DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-02922
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: James F. Duffy, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
December 9, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On April 24, 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 23, 2008. Applicant did not file a
response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on September 15, 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 40 year old employee of a defense contractor.
Applicant admits that as of April 2008, he was indebted to the following creditors
in the following approximate amounts: two unpaid medical debts totaling $217.00; Cap
One $1,254.00; FirstRev $580.00 and AFNI-Bloom $667.00, which appear to be the
same debt that originated with Cingular; NCO-Medclr $140.00; Arrow Ser (GE Money
Bank) $2,421.00; Credit Protection $285.00; Arrow Ser (Household Bank) $3,397.00;
Chase NA $7,220.00; Cred Mgmt $119.00; Lvnv Fundg $6,255.00 and HSBC/Comp
$4,747.00, which appear to be the same debt that originated with Comp USA; and
Portfolio (MBNA) $23,503.00. All of these debts are past-due. All of them were either
placed for collection or charged off, most many years ago.
In his response to the SOR, applicant claimed he satisfied the (1) two medical
debts, (2) First Rev/AFNI-Bloom/Cingular debt, (3) NCO-Medclr debt, (4) Credit
Protection debt, and (5) Cred Mgmt debt. He offered no credible evidence to
corroborate his claim. He further claimed that he “wrote letter to [Cap One] to work out
payment plan or pay off acc,” “called [Arrow Ser] on May 6 , 15, and 16  [but received]th th
no call back,” “called [Chase NA and is] working out deal to refinance house to pay for
account or get it dismissed due to age of account,” and “talked to credit agency”
handling the Comp USA debt and “worked out payment plan down payment of 152.00
then monthly payments of 100.00 a month.” He offered no credible evidence
corroborating these contacts.
The evidence does not establish that applicant is indebted as alleged in SOR
Paragraphs 1c, 1d, 1e, 1g, 1j, 1o, 1r, and 1s.
In his response to the SOR, applicant stated his financial delinquencies were the
“result of being laid off three times in two years.” He further stated he has “just recently
gotten where [he] was financially able to start paying them off.”
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.
3
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 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 has numerous
delinquent debts that are still outstanding. 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
4
employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce
or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.” Applicant
stated in his SOR response that his financial delinquencies were the result of being laid
off three times in two years. But he failed to provide any details about these layoffs.
Without any details, and with an August 2007 security questionnaire in evidence
indicating he has been working for his current employer since 2001, there is insufficient
evidence to apply this mitigating condition.
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 credible evidence that
applicant has received or is receiving counseling. Nor are there clear indications that his
financial problems are actually being resolved or that they are under control.
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.” Applicant claims
he has settled some debts and has made contact with several other creditors. Even if
his uncorroborated statements were accepted as true, the vast majority of his
indebtedness has not been addressed in any meaningful way. He therefore has not
initiated “a good faith effort to repay overdue creditors.” This mitigating condition is not
applicable.
“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 long history of not meeting his financial obligations. Although he may have recently
paid off a few of the small debts, all of his large past-due debts remain unpaid, and the
evidence does not establish he is likely to resolve these debts any time soon. Under the
circumstances, I have no choice but to 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