DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February1
20, 1990), 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 (RAG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department
of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXX, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx    )       ISCR Case No. 08-07296
SSN: XXX-XX-XXXX )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: John Bayard Glendon, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
On 18 February 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under
Guideline F.  Applicant answered the SOR 4 March 2009, and requested a decision1
without hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me 6 August 2009. The record in this case
closed 13 May 2009, the day Applicant’s response to the government’s File of Relevant
Material (FORM) was due. Applicant provided no additional information for evaluation.  
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).2
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations except SOR 1.b., d., e., I., s.,
hh., kk., and pp. He is a 42-year-old supply technician employed by a U.S. defense
contractor since February 2006. He appears to have not previously held a clearance.
He retired from the U.S. Navy in December 2004, with a partial medical disability, after
20 years service.
 
The SOR alleges and government exhibits substantiate, 43 delinquent debts
totaling over $57,000. Applicant admits 35 debts over $53,000; he denies eight debts of
$4,000, seven as paid, one as not being his debt. He corroborates none of his claims,
including claimed regular payments on the debt at SOR 1.c. The record is devoid of
explanations for the debt or efforts to resolve them. His personal financial statement
(PFS)(Item 6) shows $1,500 positive monthly cash flow.
Policies
The Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (RAG) list factors to be considered in
evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative
Judges must assess both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly
raised by the facts and circumstances presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair
and impartial common sense consideration of the factors listed in RAG ¶ 2(a). The
presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or
against Applicant. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a
case can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the
grant or denial of access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and
the evidence as a whole, the relevant, applicable, adjudicative guideline is Guideline F
(Financial Considerations).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an Applicant’s security clearance. The government
must prove, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. If it does so, it establishes a prima facie case against access
to classified information. Applicant must then refute, extenuate, or mitigate the
government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the Applicant
bears a heavy burden of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.2
¶19 (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;3
3
Analysis
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has an extensive history of
financial difficulties, which are ongoing.  The record contains no evidence in3
extenuation, mitigation, or rehabilitation. Consequently, none of the mitigating factors for
financial considerations apply. The record lacks any information upon which to base a
“whole person” analysis. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph a-qq: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge