DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-00486
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
November 20, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On April 30, 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 June 2, 2008, and requested an
Administrative Determination by an Administrative Judge (AJ). Department Counsel
issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on June 13, 2008. Applicant filed a response
to the FORM on July 10, 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 26 year old employee of a defense contractor. She was married in
2000 and divorced in 2003.
Applicant is indebted to CANON DE ARROWHEAD in the approximate amount of
$2,666.00 as a result of a judgment entered against her. She has contacted the creditor,
but to date has not taken any action to pay the judgment.
Applicant is indebted to PARAGONWAY/CHECKMATE in the approximate
amount of $368.00. In her response to the SOR, applicant stated this debt was
transferred to Phoenix Debt Management (PDM) and that she paid it. Although she
attached a copy of her check register showing three payments totaling $293.00 were
made to PDM, she provided no evidence that links PDM with the original creditor.
Applicant is alleged to be indebted in the approximate amount of $146.00 “on a
medical account” that has been turned over to a collection agency. In her response to
the SOR, applicant stated this debt was owed to Radiology Associates (RA) and has
been paid. In her response to the FORM, she attached a check register showing a
$28.82 payment was made to RA in March 2008. However, she has not provided any
proof that this payment satisfied the debt.
Applicant is indebted to COLLECTRIT/OSCAR QUINTANA in the approximate
amount of $54.00. This debt was placed for collection. Applicant claims she satisfied
this debt, but offered no proof.
Applicant was indebted to HUNTER WARFIELD/SEDONA RIDGE
APARTMENTS for two debts that had been placed for collection. The first debt, in the
amount of $252.00, was satisfied by applicant in March 2008. The second debt stood at
$531.00. In her response to the SOR, applicant stated “payments are currently being
made on this account and I have one payment left which will occur on 6/6/08." She
attached to her SOR response proof that she has made three payments, totaling
$340.52, to the creditor. Although in her response to the FORM she stated “this account
has been paid in full,” she provided no proof she made the last payment.
Applicant is indebted to WFNNB/AHF in the approximate amount of $439.00.
This debt was charged off. Applicant was in contact with this creditor in March 2008,
and it appears she made at least two payments since then. The total amount of the two
payments is unclear as her checking account indicates $235.00 was paid while
correspondence from the creditor indicates applicant authorized $300.00 in payments to
be made from her checking account. Either way she still has a balance due. In her
response to the FORM applicant stated the account “has been paid in full,” but she
offered no proof of this fact.
Applicant is indebted to PALISADES/ATT in the approximate amount of $580.00.
This debt has been placed for collection.
Applicant was indebted to PURPLN/FBD in the approximate amount of $683.00.
This debt was charged off. In her response to the SOR, applicant stated “this debt has
3
been paid in full to Nations Recovery.” A check register she attached to her SOR
response indicates she made five payments totaling $580.00 between February and
April 2008 to Nations Recovery. However, she presented no evidence indicating that the
creditor has accepted these payments as payment in full.
Applicant is indebted to CPS/MAIL in the approximate amount of $10,076.00 as a
result of the voluntary repossession of her vehicle in 2004. Applicant has been in
contact with the creditor, but to date has not made any payments on the debt.
Applicant has three medical debts totaling approximately $3,116.00 dating back
to at least 2006. In her response to the FORM, she stated these debts should have
been covered by Medicare, and she has “been working on the dispute process.”
In her response to the SOR, applicant stated: “I am currently trying to pay my
past debts which I now understand how important it is to pay my financial obligations.
This debt came about by my past divorce and unable to stay current with all my debts.”
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
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
4
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 an inability or
unwillingness to pay her 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 has numerous
delinquent debts that are still outstanding. 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
failed to provide specific details to support a finding that her present financial
delinquencies were caused by her 2003 divorce. 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 20. c. Applicant went to see a counselor, but
never received counseling. Her financial problems are not under control. 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.” Applicant
5
appears to have made a good-faith effort to begin to repay a number of her creditors.
This mitigating condition applies.
“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 woman who
has a long history of being unable to meet her financial obligations. Although she has
addressed some of the delinquent debts, the evidence does not support a finding that
she is likely to be in a position to address the bulk of her past-due indebtedness anytime
soon, or that she is unlikely to experience additional financial delinquencies. Based on
the foregoing, I 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
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