1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 08-09761
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jennifer Goldstein, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
August 31, 2009
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on May 8, 2008.  On March 11, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns
under Guideline F 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 March 20, 2009.  He answered
the SOR in writing on April 8, 2009, and requested a hearing before an Administrative
Judge.  DOHA received the request on April 28, 2009, and I received the case
assignment on May 1, 2009.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing on May 6, 2009, and I
convened the hearing as scheduled on May 29, 2009.  The Government offered
Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 7, which were received without objection.  Applicant testified
2
on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits (AppXs) A through D, without objection.
DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on June 3, 2009.  I granted
Applicant’s request to keep the record open until June 30, 2009, to submit additional
matters.  On June 22, 2009, and again on June 29, 2009, he submitted Exhibits E and
F, respectively, which were admitted without objection. The record closed on June 30,
2009.  Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony,
eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the factual allegations, with
explanations.  The Applicant is a 40 year old Army Veteran, who is employed as an
electronic technician in the defense industry (TR at page 28 line 21 to page 30 line 1).
As a result of his military service, he suffered injuries during jumps in airborne
operations (TR at page 30 line 3 to page 31 line 24).  He also suffers from Barrett’s
Disease, “the erosion of the esophagus with lesions and growths on the inside of the
esophagus,” which he attributes to taking anti-nerve gas pills while stationed in Iraq and
Saudi Arabia, and to the resulting airborne debris from a scud missile attack (Id, TR at
page 27 line 3 to page 28 line 12, and AppX C).  In any event, the Applicant receives
40% disability from the Veterans Administration (TR at page 37 line 25 to page 38 line
6).  Upon leaving active duty with the Army, the Applicant was unemployed from
2001~2008, or about eight years (Tr at page 34 line 9 to page 37 line 19).  This
extended period of unemployment is directly related to Applicant’s medical condition,
and has caused the Applicant significant financial difficulties.
1.a.  The Applicant is indebted to creditor A in the amount of about $7,885, as the
result of an outstanding judgment (GX 7 at page 1).  This consolidated credit card debt
has been included in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, filed by the Applicant in May of 2009 (TR
at page 41 line 8 to page 42 line 11, at page 43 lines 1~4, and AppX C schedule F at
page 2).  A meeting of creditors was scheduled for June 18, 2009, and his Bankruptcy
Attorney verifies that “[a]t the hearing, no creditors of . . . [the Applicant] appeared, . . .
[the Chapter 7 Trustee] had no issues with the bankruptcy, and the meeting was
concluded” (AppX F).  His counsel expects “a Chapter 7 Discharge in approximately 60
days, at which point his [Applicant’s] debts will be discharged” (Id).
1.b.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to creditor B in the amount of
about $92 (GX 3 at page 13).  The Applicant is unaware of this debt; but in an
abundance of caution and pursuant to the advice of counsel, it has been included in
Applicant’s May 2009, Bankruptcy filing (TR at page 43 line 5 to page 44 line 15, and
AppX C Schedule F at page 2).
1.c.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to creditor C in the amount of
about $55 (GX 3 at page 7).  The Applicant is also unaware of this debt; but in an
abundance of caution and pursuant to the advice of counsel, it has been included in
Applicant’s May 2009, Bankruptcy filing (TR at page 44 line 19 to page 45 line 10, and
AppX C Schedule F at page 1).
3
1.d.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to creditor D in the amount of
about $13,509 (GX 3 at page 9).  The Applicant is unaware of this debt; but in an
abundance of caution and pursuant to the advice of counsel, it has been included in
Applicant’s May 2009, Bankruptcy filing (TR at page 45 lines 11~23, and AppX C
Schedule F at page 1).
1.e.  Lastly, the Applicant is indebted to creditor F in the amount of about $9,903,
which he believes is a consolidated credit card debt (TR at page 45 line 24 to page 46
line 6, and GX 3 at page 12).  This debt has been included in a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy
filing (AppX C Schedule F at page 2).
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
4
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).
Analysis
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in Paragraph 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
Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially
disqualifying.  Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations@ may raise security concerns.  During his extended period of unemployment
or underemployment, the Applicant accumulated his delinquent debt.  These are clearly
countered by the Mitigating Conditions found in Subparagraphs 20(b) and 20 (d).  Under
Subparagraph 20(b), it may be mitigating where “the conditions that resulted in the
financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, . .
. unexpected medical emergency . . .), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances.@  Furthermore, Subparagraph 20(d) applies where the evidence shows
“the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts.@ Here, the Applicant, by filing for the protection of a Chapter 7
Bankruptcy, has addressed all of the alleged past due debt.
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
5
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.  Here, he has the
unqualified support of a colleague (AppX E).  This colleague avers, in part, the
following:
I have personally worked in the defense industry since 1973 and have
carried a US security clearance throughout my career.  Working with . . .
[the Applicant] daily, we have had many discussions about the importance
of the roles we both play in maintaining a strong national defense system,
and I am quite comfortable being a character reference for . . . [the
Applicant].  It is my opinion that . . . [the Applicant’s] moral fiber and strong
patriotism make him a highly trusted and reliable contributor to our
defense efforts (AppX E).
I considered all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and
mitigating conditions surrounding this case.  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.
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 APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
6
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.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge