DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 --------------------------- )  ISCR Case No. 08-00361 
 SSN: -------------------- ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Braden Murphy, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOWE, Philip S., Administrative Judge: 
 
On March 3, 2005, Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 
86). On June 23, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued 
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 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 acknowledged receipt of the SOR on July 7, 2008. He answered the 
SOR in writing on July 24, 2008, and requested a hearing before an administrative 
judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on August 13, 2008, and I 
received the case assignment on the same day. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on 
September 16, 2008, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on October 16, 2008. 
The Government offered Exhibits (Ex.) 1 through 4, which were received without 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
objection. Applicant testified and submitted Exhibits A through D, without objection. 
DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on October 23, 2008.  Based upon a 
review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to 
classified information is granted. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, dated July 24, 2008, Applicant admitted the factual 
allegations in ¶¶ 1.b, 1.d, and 1.g of the SOR, with explanations. He denied the factual 
allegations in ¶¶ 1.a, 1.c, 1.e, and 1.f of the SOR. He also provided additional 
information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance.  
 
 Applicant is 58 years old, divorced from his first wife by whom he had two now-
adult children, and currently is remarried.  He graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy 
in 1972, and served five years on active duty with the U.S. Marine Corps.  He served in 
the Marine Reserves for another 12 years.  He works for a defense contractor, and 
seeks a secret clearance.  During his military career he had security clearances, and 
had no record of any violations of regulations during those periods. (Tr. 16, 17, 25, 26, 
35; Exhibit 1)  
 
 The SOR alleges seven delinquent debts owed by Applicant.  These debts total 
$11,704.  Appellant’s Answer with attachments, and his testimony and exhibits at the 
hearing, show he has addressed each of the debts, paying them in full or regularly 
paying on an installment payment agreement. 
 
 Applicant’s first delinquent debt listed in the SOR (Paragraph 1.a) was $519 
owed to an energy utility.  He paid it in full in January 2007. (Tr. 27; Answer with 
Attachment 1; Exhibits 2-4, A) 
 
 The second debt (Paragraph 1.b) was owed to an apartment owner in the 
amount of $1,585.  The debt went to judgment.  Applicant paid the judgment in full on 
September 18, 2008, in the amount of $1,319.63. (Tr. 27; Exhibits 2-4, A, B) 
 
 The third debt (Paragraph 1.c) was owed on a telephone company bill in the 
amount of $261.  This debt was paid in full on July 18, 2008. (Tr. 28, 29; Answer and 
Attachment 3; Exhibits 2-4, A) 
 
 The fourth debt listed in the SOR (Paragraph 1.d) is $2,385 owed to a bank on a 
credit card.  There is an installment payment agreement in place.  Applicant pays $154 
monthly.  He will have this debt paid within 12 months. (Tr. 27, 29; Answer and 
Attachment 4; Exhibits 2-4, D)  
 
 The fifth debt listed in the SOR (Paragraph 1.e) is $1,639 owed to a bank on a 
credit card. This debt was paid in full on August 25, 2008. (Tr. 29; Answer and 
Attachment 5; Exhibits 2-4, A) 
 
 
3 
 
 
 The sixth debt listed in the SOR (Paragraph 1.f) is $494 owed to a telephone 
company.  It was paid in full on January 9, 2007. (Tr. 29; Answer with Attachment 6; 
Exhibits 2-4, A) 
 
 The seventh and last debt listed in the SOR (Paragraph 1.g) totals $4,821and is 
owed to a collector.  The original debt was owed to a bank.  Applicant has an 
installment payment agreement in place with this creditor to pay $350 monthly.  The 
balance owed is $3,333.90. (Tr. 27, 29; Answer and Attachment 7; Exhibits 2-4, A, C) 
 
 These delinquent debts arose when Applicant was unemployed from January 
2001 to April 2002.  After his divorce in 1998, Applicant was ordered to pay $1,600 
monthly to his former wife.  When unemployed, he was still obligated to pay this amount 
from his $1,200 monthly unemployment compensation pay.  Applicant was able to get 
the court to reduce his spousal support payments to $1,000 monthly, and extend the 
payment term to eight years from six years.  While paying this spousal support, 
Applicant was not able to pay his then-current debts.  He has not incurred additional 
debt since he was re-employed in 2002. (Tr. 17, 18, 29, 30; Answer and Attachment 8) 
 
 Applicant lives in the home owned by his new wife, and helps her pay the 
mortgage.  He owns two cars on which nothing is owed.  He has two credit cards, one 
with a $400 limit, and the other with a $350 limit.  He has never made a late payment on 
them, and his balances are below the limits.  He owes additional income tax for 2002 in 
the amount of $6,000, which he wants to repay in a lump sum settlement.  He is 
consulting an attorney about resolving this debt. (Tr. 31-33) 
 
 Applicant presented a disciplined program of individual responsibility in paying 
his delinquent debts.  Some debts were paid before the SOR was issued.  Applicant 
disclosed his debts on his SF 86.  He saves $2,000 monthly now. He is a very 
persuasive and credible witness. (Tr. 34) 
 
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. 
 
4 
 
 
 
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 and 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).   
 
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.  
 
5 
 
 
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 
these obligations over the past five years. The evidence is sufficient to raise these 
potentially disqualifying conditions. 
 
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.@ Applicant=s 
financial worries arose between 2001 and 2002. He accumulated some delinquent debt 
due to his 15 months of unemployment, and his court-ordered spousal support 
payments, which consumed most of his unemployment compensation. These 
circumstances are no longer extant. The behavior occurred under such unusual 
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur, and it does not raise concerns about his 
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. The evidence raises this 
potentially mitigating condition.  
 
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.@ As noted above, some of 
the financial problems arose from his unemployment.  In the following years, he did not 
incur additional obligations that became delinquent. He acted responsibly in identifying 
and resolving these debts. I find this potentially mitigating condition is a factor for 
consideration.  
 
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).  This mitigating condition applies because 
there is clear evidence that the delinquent debts are resolved and and his finances are 
under control.   
  
Similarly, AG & 20(d) applies where the evidence shows Athe individual initiated a 
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.@ Applicant 
resolved all the delinquent debts, either by payment in five of them or installment 
payment agreements in two situations. These actions demonstrate his good-faith effort 
to resolve his debts responsibly. He is now financially sound and prepared for future 
contingencies. I conclude these potentially mitigating conditions apply.  
 
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 
 
6 
 
 
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 commonsense 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. When these problems first began, 
Applicant was a mature adult.  He fell on hard financial times when he lost his job and 
had to continue to pay spousal support.  He did not incur additional debt, and worked to 
repay his delinquent debts.  His problems have not recurred.  There is no potential for 
pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress, and no likelihood of continuation or 
recurrence.  He pays his current monthly bills, and saves $2,000 monthly with his new 
wife. Applicant demonstrated great maturity and responsibility toward his financial 
obligations. 
 
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 to 1.g:  For Applicant 
    
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
                                                     
_________________ 
PHILIP S. HOWE 
Administrative Judge