DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-05407
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
July 6, 2009
______________
Decision
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Standard Form 86 - Questionnaire for Sensitive
Positions, on February 12, 2006 (Government Exhibit 1).  On January 20, 2009, the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
detailing the security concerns under Guideline F regarding 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 the
President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department of Defense for
SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant filed an Answer to the SOR on February 11, 2009, and requested a
hearing.  Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on March 16, 2009.  The case
was assigned to a different Administrative Judge on March 17, 2009.  I received the
case assignment on April 6, 2009.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing on April 6, 2009,
and I convened the hearing as scheduled on April 28, 2009. 
2
The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 7, which were received
without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf, called one additional witness,
and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits A through H, without objection.  The Applicant
requested time to present additional evidence and, on May 22, 2009, submitted
Applicant’s Exhibit I, also without objection.  DOHA received the transcript of the
hearing on May 13, 2009.  The record closed on May 22, 2009.  Based upon a review of
the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted.
Findings of Fact
The Applicant is 26 and married with three children.  He is employed by a
defense contractor and seeks to retain a security clearance previously granted in
connection with his employment.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The Government alleges in this paragraph that the Applicant is financially
overextended and therefore at risk of engaging in illegal acts to generate funds.  The
Applicant admitted the factual allegations, but denied that his conduct showed poor self-
control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations.
The Applicant’s financial problems began in about 2005.  He was out of school,
had a growing family, was spending money on his wife and extended family, and was
not making enough money at work to meet his expenses.  
The Applicant and his family live with his parents.  His father had some medical
problems in the recent past that required the Applicant to pay some of the household
expenses.  This also caused him additional financial difficulties.  In November 2007 he
started working for his present employer and began earning enough money to begin
paying his overdue debts, which he has been doing.  (Transcript at 32-34, 38-39, 47-48,
67-68; Applicant’s Exhibits B, and I at 5.)
Subparagraph 1.a.  The Applicant admits that he owed approximately $9,643.43
for a credit card debt.  The original indebtedness was $5,746.00, with interest making
up the total amount.  The Applicant began trying to resolve this debt in February 2009.
(Applicant’s Exhibit E.)  He made a payment arrangement with the successor in interest,
and agreed to pay $4,862.79 to resolve the debt.  He paid this debt in full on May 5,
2009.  (Transcript at 26-29; Applicant’s Exhibits G, and I at 2-3.)
Subparagraph 1.b. The Applicant admits that he owes approximately $5,707.00
for a credit card bill.  The Applicant testified that he came to a payment agreement in
February 2009 with the law firm representing the creditor. The agreement was for the
Applicant to pay $2,700.00.  (Applicant’s Exhibits E, and F at 1.)  The Applicant testified,
“I was contacted by [the law firm’s] office a few days later basically saying the offer was
no longer valid.”  (Transcript at 35; Applicant’s Exhibit E, and F at 2.)  The Applicant
3
provided documentary evidence showing that he had the funds to pay this debt, and
was prepared to pay this debt.  (Transcript at 44-46; Applicant’s Exhibit H.)  The
Applicant has had further discussions with the law firm, but he has not been able to
reach an acceptable payment agreement with them.  (Transcript at 54-56.)  The
Applicant will continue to work with this law firm until this debt is settled.
Subparagraph 1.c.  The Applicant admits that he owes approximately $3,942.00
for a credit card debt.  There appears to be confusion about who the successor in
interest is for this debt.  In February 2009, the Applicant was told by a collection agency
that the same law firm which is handling subparagraph 1.b. is also the collection agency
for this debt.  (Applicant’s Exhibit E.)  The law firm denies any knowledge of the debt.
(Transcript at 36-37, 57.)  Once again, the Applicant indicated that he is ready, willing
and able to resolve this debt.  The Applicant will continue to work with this law firm until
this debt is settled.
Mitigation
The Applicant has worked for his current employer for about a year and a half.
His supervisor states that the Applicant is “one of the few outstanding employees I have
hired.”  The supervisor goes on to say, “His [the Applicant’s] demeanor and character
speaks to his honesty and integrity.”  (Applicant’s Exhibit D.)
The Applicant submitted evidence that he successfully paid off an arrearage on
another account in November 2008.  This debt was not alleged in the SOR.  (Applicant’s
Exhibit C.)  This payment is not reflected in the Government’s most recent credit report
of March 16, 2009.  (Government Exhibit 6.)
The Government’s credit bureau reports, and the Applicant’s records, show that
he has significantly reduced his indebtedness.  The Applicant’s records also show that
his cash flow situation has improved.  His parents have agreed in writing to waive the
Applicant $500.00 a month rent, and charge only $200.00 a month for utilities, for the
next two years.  (Applicant’s Exhibit I at 4; Transcript at 66-69.)  The Applicant submits
that this supports his argument that he shows good judgment with regards to his debts.
He also submits that, with these additional funds, he will be able to negotiate and
successfully pay his two remaining past due debts.  (Government Exhibit 6; Applicant’s
Exhibit I at 5.)
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.
4
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
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).  
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(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise security concerns.
The Applicant admits that he owes the debts set forth in SOR Paragraph 1.  The
evidence is sufficient to raise this potentially disqualifying condition, 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.@ In addition, AG
¶ 20(b) states that it may be mitigating if “the conditions that resulted in the financial
problems were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g. loss of employment, . . . or a
death, divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances.”  These mitigating conditions do not apply in this case. 
However, AG ¶ 20(c) applies if “there are clear indications that the problem is
being resolved or is under control.”  In addition, ¶ 20(d) applies where, “the individual
initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.”
Here, the Applicant became indebted due to overspending on his family over several
years.  Beginning in 2007, the Applicant got a new job, made more money, and began
to take care of his indebtedness.  He has paid in full the debt in subparagraph 1.a.  In
addition, he has been working diligently to resolve his other two debts.  For whatever
reason, the Applicant has not been getting cooperation from the law firm that holds
these two debts.  I find that the Applicant has the ability to resolve these debts, and he
has made a good faith attempt to pay them.  The fact that they are not currently paid is
through no fault of 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
6
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 got into financial
difficulty because of his youth, a growing family, and his father’s health problems.  As
stated above, he has paid in full one of the debts stated in the SOR and has attempted
to resolve the other two without success.  As stated above, he will attempt to resolve
these two debts as soon as possible.  The Applicant has behaved reasonably and
appropriately in trying to resolve his debts, thereby AG ¶ 2(a)(6) applies.  Under the
particular circumstances of this case, 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 or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
considerations.  Paragraph 1 is found for the Applicant.  He is currently eligible for a
security clearance.
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.c.: For the Applicant
7
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