DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-10252
SSN: -------------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
September 29, 2009
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for National Security Positions
(e-QIP), on July 18, 2008 (Item 5). On April 9, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns
under Guideline F concerning 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 President Bush on December
29, 2005, and effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after
September 1, 2006. 
 Applicant submitted an Answer to the SOR on May 1, 2009, and requested a
decision without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material
(FORM) to the Applicant on June 16, 2009. The Applicant received the FORM on June
23, 2009, and was given 30 days to submit any additional information. He elected not to
submit any additional information. The case was assigned to me on September 9, 2009.
2
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
The Applicant is 45 and single.  He is employed by a defense contractor and
seeks to obtain a security clearance in connection with his employment.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he
is financially overextended and therefore at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.  The Applicant admitted both of the allegations under this paragraph.
Those admissions are hereby deemed findings of fact.  
1.a.  The Applicant admits that he is indebted to a company for a judgment in the
amount of $32,027 since 2007. This debt has not been paid and the Applicant states in
an interrogatory dated December 30, 2008, “This debt was incurred by the corporation I
owned which was closed when the housing market crashed in 2006. I do not plan to
repay this debt with personal funds.” (Item 6 at 2.)
1.b.  The Applicant admits that he is indebted to a bank in the amount of $10,547
since 2007. This debt has not been paid and the Applicant states in an interrogatory
dated December 30, 2008, “This debt was also incurred by the corporation I owned
which was closed when the housing market crashed in 2006. I do not plan to repay this
debt with personal funds.” (Item 6 at 3.) 
As stated above, according to the Applicant, both of these debts were related to
a business he co-owned with his brother-in-law from March 2005 through December
2006.  (Item 5 at 10-11.) In his Answer the Applicant states, “In accordance with IRS tax
code and generally accepted accounting practices upon the closure of the business
these liabilities were converted to assets and taxed as profit. All tax debts related to
these debts, those of the corporation and me personally have been paid.” The Applicant
submitted no evidence to support this statement.
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.
3
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 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
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).  
4
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(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, by his own admission, has over $ 42,000 in past due
debts, both of which have been due and owing for a considerable period. The evidence
is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. The following conditions have applicability in
this case:
Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition 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.” Applicant’s financial difficulties
appear to be connected to a business which failed in 2006. However, he has presented
no evidence supporting his statement that these debts have been forgiven by the
creditors, which is how a debt may become an asset. On the contrary, all the available
evidence show these debts to be his responsibility and severely past due. This
mitigating condition is not applicable to this case.  
AG ¶ 20(b) states that the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where “the
conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s
control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn . . .), and the individual acted
responsibly under the circumstances.”  The Applicant argues that these debts were
related to his business and are, therefore, not his personal responsibility. He provides
no records to show that the business was an entity for which he had no personal
liability. To the contrary, Applicant’s credit reports show that he was jointly responsible
for the debt in subparagraph 1.a. (Item 7 at 1; Item 8 at 2); and individually responsible
for the debt in subparagraph 1.b. (Item 7 at 2; Item 8 at 4,12). He affirmatively states
that he has no intention of satisfying either of these debts. This mitigating condition is
not applicable to this case.
5
AG ¶ 20(c) states that it may be mitigating where, “there are clear indications that
the problem is being resolved or is under control.”  The Applicant’s credit reports show
that, in the main, he is making sufficient payments on his current indebtedness.
However, as stated above, he does not intend to resolve his considerable past due
indebtedness.  This mitigating condition is not applicable.
Based on all of the available evidence, I cannot find that the Applicant has
mitigated the allegations under this Guideline.  Paragraph 1 is found against 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.  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) in making such a decision: 
(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. 
       
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case.  The Applicant has a history of not
paying his debts.  In addition, he affirmatively states that he has no intention of paying
these debts. As set forth above, I cannot find that there have been permanent
behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6). In addition, I find that there is the potential for
pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress (AG ¶2(a)(8)), and that there is a likelihood of
recurrence (AG ¶2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to Applicant’s
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude the
Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
considerations.  
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has not successfully overcome the
government's case opposing his request for a DoD security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary
allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the government's Statement of Reasons. 
6
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 THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: Against the Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge