DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-00496
SSN: ------------------ )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jennifer I. Goldstein, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
February 2, 2009
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on July 2, 2007.  (Government Exhibit 1).  On August 26, 2008, the Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as
amended) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed
reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the
Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a
security clearance for the Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative
Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked.
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on September 30, 2008, and requested a
hearing before an Administrative Judge.  The case was assigned to the undersigned
Administrative Judge on November 3, 2008.  A notice of hearing was issued on
November 12, 2008, scheduling the hearing for December 11, 2008.  The Government
offered Five exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 5, which were
received without objection. Applicant offered two exhibits, referred to Applicant’s
Exhibits A and B, and testified on his own behalf.  The record remained open until close
of business on December 30, 2008 to allow, the Applicant to submit additional
documentation.  None was submitted.  The transcript of the hearing (Tr.) was received
2
on December 23, 2008.  Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 44 years old and has a high school diploma and some college.
He is employed by a defense contractor as an Assistant Engineer and is seeking to
obtain a security clearance in connection with his employment.
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is financially overextended and at risk of
having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant served in the United States Navy, on active duty for twenty years,
between the age of eighteen and thirty-eight.  In June 2002, he retired with twenty years
of service as an E-6.  During his military career he held a DoD security clearance.  Upon
retirement, his life went into a downward spiral.  He was unable to find employment that
would make ends meet.  To survive, he worked odd jobs for minimum wage and
depleted his savings just to keep a roof over his head and food on the table.  In 2004,
he was unemployed for eight months.  From October 2005 to June 2007, he worked as
a grocery checker and earned $8.50 an hour. 
In May 2007, he was hired by his current employer.  He applied for a security
clearance but was unable to obtain one within the time frame required by his employer.
He then found an opening within the company in a different city that caused him to
relocate.  This brought on unexpected expenses including the cost of relocating, car
problems and paying back loans to family and friends.  He was unable to resolve these
delinquent debts that accumulated over time.  
The Applicant is indebted to fourteen separate creditors in the amount of
approximately $17,500.00.  (See Government Exhibits 2, 3 and 4).  Each of the debts
listed in the SOR remain delinquent and outstanding.  The Applicant testified that he
has not paid any of these debts.  (Tr. p. 35).  He states that he is now in a position to
take care of the debts and he intends to pay them all.  (Tr. p. 36).  The Applicant claims
that he has disputed one of the debts on line, but offers no documentation to
substantiate this.  He further states that he has no excuse for not taking care of the
debts since he has been working for his current employer.  He believes his work and
commute schedule, up at 3:00 a.m. and back home by 8:00 p.m. at night has not given
him much time to handle these matters.  He does pay child support for his son in the
amount of $550.00 every month.
The Applicant’s personal financial statement indicates that after paying his bills
he has a net remainder of $1,140.00.  (See Government Exhibit 5). He explained that
his net monthly income is $4,550.00.  After spending $350.00 on groceries, $100.00 on
3
clothing, $500.00 on utilities, $500.00 on car expenses, $100.00 on life insurance, at
least $550.00 on child support, $200.00 on medical claims, the rest he spends on his
son and day to day expenses.  He has $175.00 in his checking account and nothing in
his savings.  He recently paid off his car and has at least an additional $400.00 to pay
his delinquent debts.  
He has received no formal financial counseling.  He is currently studying up on
how to clean up his credit and is seeking advice from a coworker who is a financial
expert.  (Tr. p. 42).  The Applicant is expecting a promotion and a pay raise in the next
year.  He plans to have all of his financial delinquencies resolved by April 15, 2009, or at
an acceptable level.  (Tr. p. 49). 
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; 
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligation; 
19.(e) consistent spending beyond ones means, which may be indicated by
excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-income ratio,
and/or other financial analysis. 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
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;
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 16-17,  in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
4
 a.  The nature and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances
     b.  The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct
e.  The voluntariness of participation
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavior
changes
g.  The motivation for the conduct 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicted
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination under this order
. . . shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a
determination as to the loyalty of the Applicant concerned.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility which demonstrates
poor judgment or unreliability.
5
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The Applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  This evidence indicates poor
judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of
the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or
connection with his security clearance eligibility.
Considering all of the evidence, the Applicant has not introduced persuasive
evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the
Government's case.  The Applicant has not made a good faith effort to resolve his past
due indebtedness, and there no is evidence of financial rehabilitation. 
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligation; and 19.(e) consistent spending beyond one’s means, which may be indicated
by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-income ration,
and/or other financial analysis apply.  None of the mitigating conditions are applicable.
The Applicant has been gainfully employed since May 2007.  Since then, he has not
paid even one of the delinquent debts listed in the SOR, and remains indebted to each
of the fourteen creditors listed in the SOR that totals approximately $17,500.00.  He has
failed to make a good faith effort to resolve his indebtedness, and thus, he has not
demonstrated that he can properly handle his financial affairs.  Accordingly, I find
against the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).    
I have also considered the “whole person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth under all of the guidelines viewed as a whole, support a
whole person assessment of poor judgement, untrustworthiness, unreliability, an
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, and/or other characteristics
indicating that the person may not properly safeguard classified information.
  
Considering all of the evidence presented, it does not come close to mitigating
the negative effects of his delinquent debts and the impact that it can have on his ability
to safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has
failed to overcome the Government's case opposing his request for a security
clearance.  Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the
factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.    
6
     FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: Against the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.a.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.b.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.c.: Against the Applicant.
                                    Subpara.  1.d.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.e.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.f.: Against the Applicant.
           Subpara.  1.g.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.h.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.i.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.j.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.k.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.l.: Against the Applicant.
                                    Subpara.  1.m.: Against the Applicant.
   DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
the Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge