DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-04529
SSN: ------------------ )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Emilio Jaksetic, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
March 31, 2009
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) dated November 2, 2007.  On October 31, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 (as amended), and
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed the 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 a
clearance should be denied or revoked.
The Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on November 25, 2008, in which
he elected to have the case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing.
Department Counsel submitted  the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) to
the Applicant on January 7, 2009.  The Applicant was instructed to submit information in
rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt.  Applicant received the
FORM on January 14, 2009 and she submitted no reply.  The case was assigned to the
undersigned for resolution on March 26, 2009.
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact are based on the Applicant’s Answer to the SOR,
the FORM and the exhibits.  The Applicant is 31 years old.  She is employed by a
defense contractor and is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with her
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).  After a complete and
thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same,
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 a security clearance because she is financially overextended
and at risk to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
The Applicant admits each of the allegations set forth in the SOR under this
guideline, except one, a debt for an unpaid medical account in the amount of $1,258.00.
She believes that the debt is an error on her credit report.  Credit Reports of the
Applicant dated November 21, 2007, May 6, 2008, and July 24, 2008 collectively reflect
each of the delinquent debts set forth in the SOR.  These reports indicate that the
Applicant is currently indebted to at least nine separate creditors totaling in excess of
$20,000.00.  (Government Exhibits 8, 9 and 10).  
Applicant states that she is presently in the process of putting into place a strict
budget plan which will eliminate all of her debt within two to four years.  Since the
beginning of her security clearance background investigation, she has made several
major changes in her life to get prepared for a more fugal lifestyle.  She paid off her car,
moved into an affordable apartment, became a junior deaconess in her church, and
went back to college.  She states that she no longer eats in restaurants, but carries her
lunch from home.  She does not often buy clothing, and she is a smart shopper who
uses coupons.  She always makes sure her monthly expenses are paid on time.         
Applicant’s performance appraisal for the period from August 2008 through
August 2009, reflects two “poor” ratings, four “excellent” ratings, and two “exceptional”
ratings.  Her overall rating is “very good”.  (Applicant’s Response to the FORM).
Applicant claims that as a result of her work ethic, she received a 10% pay raise this
year.  This pay raise will help her pay her delinquent debts and become fiscally solvent. 
3
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.  Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including
espionage.  Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a
security concern.  It may indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19(a)  inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;
19(c)  a history of not meeting financial obligations.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
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:
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 
4
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, a security clearance 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 such access may be involved in
instances of financial irresponsibility which demonstrates poor judgment or unreliability.
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 her 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 her security clearance eligibility.
Applicant states that she has set up a strict budget plan which will eliminate her
debt within two to four years, however, she failed to provide any documentary evidence
to support her contention.  She failed to explain how her delinquent debts will be paid.
5
Although it appears that she understands the importance of financial management, in
that she has made some changes to reduce her expenses, she has failed to pay any of
her delinquent debt.  A promise to take remedial measures in the future is not evidence
of reform and rehabilitation.  Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record to
demonstrate that she can make her regular monthly payments in addition to making
payments on her delinquent debts.  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.  
With respect to her finances, the Applicant remains excessively indebted in the
amount in excess of $20,000.00.  As of yet, none of the delinquent debts in the SOR
have been paid.  She is just starting the financial rehabilitation process and obviously
has a long way to go before her delinquent debts are resolved.  At the present time, she
has not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a track record of financial
responsibility or that she has resolved her financial indebtedness.
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 questionable judgement, untrustworthiness, unreliability,
lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other
characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard classified
information.  
Other than her favorable performance appraisal, the record is void as to any
evidence in mitigation.  There is no evidence of financial rehabilitation at this time.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19(a) inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts and, 19(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
apply.  None of the mitigating conditions apply.  Her financial problems remain current
and  they are not isolated.  The Applicant had not initiated a prompt, good faith effort to
repay her overdue creditors or otherwise resolve her debts.   Accordingly, I find against
the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).  
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has failed to overcome the
Government's case opposing her 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 Government's Statement of Reasons.     
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.
6
    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.
   
DECISION
In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interests to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge