DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-04020
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jennifer I. Goldstein, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
December 17, 2008
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On July 22, 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 August 4, 2008, and requested an
Administrative Determination by an Administrative Judge (AJ). Department Counsel
issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on August 20, 2008. Applicant did not file a
response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on October 21, 2008. Based
upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 55 year old employee of a defense contractor.
As of July 2008, applicant was indebted to American Express (AE) in the
approximate amount of $18,724.00. In response to interrogatories sent to her by DOHA,
she stated she had agreed to make monthly payments of $1,000.00 to the law firm
representing AE. She attached to her interrogatory responses a May 16, 2008 letter
from the law firm. This letter states that the balance due is $18,273.70. Applicant also
attached a copy of her check register which shows a $250.00 payment going to the law
firm on April 16, 2008 and a $1,000.00 payment going to the law firm on May 16, 2008.
In her response to the SOR, applicant reiterated that she is paying the law firm
$1,000.00 per month. She attached a letter from the law firm indicating that her debt
had been reduced to $17,143.24.
The AE debt is the only debt alleged in the SOR. However, the evidence
establishes that applicant had fallen behind on many debts, and has since repaid them,
or brought them current. In her response to the SOR, applicant provided some
background concerning her debts. She explained:
My sister and I started a business in March 2006 . . .The business drained
my financial resource and I put some of the expenses on my credit cards,
otherwise we would have had to close the business. The business is now
breaking even. I did get behind on several credit card debts, but all are
now current or fully paid off. I am paying [the law firm collecting for
American Express] $1000 monthly payments on my outstanding balance.
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.
3
(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 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’s financial difficulties
were for the most part caused by a failing business. The business has now stabilized to
the point that it is breaking even. Applicant has either satisfied her delinquent debts or
has made arrangements to satisfy them. Applicant’s financial difficulties are unlikely to
recur, and they do not cast doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment. Accordingly, this mitigation condition is 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.”
4
Applicant’s financial problems were caused by conditions largely beyond her control;
namely a failing business venture. She acted responsibly by repaying or agreeing to
repay all of her delinquent debts. Accordingly, this mitigating condition is 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. It is clear the problem is under control.
This mitigating condition is applicable.
Paragraph d. applies where the evidence shows “the individual initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Applicant has
satisfied all of her past-due debts or is in the process of satisfying them. This mitigating
condition is 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 woman who
found herself owning a business that was failing. She decided to put some of her
expenses on credit cards, and then fell behind on her credit card payments. She has
since either repaid all of the delinquent credit card debt or has reached repayment
agreements with her creditors. Most of these repayments occurred before the SOR was
issued. Based on the evidence presented, I conclude applicant mitigated 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: FOR APPLICANT
5
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.
                                              
JOSEPH TESTAN
Administrative Judge