has worked hard to pay these debts off, and her current
financial situation is solid.  She has consistently stated her concerns with the debts she
feels she does not owe.  With regard to all the debts alleged in the SOR, I find that she
has behaved reasonably and appropriately in trying to resolve them.  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.f.: 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