DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-03936
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
January 23, 2009
______________
Decision
______________
TESTAN, Joseph, Administrative Judge:
On July 31, 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 September 11, 2008, and requested
an Administrative Determination by an Administrative Judge (AJ). Department Counsel
issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on October 28, 2008. Applicant filed a
response to the FORM on December 3, 2008. The case was assigned to me on
December 12, 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 44 year old employee of a defense contractor. He served
honorably for over twenty years in the U.S. military.
SOR Allegation 1a: Applicant is indebted to Bank of America (BA) in the amount
of $9,519.00. In August 2008, he contacted the bank and suggested two options to
settle the debt. In December 2008, he settled the debt for $3,253.29, which is to be paid
in three monthly installments of $1,084.43 beginning on December 31, 2008.
SOR Allegation 1b: Applicant was indebted to Chase in the amount of
$2,228.00 on an account that had been placed for collection. Applicant settled this debt
for $1,671.00 in September 2008. A letter dated October 3, 2008 from the creditor
confirms applicant paid the settlement amount.
SOR Allegation 1c: Applicant was indebted to WFFINANCE (WF). He admitted
the SOR Allegation that the debt was in the approximate amount of $5,705.00, and that
the debt had been charged off. However, there were different WF accounts listed in his
old credit reports, and it appears that after applicant disputed the number of accounts
with various credit reporting agencies in early 2008, long before the SOR was issued, all
but one was removed. The most recent credit report in evidence that Department
Counsel relies on (Exhibit 7) indicates a WF debt of $1,049.00. In his response to the
FORM, applicant submitted a December 2008 letter from the current assignee of the
debt who reported that the debt stood at $1,244.14 and that the debt was settled with
applicant for $950.00. Applicant stated he made the $950.00 payment. Based on the
evidence presented, I find that applicant is no longer indebted to WF.
Applicant and his wife have been separated since 2004 and are now in the
process of getting divorced. In his response to the SOR, applicant stated some of his
financial obligations were not addressed because of a failure of communication with his
soon to be ex-wife, as well as her failure to satisfy “divided debts” as she had agreed.
A letter from one of applicant’s coworkers was admitted into evidence. In it, he
stated applicant is reliable and trustworthy.
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.)
3
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:
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 did have a few debts go
delinquent.  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 satisfied two of the
4
three alleged debts and has reached a settlement agreement with the third creditor,
which leaves his current delinquent indebtedness at $3,253.29. The little derogatory
financial evidence the Government offered does not cast doubt on applicant’s 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.” Applicant
stated his financial problems were caused by his wife from whom he has been
separated since 2004. However, he provided insufficient specific evidence to conclude
his financial problems were caused by factors largely beyond his control. 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. 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 either
satisfied or settled all three debts. 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 man who, after
honorably serving his country for over twenty years, fell behind on three financial
obligations. Whether these delinquencies were caused by him or his wife is not entirely
clear. What is clear, however, is that applicant began addressing these three
delinquencies before the SOR was issued, and since then has paid off two of the debts
and has reached a repayment agreement with the third creditor. His current past-due
indebtedness stands at a manageable $3,253.29, and it should be paid off by February
5
2009. 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
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