1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 07-15983
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tom Coale, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                            
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony,  I
conclude that Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information must be denied.
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on October 17,
2006. On January 30, 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. 
 
Item 4 (Applicant’s response to the SOR), at 1-2; Attachments to rebuttal.1
Item 5 (Applicant’s security clearance, dated October 17, 2006) at 1, 2, 4.2
Item 1 (Statement of Reasons) at 1-2; Item 6 (Credit Report, dated October 17, 2006); Item 7 (Credit Report,3
dated January 2, 2008); Item 8 (Credit Report, dated April 22, 2008).
Item 4, supra note 1, at 4-5.4
2
Applicant received the SOR On March 31, 2008. He submitted a notarized,
written response to the SOR allegations dated April 2, 2008, and requested a decision
on the written record in lieu of a hearing. 
Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) and mailed
Applicant a complete copy on May 14, 2008. Applicant received the FORM on June 9,
2008. He had 30 days from receipt of the FORM to file objections and submit material in
refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He did not submit a response and additional
evidence. DOHA assigned this case to me on August 15, 2008. The government
submitted eight exhibits, which have been marked as Items 1-8 and admitted into the
record.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, dated April 2, 2008, Applicant admitted the factual
allegations in ¶¶ 1.c-1.l. He denied the remaining allegations. He also provided
additional information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance.1
Applicant is 42 years old. He works for a Department of Defense contractor as a
distribution clerk. He is divorced.2
In November 2000, Applicant filed a Chapter 7 Petition for Bankruptcy. The court
discharged his debts in April 2002. Since his bankruptcy discharge, he has incurred
additional debts, including two judgments against him by a utility company and a car
dealer. His unpaid bills total $11,044, of which $5,693 is for medical bills, $2,484 is for
credit cards, and $902 is for telephone bills.  3
Applicant provided documentation which verifies that he paid the two judgments
against him. He paid the utility judgment in 2007 and the car dealer judgment in 2006.
He has not provided any documentation reflecting payment of his other debts or a
repayment plan for these debts. He has not provided any documentation showing his
current income and expenses, nor offered an explanation as to how these debts
occurred.4
Policies
When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
3
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.
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. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk 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.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “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).  
4
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.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant accumulated more delinquent debt after his bankruptcy
discharge, which he has been unable to pay for a period of time. The evidence is
sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions, requiring a closer
examination.
I have reviewed the mitigating conditions in AG¶ 20(a)-(f) and concluded that
none are applicable in this case as to the debts he admits owing. Applicant has
established he paid the two judgments, He paid the car dealer judgment through
garnishment and the utility judgment after being contacted by a collection attorney.
Thus, allegations 1.a and 1.b are found in favor of Applicant.
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. 
5
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for 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 as well as the above whole person
factors. Since this record contains little evidence, I have no information to provide a
good whole person analysis. His debts remain unpaid. He has not provided a reason for
these debts nor has he provided any information on his current financial circumstances.
I find that Applicant has not presented evidence which mitigates the government’s
security concerns.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to Applicant’s
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude
Applicant has not 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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.c-1.l: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge