1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 08-09626
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
June 17, 2009
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on March 13, 2008.  On December 12, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security
concerns under Guidelines F and E 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 December 17, 2008.  He
answered the SOR in writing on December 22, 2008, and requested a hearing before
an Administrative Judge.  DOHA received the request on January 2, 2009, and I
received the case assignment on February 25, 2009.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing
the next day, on February 26, 2009, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on March
2
19, 2009.  The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 7, which were received by
way of stipulation.  Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits (AppXs)
A through F without objection.  DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on
April 1, 2009.  I granted Applicant’s request to keep the record open until April 2, 2009,
to submit additional matters.  However, on March 20, 2009, the Applicant informed the
undersigned, through Department Counsel, that he “was going to Spain on business for
about six weeks;” and as such, asked for additional time in which to submit
documentation.  On June 9, 2009, through Department Counsel, he submitted Exhibits
G through L, which were admitted without objection. The record closed on June 9, 2009.
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for
access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a,
1.c, 1.o., 1.t. 1.w., 1.y.~1.a.a. and 2.a of the SOR, with explanations.  He denied the
factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.b., 1.d.~1.n., 1.p.~1.s., 1.u., 1.v. and 1.x of the SOR.  He also
provided additional information to support his request for eligibility for a security
clearance.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
The Applicant is retired from the United States Navy, and has a positive monthly
cash flow of about $700 (TR at page 51 line 12 to page 54 line 2).  He is also receiving
help from an on-line law firm to address his alleged past due debts (TR at page 54 line
7 to page 55 line 12, and AppX I).
1.a.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor A in the amount of
about $755 (GX 6 at page 2).  The Applicant disputes the amount of this credit card
debt, and his on-line law firm notes that Applicant’s dispute of this debt is “under review”
(TR at page 28 line 12 to page 30 line 3, and AppX I at page 3).  I find this debt to be in
dispute.
1.b.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor B in the amount of
about $128 (GX 6 at page 2).  The Applicant disputes this debt as not being his debt,
but has not done so formally through his on-line law firm (TR at page 30 line 10 to page
31 line 1).  I find this debt to be outstanding.
1.c.  It is alleged that the Applicant has an outstanding judgment to Creditor C in
the amount of about $1,019 (GX 6 at page 1).  The Applicant admits this outstanding
judgment (TR at page 31 line 20 to page 32 line 12).  I find this judgment to be
outstanding.
1.d.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor D in the amount of
about $584.  The Applicant avers that this debt has been paid, and submits a March
2006 promissory note to that end, that matured in May of 2007 (TR at page 20 line 12 to
3
page 32 line 12, and AppX I at page 1).  This debt does not appear on the
Government’s most recent February 2009 credit report (CR) (See GX 6).  I find this debt
has been paid.
1.e.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor E in the amount of
about $728 (GX 6 at page 2).  The Applicant disputes this debt as not being his debt,
and his on-line law firm notes that Applicant’s dispute of this debt is “under review” (TR
at page 28 line 12 to page 30 line 3, and AppX I at page 3).  I find this debt to be in
dispute.
1.f.~1.l.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor F, for student
loans, in the combined amount of about $19,586.  The Applicant is current with his
student loans, as evidenced by documentation from the creditor (TR at page 34 lines
4~16, and AppX A at pages 3~4).  These debts do not appear on the Government’s
most recent February 2009 CR (See GX 6).  I find that the Applicant is current with
these debts.
1.m.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor M in the amount of
about $237(GX 6 at page 2).  The Applicant disputes this debt as having been paid, and
his on-line law firm notes that Applicant’s dispute of this debt is “under review” (TR at
page 37 line 20 to page 39 line 25, and AppX I at page 3).  I find this debt to be in
dispute.
1.n.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor N in the amount of
about $317 (GX 6 at page 2).  The Applicant disputes this debt as not being his debt,
and his on-line law firm notes this account as being “under review” (TR at page 28 line
12 to page 30 line 3, and AppX I at page 3).  I find this debt to be in dispute.
1.o.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor O in the amount of
about $1,000 (GX 6 at page 3).  The Applicant admits this past due debt (TR at page 42
lines 7~16).  I find this debt to be outstanding.
1.p., 1.z. and 1.a.a.  The Applicant filed for the protection of a Chapter 13
Bankruptcy in February of 1995, but later withdrew his petition (TR at page 48 line 16 to
page 50 line 6).  However, in July of 2001, he again filed for the protection of
Bankruptcy (Id, and AppX L).  He was eventually discharged of his debts in February of
2005 (Id).  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor P for an outstanding
judgement in the amount of about $833.  This debt was included in Applicant’s
Bankruptcy petition and was discharged, as evidenced by Applicant’s Bankruptcy
documentation (TR at page 42 line 19 to page 43 line 8, and AppX L).
1.q. and 1.z.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor Q for an
outstanding judgement in the amount of about $1,280.  This debt was included in
Applicant’s Bankruptcy petition and was discharged, as evidenced by Applicant’s
Bankruptcy documentation (TR at page 43 lines 9~15, and AppX L).
4
1.r.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor R in the amount of
about $244 (GX 6 at page 2).  The Applicant disputes this debt, and his on-line law firm
notes this account as being “deleted” (TR at page 43 line 17 to page 44 line 7, and
AppX I at page 2).  I find the Applicant successfully disputed this debt.
1.s.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor S in the amount of
about $7,625 (GX 6 at page 3).  The Applicant disputes this debt (TR at page 44 line 8
to page 45 line 3).  This was the voluntary repossession of a truck, towards which he
avers he owes nothing further (Id).  His on-line law firm notes this account as being in
dispute since “04/16/07” (AppX I at page 3).  I find this debt to be in dispute.
1.t. and 1.u.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor T for two
debts, one for about $275 and the other for $1,760.  The Applicant disputes these
phone bills, and his on-line law firm notes the smaller debt is “under review,” and the
larger debt as being in dispute since “06/13/07” (TR at page 45 line 6 to page 47 line 3,
and AppX I at page 2).  These debts do not appear on the Government’s most recent
February 2009 CR (See GX 6).  I find these debts to be in dispute.
1.v.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor V in the amount of
about $420.  The Applicant denies this debt, and it does not appear on the
Government’s most recent February 2009 CR (TR at page 47 lines 4~8, and See GX 6).
I find the Applicant does not owe this debt.
1.w. and 1.x.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor W for two
debts totaling about $488.  The Applicant disputes these debts as having been “paid,”
and his on-line law firm notes that these debts have been “deleted” (TR at page 47 lines
11~21, and AppX I at page 2).  These debts do not appear on the Government’s most
recent February 2009 CR (See GX 6).  I find the Applicant successfully disputed these
debts.
1.y.  Lastly, it is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor Y in the amount
of about $320.  The Applicant dispute this debt as having been paid (TR at page 47 line
24 to page 48 line 14).  This debt does not appear on the Government’s most recent
February 2009 CR (See GX 6).  I find the Applicant successfully disputed ths debt.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
In answer to Sections 28.a. and 28.b. on his May 2008 e-QIP, the Applicant
failed to disclose his delinquent debts in excess of 90 and 180 days (GX 3 at pages
26~27).  The Applicant testified, credibly, that he was in hurry to complete the e-QIP,
and had no intention to withhold information from the Government (TR at 56 line 2 to
page 59 line 8).  His character is attested to by those who know the Applicant in the
workplace (AppXs G and H, see also AppXs B~F).  I find this not to be a wilful
falsification.
5
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(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.
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).
6
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 some delinquent debt and was unable to pay
some obligations for a period of time.  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(d) where the evidence
shows Athe individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts,@ may be mitigating.  Here, the Applicant has a positive monthly cash flow
of about $700.  I have given the Applicant the benefit of the doubt as to the numerous
debts that are still in dispute; and despite the undersigned giving the Applicant more
than two months to address his remaining past due debts, his debts to creditors B, C
and O remain outstanding.  These are not insignificant debts, but total in excess of over
$2,000.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in
AG & 15: “Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.”
I find no disqualifying conditions applicable in this case, as Applicant’s omissions
in answering Sections 28.a. and 28.b. were not “deliberate” as required under AG &
26(a).  I find no willful falsification.
7
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 commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept.
I considered all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and
mitigating conditions surrounding this case.  Overall, the record evidence leaves me
with questions or 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. 
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: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.I: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: For Applicant
8
Subparagraph 1.r: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.t: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.u: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.v: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.w: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.x: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.y: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.z: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.a.a. For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For 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.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge