The Government submitted eight items in support of its contention.1
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-09939
SSN: -----------------
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Paul M. DeLaney, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on June 19,
2008. On January 22, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F
for Applicant. 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 acknowledged receipt of the SOR on February 3, 2009, and elected to
have his case decided on the record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted
the Government’s written case on March 2, 2009.  Applicant received a complete file of1
relevant material (FORM) on March 10, 2009, and was provided the opportunity to file
2
objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Applicant submitted additional information. The case was assigned to me on March 19,
2009. Based upon a review of the case file, eligibility for access to classified information
is denied.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Motion to Amend SOR
Department Counsel moved to amend the SOR by adding ¶ 1.p, alleging
Applicant is indebted to a provider in the approximate amount of $2,194 on a medical
account that was placed for collection. As of July 12, 2008, this debt had not been paid.
Applicant did not object to the amendment in his response to the FORM. He did not
deny the allegation. The Motion to Amend the SOR is granted.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, dated February 13, 2009, Applicant admitted the
factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.b, 1.c, 1.g, and 1.h, of the SOR (Item 4). He denied the
remaining allegations based in part on identity fraud. He provided additional information
to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance. 
Applicant is a 41-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He graduated from
high school, and attended college from 1993 until 1997. Applicant served in the U.S.
Army from January 1986 until December 1989. He served in the National Guard from
February 1990 until December 1991 and again from March 1992 until October 1996. He
held a secret clearance while in the military (Item 4). He is divorced and has one son
(Item 5). 
Applicant worked as an electronics technician for a defense contractor from
February 2005 until May 2008. He has continued the same senior level electronics work
with his current employer since May 2008. (Item 5). He reports that he worked in the
electronics field since 1997. From December 2002 until October 2003 and from
September 2001 until January 2002, Applicant was unemployed (Item 5).   
The SOR, as amended, alleges 16 delinquent debts, including a 2000 tax lien,
and school loans, totaling approximately $86,000 (Items 6, 7 and 8). The accounts were
charged-off or in collection from approximately 2004. The delinquent debts are
confirmed by his credit reports (Items 7, 8).
Applicant admitted that the accounts in allegations ¶¶ 1.b, 1.c, 1.g, and 1.h are
delinquent accounts. He stated that 1.b and 1.c were paid but the creditor has not
shown the account as paid. He did not provide documentation to support this statement.
He also admitted that the two delinquent student loans are his responsibility. They total
almost $61,000. In his answer, dated February 13, 2009, he denied the other accounts
3
because they were accounts opened without his consent. He explained that he notified
the credit bureaus (Item 4).
In his letter dated December 17, 2008, (included with his interrogatories) he
stated that he has been in touch with his creditors to “catch up” on payments. He
explained that he has not been able to arrive at an agreeable resolution. He also
explained that he could not provide any applicable documentation for the clearance
investigation (Item 6). Applicant tried to apply for a loan to satisfy his commitments but
was denied due to his credit score (Item 6).
Applicant’s answer to the FORM does not include any documentation of payment
for any of the accounts he admits are his responsibility. He listed a garnishment for
delinquent student loans on his security clearance application and an entry on his
personal financial statement for payment of $100 a month toward the loans but he again
submitted no documentation to support the claims.
Applicant denied the other allegations in the SOR because “accounts were
fraudulently opened by a prior roommate”. He also explained that his ex-wife was
responsible for the tax lien. 
Applicant’s answer to the FORM reiterated his earlier statement that he
contacted the credit bureaus and told them of identity theft by a prior roommate some
time in 2003 or 2004. He explained that he is at the mercy of the three credit bureaus to
investigate the allegations and correct the accounts in a timely manner. Applicant
suggests that an updated credit report would verify that “many of the accounts in
question would show that they were fraudulently opened.” Applicant attached two letters
from creditors that verify that the accounts were fraudulently placed in his name. The
accounts are allegations 1.j and 1.k. Applicant also included letters from TransUnion
and Experian, dated March 2009 that reveal an Initial Security Alert has been placed on
his credit file for a period of 90 days. 
The current status of Applicant’s delinquent debts is as follows: the collection
debts and charged off accounts from late 2003 until the present are delinquent and not
paid. Applicant did not report receiving financial counseling. He did not provide any
documentation to support his position concerning the debts alleged.
Applicant’s current net monthly income is $2,218. He reported monthly expenses
of $1,700 a month on his personal financial statement. This included a child support
payment of $400. He listed the Department of Education loan ($111,000) as one debt in
repayment for $100 a month on the personal financial statement, dated November
2008. He listed monthly payments to other creditors totaling $300. His net remainder is
listed as $218 (Item 6).
4
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, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶ 2,
the entire process is a conscientious 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.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on
the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
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. 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).
5
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18:      
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 guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant accumulated delinquent debts on numerous accounts
totaling approximately $86,000. He admitted to several delinquent debts. His credit
reports confirm his debts. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially
disqualifying conditions, requiring a closer examination.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe 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 still
has significant delinquent debts from 2004. He has not acted responsibly. His conduct
over the last six months with his creditors does not remove security concerns or doubts
about his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. He has approximately
$84,000 in delinquent debt. This mitigating condition does not apply. 
Under AG & 20(b), it may be mitigating where Athe 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.@ As noted above,
Applicant reported two periods of unemployment. He did not provide any explanation as
to how this impacted his ability to pay his debts. He blames the majority of the
delinquent debt on fraudulent use by his roommate. He did not provide any information
that he acted responsibly in identifying and resolving these debts. He submitted a 2009
letter that he sent to the credit reporting service concerning an Initial Security Alert but
this does not substantiate claims from 2004. I find this mitigating condition does not
apply. 
Evidence that Athe 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@
6
is potentially mitigating under AG & 20(c). Similarly, AG & 20(d) applies where the
evidence shows Athe individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.@ Applicant has not received counseling. He provided little or no
information. His earlier promises in his answer to the SOR to pay in the future do not
constitute evidence of financial reform or resolution of debts. His efforts are not
sufficient to carry his burden in this case. I conclude these mitigating conditions do not
apply.
AG ¶ 20(e) applies where the evidence shows “the individual has a reasonable
basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past due debt which is the cause of the problem
and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.” In this case, Applicant disputed the majority of
the debts but did not provide documented proof to substantiate the claim of fraud except
to the accounts alleged in 1.j and 1.k. This mitigating condition applies to those two
debts but does not apply to the remaining debts.
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance 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): “(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) the 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 of whether to grant eligibility
for 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 reports that the majority of
the debts are due to fraud. However, he has not provided any documentation to support
the claim. The record contains scant information concerning Applicant. He chose to
have his case decided on the written record. His answer to the SOR and submissions to
the FORM are not sufficient for him to meet his burden in this case. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
considerations.
 
7
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
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.I: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
_________________
NOREEN A. LYNCH
Administrative Judge