DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-02117
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Paul M. DeLaney, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
September 29, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On May 21, 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 28, 2008, and requested an
Administrative Determination by an Administrative Judge (AJ). Department Counsel
issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on June 26, 2008. Applicant did not file a
response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on September 15, 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 42 year old employee of a defense contractor.
Applicant is indebted to Bank of America in the approximate amount of
$6,194.00. This credit card debt was charged off in 2005.
Applicant is indebted to DSRM National Bank in the approximate amount of
$267.00. This debt was placed for collection in 2005.
Applicant is indebted to Citi in the approximate amount of $2,293.00. This
account was charged off in 2005.
Applicant is indebted to Bank of America in the approximate amount of
$10,158.00. This debt represents the difference between what the creditor received
after it sold applicant’s repossessed vehicle at auction and what applicant still owed on
the vehicle loan. This debt was charged off in 2006.
In response to the SOR, applicant stated that his inability to satisfy these debts is
the result of deaths in his family, which resulted in, among other things, he and his wife
assuming guardianship of his wife’s handicapped sister. He further stated that, although
he is not in the position to address these debts at this time, he “hope[s] to one day pay
these debts in full.”
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
3
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
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 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’s numerous delinquent
debts are still outstanding. 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.” Although
applicant’s financial problems appear to be at least partially the result of family issues
beyond his control, he presented insufficient evidence to establish that he would not be
experiencing these problems without these family issues, or that he acted responsibly
under the circumstances. Accordingly, this mitigating condition is not applicable.
4
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.” 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) 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 has a history of not
meeting his financial obligations. The evidence establishes that his financial difficulties
will most likely continue for some time, leaving him both unable to address the
approximately $18,900.00 in delinquent unsecured debt listed in the SOR and
vulnerable to further financial delinquencies. These facts leave me no choice but to
conclude 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
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.
                                              
JOSEPH TESTAN
Administrative Judge