1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 08-06904
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: 
Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant:
Pro se
August 24, 2009
______________
Decision
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
The Applicant submitted his Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF86),
on July 31, 2007 (Government Exhibit 1). On January 13, 2009, the Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant,
which detailed security concerns under Guideline F stating 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 a clearance
should be denied or revoked. 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,
Allegation 1.e. states that the Applicant owes $36,854 to Key Bank.  I find that this alleged debt is actually1
a consolidated statement of the other student loans.
2
and effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1,
2006. 
 
The Applicant answered the SOR in writing on February 9, 2009, and requested
a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on February 26, 2009. This case was assigned to another administrative judge on
March 3, 2009. The case was reassigned to me on April 8, 2009.  DOHA issued  notices
of hearing on April 7, 2009, and April 8, 2009. I convened the hearing as scheduled on
May 18, 2009. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 6, which were
received without objection. The Applicant testified on his own behalf, and submitted
Applicant’s Exhibits A through E, also without objection. The record was left open at the
Applicant’s request for the submission of additional documentation. The Applicant
submitted Applicant’s Exhibit F on May 28, 2009. This exhibit was also received without
objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing on May 27, 2009. The record
closed on May 28, 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 29, single, and is six classes short of a bachelor’s degree. The
Applicant was laid off from his defense industry employer because the company lost
their contract. He seeks a security clearance in connection with his prospective
employment in the defense industry. (Transcript at 7-10.) In his Answer to the SOR,
Applicant admitted the allegations in Paragraph 1 of the SOR. Those admissions are
hereby deemed findings of fact.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he
in financially overextended and therefore at risk of engaging in illegal acts to obtain
funds.
1.a. through 1.e.  The Applicant admits that he owes Key Bank the approximate
amount of $36,854 for a series of student loans.  The Applicant attended a university1
from September 1997 to January 2000. He received financial aid from the university as
well as student loans from three different lenders. In 2000, he withdrew from school
because he was unable to keep up his grades, which was required for him to retain his
financial aid. Due to his failure to attend school his payment deferment ended until
approximately 2007. The Applicant then began attending a junior college, and is taking
enough credit hours to put his loans into deferment status again. (Transcript at 25-30,
34-35; Applicant’s Exhibit E.) 
3
The documentary evidence in the record shows that two of the three lenders
have put the Applicant’s debts in a payment deferred status.  He worked for his defense
industry employer from January 2007 to March 2009. Because of that employment, he
was able to start making payments on his student loans, allowing them to go into
deferment status. (Transcript at 44-48, 50; Government Exhibit 2 at 5, Exhibit 3 at 2-5,
Exhibit 4, Exhibit 5, and Exhibit 6.)  The third lender sold its loans to a collection agency.
The Applicant is making regular payments to this collection agency per his agreement
with them. To date he has paid over $2,000 on his student loan debt.  (Transcript at 35,
42-44, 48-52; Applicant’s Exhibit A and Exhibit F.)  
The Applicant’s current financial status is stable, if strained because of his layoff.
He lives at home, where he rents a room from his parents. He budgets his money, and
has for several years. He states that he is not afraid of hard work, has done manual
labor in the past, and will continue to pay off his student loans. The most recent credit
report of the Applicant’s shows he has no past due debt, other than the student loans.
(Transcript at 36-38, 41; Government Exhibit 6.)
Mitigation
The Applicant also presented recommendations from his general manager and
two work leaders that are very laudatory. The letters describe the Applicant as “reliable,
honest, and trustworthy in every respect,” “dedicated,” and “conscientious, responsible.”
(Applicant’s Exhibit B, Exhibit C, and Exhibit D.)
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 overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense 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
4
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.
 
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
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
continued 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 or her a security clearance.
In this case, the Government has met its initial burden of proving by substantial
evidence that the Applicant has had financial difficulties (Guideline F). The Applicant, on
the other hand, has successfully mitigated the Government's case.
5
Paragraph 1 (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 inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations” may raise
security concerns.  The Applicant failed to pay several of his student loans for a period
of 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.  Mitigating Condition ¶ 20(a) states that the
disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where “the 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.”  The Applicant’s debts are not the result of a spending spree or some other
action that would show poor judgment.  He is back in school, on path to receive his
degree, and is paying off the one student loan that is not in deferment. The evidence
raises this mitigating condition. 
Evidence that “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts” is also mitigating under ¶ 20(d).  As stated above,
his loans to two of the three student loan companies are in deferment.  He is making
satisfactory payments towards the third. I conclude this mitigating condition applies.
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. 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. 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
6
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. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, in particular his allowing these debts
to lie fallow for several years, his payments to the collection agency, and his return to
school on a basis that allows the other loans to go into a forbearance situation. Three of
the factors have the most impact on this case.  First, I find that there is the “presence or
absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes,” as set forth under
AG ¶ 2(a)(6). The Applicant has shown that his failure to pay these loans was a
temporary situation that has been corrected. In addition, he is an overwhelmingly
truthful person. Under the particular facts of this case, there is little or no “potential for
pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress” as set forth in AG ¶ 2(a)(8). Finally, the
evidence does not show a “likelihood of continuation or recurrence” of the conduct as
discussed in AG ¶ 2(a)(9). 
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has successfully overcome the
Government's case opposing his 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
Subparagraph 1.a.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: For the Applicant
7
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge