1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-05530
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Robert E. Coacher, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on August 27, 2007. On December 5, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security
concerns arising under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). 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 for SORs issued after September 1,
2006. 
In a response notarized on December 18, 2008, Applicant admitted one of the
nine allegations set forth in the SOR. He declined to request a hearing on the record in
his response. When contacted by DOHA regarding whether he wished to have a
 Item 2, Transmittal Letter and Receipts at 9 (Memorandum for the Record, dated Mar. 31, 2009).      1
Department Counsel later requested Applicant to submit a written request for an administrative determination,
but no additional materials were forthcoming. FORM at 2, footnote 2.
 Item 6, Interrogatories, at 4.      2
 Id.      3
 See Items 5-6 (Interrogatories), Item 8 (May 2008 credit report), and Item 9 (Oct. 2007 credit report),      4
respectively.
 See Items 7-8 (Apr. 2009 and May 2008 credit reports), respectively.      5
2
hearing, Applicant stated he preferred an administrative determination.  Department1
Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Materials (FORM), dated April 28, 2009, that
included nine attached items. Applicant received the FORM on May 8, 2009. He did not
respond to the FORM within the 30 days provided. On August 4, 2009, the Director,
DOHA, forwarded the case for assignment to an administrative judge for administrative
determination. I was assigned the case on that same day. Based upon a review of the
case file, submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant failed to meet his burden regarding
the security concerns raised. Security clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 43-year-old senior technician. He has worked for the same
defense contractor since 2003. He has a post-secondary degree in electronic
engineering. Applicant is divorced. He has five children, ranging in age from 9 to 19
years old. His credit rating is “poor to fair.”  Although Applicant has not received credit2
counseling, he states he is working to improve his credit rating and satisfy his debts.3
The SOR sets forth 10 allegations. Each allegation represents a delinquent debt
identified either in Applicant’s answers to Interrogatories, dated July 15, 2008, a credit
report dated May 30, 2008, or a credit report dated October 5, 2007.  In responding to4
the SOR, Applicant only responded to the allegations by writing either “I deny” or “I
admit” with no further elaboration. 
In his Interrogatories, Applicant maintained that he disputed the nine delinquent
debts cited in SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.a – 1.i. He produced no documentary evidence to
substantiate this claim. Those allegations represent approximately $30,800 in
delinquent debt. The credit reports dated April 28, 2009, and May 30, 2008, however,
indicate that Applicant disputed the two delinquent accounts noted at SOR allegations ¶
1.b (approximately $411) and ¶ 1.c (approximately $857).  Applicant admitted to5
allegation ¶ 1.j (approximately $1,123), regarding a child support arrearage, in his SOR
response.
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      6
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      7
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      8
3
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. 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.
An administrative judge’s over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common
sense decision. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number
of variables known as the “whole person concept.” An 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.
The U. S. Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts
alleged in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a6
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  7 8
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the U.S. Government based on trust and confidence. This relationship
transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The U.S.
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). “The clearly consistent standard
 Id.      9
 Id.      10
 Executive Order 10865 § 7.      11
 Revised Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18.      12
4
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access9
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The10
decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a determination as
to the loyalty of an applicant.  Nor does it reflect badly on that person’s character. It is11
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance.
Based upon consideration of the evidence, I find Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) to be the most pertinent to the case. Conditions pertaining to this
adjudicative guideline that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as
well as those which would mitigate such concerns, are set forth and discussed below.
Analysis
Guideline F – Financial Considerations
Under Guideline F, failure or an inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts,
and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or an
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.12
The Directive sets out several potentially disqualifying conditions under this guideline. 
Applicant admitted he has a delinquent debt of over $1,100 involving child
support. As for the remainder of the delinquent debts at issue, although the record
shows two of those nine accounts were formally disputed, Applicant failed to show he
disputed any of the other credit report entries. Those entries represent almost $30,000
in delinquent debt. Such facts are sufficient to raise security concerns under financial
considerations disqualifying condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts”) and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”).
With such conditions raised, the burden shifts to Applicant to overcome the case
against him and mitigate security concerns. 
In relying on an administrative determination after failing to provide documentary
evidence or more information, Applicant presented insufficient facts to review his
finances in light of the allegations. Moreover, there are insufficient facts to determine
what led Applicant to become delinquent on any debt and no corroborating evidence
showing how or whether he tried to dispute the alleged debts. Consequently, neither
financial considerations mitigating condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(a) (“the behavior
5
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”) nor FC MC AG ¶ 20(b) (“the conditions that
resulted in the behavior 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”) applies.
Further, Applicant has not received financial counseling and there is little evidence he
has worked toward honoring his debts or disputing the majority of delinquent accounts
noted on his credit reports, obviating the applicability of FC MC AG ¶ 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 FC MC AG ¶
20(d) (“the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts”). The only evidence of Applicant-initiated efforts toward correcting his
credit report is regarding SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.b - 1.c, amounting to about $1,270 of
alleged debt which Applicant disputes. No other FC MCs apply.
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 an 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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance.
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the “whole person”
factors. Applicant is a mature, educated man. In requesting an administrative
determination, however, he chose to carry his burden regarding the allegations by
presenting unelaborated facts and no supporting documentation. Applicant’s best
advocate regarding his claim that he disputed nine of the 10 accounts at issue is
Department Counsel, whose FORM includes documentary evidence that two of the
more minor debts at issue were formally disputed. Otherwise, there is no corroborating
6
documentation showing that the other accounts Applicant denies were formally
disputed and no indication as to whether any progress has been made on his child
support arrearage. Consequently, the 10 alleged delinquent debts at issue remain
unrefuted. In light of the fact that the ultimate burden is on Applicant, financial
considerations security concerns remain unmitigated. Therefore, it is not clearly
consistent with national security to grant Applicant a security clearance. Clearance is
denied. 
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: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For 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: 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge