DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-00378
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace Le’i, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
December 17, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On May 29, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to applicant detailing the security concerns under
Guidelines E and 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 26, 2008, and requested an
Administrative Determination by an Administrative Judge (AJ). Department Counsel
issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on July 22, 2008. Applicant did not file a
response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on October 2, 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 54 year old employee of a defense contractor.
Applicant is indebted to Bank of America and/or its assignees in the approximate
amount of $13,367.00. This debt went delinquent in or before April 2006, and has since
been placed for collection.
Applicant was indebted to CitiBank/Dell Financial Services in the approximate
amount of $219.00. This debt, which had gone delinquent in or before April 2006, was
satisfied in March 2008.
Applicant is indebted to GEMB/Sams Club in the approximate amount of
$1,688.00. This account went delinquent in or before July 2007, and was charged off by
the creditor.
The information applicant has provided concerning his efforts to address the two
remaining delinquent debts is, at best, confusing. In his June 2008 response to the
SOR, applicant stated he and his wife “sought help and turned over our accounts to
Consumer Law Center late August 2007,” both debts are with Consumer Law Center
(CLC), $245.00 is deducted from his checking account on the 7  of each month, andth
each account is being paid and will be paid in accordance with the agreement he has
with CLC. He attached to his SOR response a March 24, 2008 letter from CLC. The
letter from CLC states that the purpose of the letter is to “clarify the scope of
representation that this firm is providing” to the applicant, and then states the applicant
retained the firm “for the limited purpose of auditing as to whether or not his creditors
were in compliance with the Truth in Lending Act, Fair Credit Billing Act, and the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.” This letter would seem to rule out any type of repayment contract
applicant claims he has with CLC.
However, in his March 2008 response to interrogatories sent to him by DOHA,
applicant stated that “as you can see [from his attachments to his response] the
Consumer Law Firm takes out $245.25 monthly of [sic] my checking account at Suntrust
Bank,” and he attached to his response one page of what appears to be a seven page
contract with CLC. The part of the contract he attached indicates that he will pay CLC
$245.25 monthly for approximately 48 months, CLC will receive a fee of 25% of the total
debt placed with the firm, and applicant’s monthly payment will be distributed in
accordance with “Exhibit A.” This one page, together with the evidence applicant
provided showing he made a February 2008 payment to CLC in the amount of $245.25,
indicates there probably is a repayment contract in effect between applicant and CLC.
However, because applicant did not provide the rest of the contract, including “Exhibit
A,” this evidence does not prove that his two remaining delinquent debts are covered by
this contract, let alone that the two debts are actually being paid. Furthermore, the fact
that applicant presented proof of just one payment to CLC raises substantial doubt that
the terms of the agreement are being honored.
Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on or about August 2, 2007. In response to two questions on the e-QIP,
applicant denied that (1) in the prior seven years he had been over 180 days delinquent
3
on any debt and (2) he was then over 90 days delinquent on any debts. In fact,
applicant was over 180 days delinquent on the Bank of America and Citibank debts
when he completed the e-QIP. In his response to the SOR, applicant stated he “did not
deliberately withhold any knowledge about [his] financial situation since [he] was at that
time unaware of said difficulties. My wife disclosed this information to me until [sic] the
end of August 2007, shortly after she sought professional guidance to resolve our credit
card debt.”  I find that applicant’s false answers were not intentional.
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
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:
4
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 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 failure to honor his
financial obligations is ongoing. He failed to establish that his financial irresponsibility
will not recur. 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.” In his
response to the SOR, applicant stated that his wife was injured at work and underwent
two surgeries, and when she returned to work she was unable to work overtime, which
decreased her earnings. Although such an injury was undoubtedly beyond applicant’s
control, he failed to provide the details required to make a finding he acted responsibly
under the circumstances. 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 20.c. There is no evidence of counseling.
Applicant retained CLC in August 2007 to deal with his last two debts. Although
applicant made at least one payment to CLC, there is no evidence that any money has
gone to either creditor. Accordingly, 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 for the same reason Paragraph 20.c does not apply.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set forth in
Paragraph 15 of the AG, and is as follows:
5
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
Paragraph16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. Under Paragraph 16.a., the “deliberate omission, concealment, or
falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history
statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or
trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities,” may be disqualifying. This
disqualifying condition is not applicable because applicant did not deliberately provide
the false information on the e-QIP.
“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. In August 2007, he and his wife went to CLC for help
in resolving their financial problems. It has been about a year since they signed up with
CLC, and it appears the only help they received consisted of getting the entries in their
credit reports changed. There is no credible evidence that their remaining two creditors,
holding past-due debts totaling more than $15,000.00, have been paid anything.
Applicant’s inability or unwillingness to address these financial obligations in any
meaningful way leaves me no choice but to conclude he failed to mitigate the security
concerns arising from Guideline F.
6
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
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR 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