DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-06909
SSN: ------------------ )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
June 16, 2009
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on October 11, 2007.  (Government Exhibit 4).  On November 25, 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.
The Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on February 10, 2009, in which
she 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 March 27, 2009.  The Applicant was instructed to submit information in
rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt.  Applicant received the
FORM on March 31, 2009, and she submitted a reply on April 24, 2009.  The case was
assigned to the undersigned for resolution on June 11, 2009. Based upon a review of
the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted.
2
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 59 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).  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 she is financially overextended and at risk
of  having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant admits that she was indebted to eight separate creditors totaling
approximately $18,900.00 that are set forth in the SOR under allegations 1(a) through
1(h).  Applicant takes full responsibility for her debts.  (Applicant’s Response to the
FORM).  Credit reports of the Applicant dated October 23, 2007 and February 27, 2009,
reflect each of these delinquent debts as owing.  (Government Exhibits 5 and 7).  Since
her most recent credit report, the Applicant has been working hard to resolve her debts.
She has contacted each of the creditors and has either paid off the debt in full or set up
a payment plan that she is following.  Her plans are to pay off her debts as soon as
possible.  She has taken on a part time second job to be able to pay them off sooner,
and she plans to incur no new debt.      
A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $250.00 has been paid in full.
(Applicant’s Response to the FORM, Exhibit A).  A debt owed to a creditor in the
amount of $4,751.00 is being paid on a monthly basis in the amount of $50.00 per
month until the debt is paid in full.  (Applicant’s Response to the FORM, Exhibit B).  A
debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $8,454.00 is being paid on a monthly basis in
the amount of $150.00 per month until the debt is paid in full.  (Applicant’s Response to
the FORM, Exhibit C).  A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $96.00 has been paid
in full.  (Applicant’s Response to the FORM, Exhibit D).  A debt owed to a creditor in the
amount of $1,680.00 is being paid in the amount of $536.00 for three consecutive
months.  (Applicant’s Response to the FORM, Exhibit E).  The debt will be paid in full on
June 25, 2009.  A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $3,4321.00 was consolidated
with another debt set forth in allegation 1(h).  A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of
$199.00 has been paid in full.  (Applicant’s Response to the FORM, Exhibit F).  A debt
owed ot a creditor in the amount of $5,817.00 was consolidated with the debt set forth in
allegation 1(f) and is being paid in the amount of $150.00 per month until the debt is
paid in full.  (Applicant’s Response to the FORM, Exhibit G).      
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. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; 
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligation; 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
20.(c) 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;
20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
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, extent, 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 extent to which participation is voluntary
4
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent 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.
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.
5
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 introduced persuasive
evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the
Government's case.  The Applicant has made a good faith effort to resolve her past due
indebtedness.  She has contacted each of the creditors and either paid off the debt or
set up a payment plan to do so.  She has taken on additional employment in order to
pay them off sooner.  She does not plan on incurring any new debt.  The Government
argues that the Applicant’s most recent credit report also reflects an outstanding
judgment for $39,119.00.  Although this debt is not listed in the SOR, I will assume that
the Applicant is also working to resolve it.  She understands the importance of paying
her bills on time and living within her means.  Under the circumstances, she has made a
good faith effort to resolve his indebtedness, and there is evidence of financial
rehabilitation.  The Applicant has demonstrated that she can properly handle her
financial affairs and that she is fiscally responsible.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligation apply.  However, Mitigating Conditions 20.(c) 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 and, 20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort
to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts also apply.  Accordingly, I find for
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 above, when viewed under all of the guidelines as a
whole, support a whole person assessment of good judgement, trustworthiness,
reliability, candor, and a  willingness to comply with rules and regulations, and/or other
characteristics indicating that the person may properly safeguard classified information.
  
I have considered all of the evidence presented, and it mitigates the negative
effects of her financial indebtedness and the effects that it can have on her ability to
safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has
overcome the Government's case opposing her request for a security clearance.
Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding for 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: For the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.a.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.b.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.c.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.d.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.e.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.f.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.g.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.h.: For the Applicant.
   
   DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge