DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-15528
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Robert E. Coacher, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
October 28, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On April 29, 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 19, 2008, and requested an
Administrative Determination by an Administrative Judge (AJ). Department Counsel
issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on June 10, 2008. Applicant filed a response
to the FORM on July 14, 2008. The case was assigned to me on July 31, 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 30 year old employee of a defense contractor.
Applicant is indebted to Full Sail Nelnet in the approximate amount of
$62,353.00. This student loan debt was placed for collection.
Applicant is indebted to MBNA in the approximate amount of $2,264.00. This
debt was placed for collection.
Applicant has three separate medical-related debts in the amounts of $100.00,
$414.00, and $279.00. All three debts were placed for collection in 2006.
Applicant is indebted to Adelphia Cable in the approximate amount of $1,556.00.
This debt was placed for collection.
Applicant is indebted to Providian Financial in the approximate amount of
$1,346.00. This debt was charged off as a bad debt.
Applicant is indebted to Asset Acceptance in the approximate amount of
$100.00. This debt was placed for collection.
Applicant is indebted to a hospital in the approximate amount of $334.00 as a
result of a judgment entered against him in 2000.
Applicant is indebted to Southern Management in the approximate amount of
$1,742.00. This debt has been placed for collection.
Applicant submitted letters from a number of his supervisors and coworkers.
These letters establish that applicant is considered to be an honest, hardworking
employee who performs very well at his job.
In his responses to the SOR and FORM, applicant made numerous statements
about how he intended to make payments on certain debts, and how he had made
payment arrangements with various creditors. In the end, however, he offered little proof
of any payments on the debts listed in the SOR.
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.)
3
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
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 long history of an inability
or unwillingness 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
4
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.” Applicant’s numerous debts are
still outstanding. His current inability or unwillingness to address them in any meaningful
way casts doubt on his current judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. Accordingly,
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’s financial problems were not caused by conditions largely beyond his control.
Accordingly, 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 c. In his SOR response, applicant claims that
because his defaulted student loans were accepted by the Florida Department of
Education for “loan rehabilitation,” this mitigating condition should apply because the
loan rehabilitation program “is designed to counsel and help individuals whose loans are
in default and get them in good standing.” This mitigating condition applies only with
respect to applicant’s student loan debts.
Paragraph d. applies where the evidence shows “the individual initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Applicant has
expressed his intention to repay his debts. However, to date, he has not initiated any
meaningful action to repay them. 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 is a mature man who has
a history of not meeting his financial obligations. Although he has expressed an intent to
repay his past-due debts, he has in fact done very little to address them. Based on the
foregoing, I conclude applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from
Guideline F.
5
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