1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-08201
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Paul M. DeLaney, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 27, 2009
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions (SF 86), on April
20, 2008 (Item 5).  On January 13, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under
Guideline F concerning the 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 President Bush on December 29,
2005, and effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September
1, 2006. 
 
Applicant submitted an Answer to the SOR on February 11, 2009, and requested
a decision without a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material
(FORM) to the Applicant on March 16, 2009.  The Applicant received the FORM on April
8, 2009, and was given 30 days to submit any additional information.  She submitted
additional information on April 9, 2009, to which the Department Counsel had no
2
objection.  The case was assigned to me on April 17, 2009.  Based upon a review of the
case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is
granted.
Findings of Fact
The Applicant is 51 and married.  She is employed by a defense contractor and
seeks to obtain a security clearance in connection with her employment. 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The Government alleges in this paragraph that the Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because she is financially overextended and therefore at risk of having to
engage in illegal acts to generate funds.  The Applicant admits allegations 1.a. through
1.f., i.h., 1.j. through 1.p., and 1.r. through 1.w. of the SOR.  These admissions are
hereby deemed findings of fact.  She denied the other allegations in the SOR. 
The Applicant signed up with a non-profit Consumer Credit Counseling Service
(CCCS) in October 2008.  The Applicant’s Financial Counselor indicated that it took until
January 2009 for the Applicant and the CCCS to verify credit balances and enroll
creditors and collection agencies in the Applicant’s debt management program.  (Item 4
at 3.)  The Applicant has made two payments since the program began, with $830.00
available for disbursement. 
The Applicant’s CCCS account shows 22 creditor accounts, with some creditors
having multiple accounts.  The original debt total is stated to be $6,231.39.  Her SOR
shows 23 allegations, again with some creditors having multiple accounts.  The
Applicant continues to dispute the debts set forth in subparagraphs i.g., i.i. and 1.r., as
further described below.  Including those debts, the SOR alleges her indebtedness at
$15,163.00.
The creditors named in the CCCS Monthly Statement for March 1, 2009, do not
exactly match the creditors named in the SOR.  It is possible that the accounts set forth
in the SOR have been acquired by other creditors.  
1.a. The Applicant admits that she is indebted to Central Financial for a
medical debt.  This debt is included in her CCCS plan and has been paid down from
$174.31 to $155.49.  (Response to FORM at 8.)   
1.b. The Applicant admits that she is indebted to Central Financial for a
medical debt.  This debt is included in her CCCS plan and has been paid down from
$131.80 to $112.51.  (Response to FORM at 8.) 
1.c. The Applicant admits that she is indebted to Central Financial for a
medical debt.  This debt is included in her CCCS plan and has been paid down from
$562.80 to $525.75.  (Response to FORM at 8.)   
3
1.d. The Applicant admits that she was indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of $212.00 for an account turned over by AT&T.  The Applicant states that the
account has been paid in full.  She provided a confirmation number and a telephone
number.  (Response to FORM at 1.)
1.e. The Applicant admits that she is indebted to Central Financial for a
medical debt.  This debt is included in her CCCS plan and has been paid down from
$39.96 to $20.22.  (Response to FORM at 8.) 
1.f. The Applicant admits that she is indebted to Central Financial for a
medical debt.  This debt is included in her CCCS plan and has been paid down from
$106.03 to $86.58.  (Response to FORM at 8.) 
1.g. The Applicant has consistently denied the existence of this debt to a
hospital in the amount of $3,737.00.  (Item 4 at 1, Response to FORM at 1.)
1.h. The Applicant admits that she owes Rowan Collection Agency $199.00 for
a medical bill.  The SOR states the amount is $174.00.  The account number connected
to this account in Item 7 at 2 and Item 8 at 11 does not match the three account
numbers for Rowan Collection Agency in her CCCS statement.  One account is stated
to be for $199.20, and I find it to be the account in question.  This account has been
paid down to $179.20.  (Response to FORM at 8.)  
1.i. The Applicant denies that she owes Absolute Collection Service $191.00
for a medical bill.  The account number connected to this account in Item 7 at 2 does
not match the three accounts included for Absolute Collection Service in her CCCS
statement.  (Response to FORM at 8.)
1.j.  The Applicant admits that she is indebted to NCO Financial for a medical
debt.  This debt is included in her CCCS plan and has been paid down from $150.00 to
$100.00.  (Response to FORM at 8.)
1.k. The Applicant admits that she was indebted to Central Financial for a
medical debt.  This debt is included in her CCCS plan and the debt for $20.00 has been
paid in full.  (Response to FORM at 8.)
1.l.    The Applicant admits that she is indebted to Absolute Collection Service
for a medical debt.  This debt is included in her CCCS plan and has been paid down
from $78.70 to $38.70.  (Response to FORM at 8.)
1.m. The Applicant admits that she is indebted to Absolute Collection Service
for a medical debt.  This debt is included in her CCCS plan and the debt has been paid
down from $126.50 to $86.50.  (Response to FORM at 8.)
1.n. The Applicant admits that she is indebted to Absolute Collection Service
for a medical debt.  This debt is included in her CCCS plan and the debt has been paid
down from $237.40 to $197.40.  (Response to FORM at 8.)
4
1.o. The Applicant admits that she is indebted to Time Warner for a debt of
$892.00.  She states in her Response to FORM at 1 that this is in a payment plan and
that she has paid $100.00 towards this debt.
1.p. The Applicant admits that she owed a debt to Arrow Financial in the
amount of $982.00.  However, in her Answer to the SOR (Item 4 at 1) she stated that it
was settled on January 31, 2009.  Under the particular circumstances of this case,
particularly the extent to which the Applicant has worked to collate and pay her bills, I
find this statement to be credible and believable without additional corroboration.
1.q. The Applicant has consistently denied that she owes this debt to
AAC/Windstream for $495.00, stating that it is not her account.
1r. The Applicant admits that she owed a debt to NCO Financial in the
amount of $83.00.  However, in her Answer to the SOR (Item 4 at 1) she stated that it
was settled on January 5, 2009.  Under the particular circumstances of this case,
particularly the extent to which the Applicant has worked to collate and pay her bills, I
find this statement to be credible and believable without additional corroboration.
1.s. The Applicant admits that she owed a debt to Kelly Investments in the
amount of $6,131.00.00.  However, the Applicant submitted evidence showing that she
had settled and paid this debt for a lesser amount.  (Item 4 at 6-7; Response to FORM
at 3-4.)
1.t. The Applicant admits that she was indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of $43.00 for an account turned over by Oreck Financial Services.  The
Applicant states that the account has been paid in full.  She provided a confirmation
number and a telephone number.  (Response to FORM at 1.)
1.u. The Applicant admits that she was indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of $217.00 for an account turned over by Oreck Financial Services.  The
Applicant states that the account has been paid in full.  She provided a confirmation
number and a telephone number.  (Response to FORM at 1.)
1.v. The Applicant admits that she was indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of $181.00 for an account turned over by Stanley Steamer.  The Applicant
states that the account has been paid in full.  She provided a confirmation number and a
telephone number.  (Response to FORM at 1.)
1.w. The Applicant admits that she was indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of $210.00 for an account turned over by City Cycle Sales.  The Applicant
states in her Answer to the SOR that the account would be paid in full.  (Item 4 at 1.)
Under the particular circumstances of this case, particularly the extent to which the
Applicant has worked to collate and pay her bills, I find this statement to be credible and
believable without additional corroboration.
5
As stated earlier, several accounts discussed in her CCCS account do not show
up in the SOR.  These include two accounts to Central Financial Control, one account to
Firstpoint Coll Resources, one account to Medical Data Systems, one account to
Professional Recovery, two accounts to Rowan Collection Agency, three accounts to
Stern & Associates and one account to West Asset Management.  The total amount the
Applicant owes to these creditors is currently $3,736.00.  She currently owes $2,504.35
for the accounts in the SOR.  The Applicant’s current total indebtedness is $6,240.35.
Her total payments to all accounts amounts to $4,764.40. 
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  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(c), 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.  In addition, the Administrative Judge may also rely on his own
common sense, as well as his knowledge of the law, human nature, and the ways of the
world, in making a reasoned 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
6
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized by President Eisenhower in Section 7 of 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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
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. The Applicant, by her own admission, had over $14,000.00 in past
due debts, all of which have been due and owing for several years. 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.  As set forth above,“there are clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control,” as required by AG ¶
20(c).  Specifically, she consulted with a CCCS, obtained credit counseling, and worked
diligently to fulfill their requirements to get into the program.  Other actions which
support this finding are set forth below.
The Applicant has initiated a good-faith effort to pay off her creditors by enrolling
in a credit repayment program, paying substantial funds into the program, and settling
other accounts outside the program.  As shown above, she has halved her debt in a
brief period of time.  Accordingly, AG ¶ 20(d) is also applicable.
7
The Applicant has successfully shown that she is fulfilling her financial obligations
and is now security worthy.  Paragraph 1 is found for the Applicant.  
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) 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 commonsense 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.  The Applicant has made a sufficient
showing that her debt situation is under control.  Under AG ¶ 2(a)(3), the Applicant’s
conduct is not recent.  Based on the state of the record, I find that there have been
permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6).  Accordingly, at the present time, I
find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress (AG ¶
2(a)8)), and that the likelihood of recurrence is close to nil (AG ¶ 2(a)9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions and/or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude the Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from her financial
considerations. 
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has successfully overcome the
Government's case opposing her request for a DoD security clearance.  Accordingly,
the evidence supports a finding for 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 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 THE APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.w.: For the Applicant
8
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge