1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-----------  –  -------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-04706
SSN: — – ---- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: John B. Glendon, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
On June 23, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline
F, financial considerations. 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 on July 7, 2008, admitted all of the allegations, and
requested an administrative determination. On August 18, 2008, department counsel
prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM). Applicant did not reply. On October 23,
2008, the case was assigned to me. I have reviewed the FORM and have concluded
that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant access to
classified information. Clearance is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 64-year-old married man with three children, ages seven, five, and
three. He has been married for 11 years. A previous marriage ended in divorce in 1997.
He is a veteran of the U.S. Air Force serving from June 1971 through December 1972
when he was honorably discharged (Item 4 at 10). Applicant is a spacecraft analyst. He
earned a bachelor of science degree in 1979.
Within the last seven years, Applicant has accrued eight delinquent debts in the
approximate amount of $75,000 (Item 3). Two resulted in judgments in 2006 (SOR
subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b). All except for SOR subparagraph 1.h, a student loan
account, are credit card accounts. SOR subparagraphs 1.b, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.f were
accounts that he cosigned for a friend (Item 3 at 11-12). The friend later defaulted on
the accounts.
In March 2008, Applicant retained a credit counselor to assist him with a
repayment plan (Item 5 at 18). SOR subparagraphs 1.c through 1.f are included in the
plan. His assertion that he has been satisfying these SOR debts through the plan is not
supported by conclusive, documentary evidence. Also, approximately $33,000 of his
delinquencies are not included in the plan (SOR subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b, 1.g., and 1.h). 
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, they are applied together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a 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.
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. 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. . . .” The applicant has the ultimate burden
of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision. 
3
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “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”
(AG ¶ 18). Moreover, “an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having
to engage in illegal acts to generate funds” (Id.).
Applicant has accrued approximately $75,000 of delinquent debt. At least one of
the debts has been delinquent since February 2005. AG ¶¶ 19(a), “inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations”
apply.
The delinquencies are still outstanding. Consequently, AG ¶ 20(a), “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,” is not applicable.
Applicant’s friend accrued the majority of the delinquencies after defaulting on
loans Applicant cosigned. Applicant then became legally responsible for satisfying them.
Under these circumstances, AG ¶ 20(b), “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,” does not apply.
Applicant retained a credit counselor, who helped him develop a payment plan.
The payment plan only includes four of the eight SOR debts. Moreover, I was unable to
ascertain the extent of his payment progress because Item 6, which appears to
chronicle the payment history, is arranged in a confusing and disorganized fashion. I
conclude Applicant’s retention of a credit counselor and initiation of a payment plan
trigger the application of AG ¶¶ 20(c), “the person has received or is receiving
counseling for the problem . . ,” and 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to
repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” apply, but have minimal probative
value.
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility to occupy a sensitive position 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). They are as follows: 
4
(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 ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination must be an overall commonsense judgment
based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept.
Applicant contends the majority of the delinquencies were accrued by a friend
who defaulted on several loans that Applicant had cosigned. This surrounding
circumstance does not mitigate the financial concern. As a cosigner, Applicant agreed
to be responsible for the bills if his friend defaulted. The issues surrounding his friend’s
default are irrelevant. Moreover, Applicant’s decision to cosign multiple loans raises
questions about his judgment. Applicant deserves credit for being forthcoming about the
delinquencies throughout the adjudicative process. He failed, however, to establish that
his delinquent debts are under control. Evaluating this case in the context of the whole
person concept, I conclude that the financial considerations remain a security concern.
Clearance is denied.
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
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.h: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge