1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 08-00113
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, 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 is granted.
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on May 14,
2005. On June 20, 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 security clearance application (SF-86)) at 1, 5.1
Id. at 2-42
Item 7 (Interrogatories and answers, dated March 28, 2008) at 5.3
2
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on June 30, 2008. He submitted a
notarized, written response to the SOR allegations on July 24, 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 September 16, 2008. Applicant received the FORM on
September 24, 2008. He had 30 days from receipt of the FORM to file objections and
submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He timely submitted a response
and additional evidence. DOHA assigned this case to me on November 5, 2008. The
government submitted eight exhibits, which have been marked as Items 1-8 and
admitted into the record. Applicant’s response to the SOR has been marked and
admitted as Item 2. His response and attachments to the FORM are admitted into
evidence.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, dated June 30, 2008, Applicant admitted the factual
allegations in ¶¶ 1.a through 1.d of the SOR, with explanations. He denied the factual
allegations in ¶¶ 1.e and 1.f of the SOR. He also provided additional information to
support his request for eligibility for a security clearance.
Applicant, who is 53 years old, works as an aircraft mechanic for a Department of
Defense contractor. He has worked for his employer for more than 11 years. He has
held a clearance for the last 10 years, without any violations.  1
Applicant and his wife have been married for 34 years. He has three daughters,
ages 32, 31 and 26. He served in the United States Army from 1975 until 1978. His wife
is disabled from working, which has resulted in a reduction in family income. He
complies with the laws and rules of society.  2
Applicant’s gross monthly income is $3,986. His net monthly income is $2,237
and his wife’s disability income is $755 for a total monthly income of $2,992. His
estimated monthly expenses total $3,094. This amount includes estimates for food,
utilities and car expenses which vary on a monthly basis. I conclude that he is able to
meet his monthly expenses every month.3
The SOR identifies six debts totaling $14,096. Applicant settled and paid the
$256 debt listed in allegation 1.a. for $145.92 in July 2008. The unpaid cell phone bill
identified in allegation 1.b ($627) and 1.e ($546) of the SOR are the same account.
Applicant paid $313.86 on the $627 bill and has a payment plan for the remainder of
Item 2, Applicant’s response to the SOR; Response to form, October 2008.4
Item 7, supra note 3, at 6.5
Item 5 (Credit report, dated September 13, 2005) at 3; Item 6 (Credit report, dated March 10, 2007) at 4; Item6
8 (Credit report, dated May 21, 2008).
Item 5, supra note 6.7
3
this bill. Likewise, after determining he owed the $476 debt identified in SOR allegation
1.f, Applicant established a payment plan and recently paid $200 on this debt. The two
largest debts, $8579, and $3612 remain unpaid.4
The 2005 credit report reflects that Applicant regularly paid his monthly payment
on the voluntary car repossession debt identified in allegation 1.c. He experienced
mechanical problems with the car when it was three years old. The repairs were
expensive; the company refused to pay for the repairs; and he could not afford them. He
voluntarily returned the car and as a result the debt was incurred. He has indicated that
when his smaller debts are paid, he can begin paying this debt.  5
The $3,612 debt (SOR allegation 1.d) relates to a credit card, which became past
due in November 2000 and remains unpaid. Applicant has been unable to locate or
contact this creditor to discuss paying the debt. The most recent credit report does not
reflect this debt and the 2007 credit report does not contain any contact information
regarding this account, although the 2005 credit report does show contact information.6
The record contains three credit reports. The 2005 credit report (Item 5) shows
37 credit entries, of which three are past due or unpaid (allegations 1.a, 1.b and 1.c in
the SOR) and totaled less than $10,000. This report also indicates that Applicant had
been 30 to 60 days behind in his monthly payments on seven debts in the past, but that
four of these debts, which range for $630 to a $23,000 car loan were paid by September
2005. The payments on the three other debts were current. The report shows that
Applicant paid 27 debts, ranging from $190 to a $8,900 car loan and totaling
approximately $45,000, as agreed or satisfactorily. By 2005, Applicant had paid 24 of
these 27 debts in full. The three remaining debts totaled about $1,000.  7
The 2007 credit report (Item 6) lists all the debts alleged in the SOR. Outside of
the SOR debts, this credit report reflects that Applicant timely paid, as agreed, his
monthly mortgage, two car loans which totaled $25,000, a $6,000 recreational debt, and
three small debts, which totaled $2,850. The credit report shows that he paid 57 debts
in full. These debts ranged from $190 to $9,000 and included two car loans, nine bank
notes and 24 small loans. He also paid in full an $8,500 installment loan and a $23,000
car loan. The 2008 credit report (Item 8) lists three of the SOR debts (allegations 1.a,
1.b and 1.c) which total less than $10,000. It also reflects that Applicant timely pays his
Item 6, supra note 6; Item 8, supra note 6.8
4
mortgage, two car loans ($17,000 and $8,000) and a small loan.  This credit report
contains 39 entries which are closed or paid accounts with a zero balance.8
Policies
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.
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.
 
5
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).  
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 some delinquent debt and was unable to pay
some obligations for a period of time. 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. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ Given that
Applicant=s debts are generally more recent, this mitigation condition does not apply.
Under AG & 20(b), it may be mitigating where Athe 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 arose when his wife became disabled from working, causing a loss in
household income. They experienced difficulty making all their monthly payments in a
timely fashion, but they were able to return all of their then existing debts to current
status without filing for bankruptcy or refinancing. I find this mitigating condition is
partially applicable in this case. 
Evidence that Athe 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 AG & 20(c). While Applicant has not sought financial
AG ¶¶ 20 (e) and 20 (f) are not raised in this case.9
6
counseling, the credit reports reflect that his finances are under control. He pays his
current debts as required and agreed. Over the years, he timely paid the majority of his
debt. Although he has not paid an old credit card debt and the remaining balance owed
on the car he voluntarily returned to the car dealer, an overall review of his credit reports
indicates that he lives within his financial means. He does not use credit cards to excess
or fail to pay the majority of his loans, and he regularly pays his monthly living
expenses. He has resolved or is resolving his smaller debts. This mitigating condition
applies.
Similarly, AG & 20(d) applies where the evidence shows Athe individual initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Despite his
limited resources, Applicant has resolved one small debt and is paying two smaller
debts. He has attempted to contact the credit card company without success. Although
he has not made any effort to resolve the voluntary car repossession debt, he has made
a good faith effort to resolve his four other debts. I conclude this mitigating condition
applies.9
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. 
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.       
The mitigating evidence under the whole person concept is more substantial. In
reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant ‘s
three-year-old car developed significant mechanical problems in 2006. The car dealer
and manufacturer refused to fix the problem and Applicant could not afford the repairs.
He decided to return the car to the dealer and has since learned that he still owes a
significant amount of money on the car loan. Due to his limited finances, he has not
7
developed a repayment plan for this debt, but has indicated that once he resolves
smaller debts, he will work on repayment of this debt. 
Applicant’s financial problems began when his wife became disabled from
working, causing a loss in household income. Her disability resulted in overdue bills for
a period of time. Nonetheless, Applicant and his wife apportioned their reduced income
to make up the missed payments and returned most of the debts to current payment
status. Applicant has made an effort to resolve the remaining debts listed in the SOR.
The two cell phone debts listed are the same. He has paid 50% of this debt. He settled
another small debt and paid approximately 45% on the remaining small debt. The
creditor for the credit card debt never reduced it to a judgment and the Statute of
Limitations has expired, making it uncollectible. (See AG & 2(a)(8).) Thus, this debt
cannot be a source of improper pressure or duress. Even so, Applicant made an effort
to locate the creditor without success. He accumulated debt due to circumstances
largely beyond his control when his wife could no longer work. Despite the loss of her
income, Applicant did not allow the majority of his bills to become unpaid debts. Rather,
he paid his monthly bills and continues to do so. Although he has little extra money
each month, he has repaid or is repaying his small debts. He has a stable home life.
Because he has a very good track record for paying his bills, his two unresolved debts
do not raising security concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(6).) Of course, the issue is not simply
whether all his debts are paidBit is whether his financial circumstances raise concerns
about his fitness to hold a security clearance. While some debts remain unpaid, they are
insufficient to raise security concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(1).)  
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 APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
8
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.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge