DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-10500
SSN: ------------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
September 4, 2009
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D. Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on March 20, 2008.  (Government Exhibit 1).  On April 23, 2009, the Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 (as
amended) ; and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2,
1992, (as amended), issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which
detailed reasons 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 clearance should be denied or revoked.
The Applicant responded to the SOR on May 5, 2009, and he requested a
hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.  This case was assigned to the
undersigned on June 1, 2009.  A notice of hearing was issued on June 3, 2009,
scheduling the hearing for June 24, 2009.  At the hearing the Government presented six
exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 6.  The Applicant presented no
exhibits, but testified on his own behalf.  The record remained open until July 24, 2009,
to allow the Applicant to submit additional documentation.  The Applicant submitted
eight  Post-Hearing Exhibits, referred to as Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits A through
H.  The official transcript (Tr.) was received on July 2, 2009.  Based upon a review of
2
the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 32 years old and has a high school diploma and two years of
college.  He is employed by a defense contractor as an Office Manager and is seeking
to obtain a security clearance in connection with his employment.
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is financially overextended and at risk of
having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant admits to twenty of the twenty-five debts set forth in the SOR
under this guideline.  Namely, that he is indebted in the amount totaling approximately
$25,000.00.  Credit Reports of the Applicant dated May 8, 2008; March 20, 2009; May
26, 2009; and June 19, 2009, reflect that the following debts remain owing.
(Government Exhibits 3, 4, 5 and 6).    
In 1993, when the Applicant joined the Marine Corps at the age of eighteen, he
had good credit.  He served honorably for four years and was discharged in August
1997.  While in the military, he got married and had a child, against his mother’s advice.
His wife benefitted from the Applicant’s good credit, and charged up credit cards to
purchase unnecessary things.  Debt piled up that the Applicant could not afford to pay.
After a year, the marriage went downhill, they separated and eventually divorced.
Applicant was held responsible for most of the debt incurred during the marriage.  The
Applicant moved back into the barracks and went back to school.  Except for his student
loans for college and several cell phone bills, most of the Applicant’s debt set forth in
the SOR occurred during this marriage.  The Applicant plans to resolve these debts as
soon as possible.  In 2006, the Applicant began working for his current employer.  
Debts owed to a medical provider in the amounts of $106.00, $68.00, $187.00,
$165.00, $67.00, $44.00, $60.00 and $604.00 remain outstanding.  (Allegations 1(a),
1(c), 1(e), 1(n), 1(o), 1(p), 1(q), 1(u) and 1(w).)  Applicant contends that he has no idea
how these medical bills were incurred because he had full medical coverage while he
was in the Marines.  (Tr. pp. 49, 52, and 53).  Applicant did nothing to investigate the
matters.      
Applicant disputed a debt owed to a telephone company in the amount of
$294.00.  (Allegation 1(b).)  The debt is no longer reflected as owing on the Applicant’s
most recent credit report.  (See Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A).  
3
Applicant was indebted to a bank in the amount of $706.00.  (Allegation 1(d).)
He testified that he has reduced the debt to $500.00 (Tr. p. 39 - 40).  Applicant provided
no documentary evidence to support his testimony. 
A debt owed to a bank in the amount of $2,172.00 remains outstanding.
(Allegation 1(f).)  Applicant contends that he is disputing the debt because the charges
have been trumped up and he does not owe what the creditor purports.  (Tr. p. 50).
Applicant provided no documentary evidence to support his testimony.
A debt owed to a bank in the amount of $559.00 remains outstanding.
(Allegation 1(g).)  Applicant indicates that the bank has no record of the debt and he
does not understand why the collection agency is still involved.  Recently, he has
started the process of settling this account.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits D and
E).  
A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $935.00 remains outstanding.
Applicant is not aware of the debt and did nothing to investigate the matter.  (Allegation
1(h).)  (Tr. p. 52).
Debts owed to a bank for student loans in the amounts of $636.00 and $494.00
remain outstanding, but are in deferment.  (Allegations 1(i) and 1(j).)  Applicant’s most
recent credit report reflects that this debt is current.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit C
and Tr. p. 47).  
Debts owed to a lending institution for student loans in the amount of $119.00
and $180.00 remain outstanding, but are in deferment.  (Allegations 1(k) and 1(l).)
Applicant’s most recent credit report reflects that this debt is current.  (Applicant’s Post-
Hearing Exhibit C and Tr. p. 47).  
Debts owed to a college in the amount of $5,318.00 and $4,803.00 remain
outstanding, but are in deferment.  (Allegations 1(r) and 1(s).)  Applicant’s most recent
credit report reflects that this debt is current.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit C and
Tr. p. 47). 
A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $135.00 remains outstanding.
Applicant did nothing to investigate the matter.  (Allegation 1(t).)
A debt owed to a telephone company in the amount of $808.00 remains
outstanding.  (Allegation 1(v)).  Recently, he has started the process of settling this
account.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits D and E).
A debt owed to a gym in the amount of $694.00 remains outstanding.  (Allegation
1(x).)  Applicant submitted proof of the fact that he is a member of a class action
disputing the debt.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit B).
4
A debt owed to a telephone company in the amount of $936.00 remains
outstanding.  (Allegation 1(y).)  Recently, he has started the process of settling this
account.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits D and E).
A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $5,290.00 remains outstanding.
(Allegation 1(m).)  Applicant explained that his vehicle was stolen and eventually found,
but the registration tags had been removed.  The car was wrongfully towed and
eventually auctioned off.  Applicant stopped making the payments on the debt he owed
on the vehicle and he does not intend to pay it.  (Tr. pp. 40 - 41). 
  
The Applicant has incurred no new delinquent debt since this marriage.  He is
current with all of his monthly expenses and now pays his bills on time.  
Applicant’s performance appraisal for the period from May 2007 through
November 2007 reflects “very good” and “good” ratings in every category.  (Applicant’s
Post-Hearing Exhibit G).
A letter of recommendation from the Applicant’s supervisor indicates that the
Applicant has successfully performed is duties on the job.  He is timely, courteous and
demonstrates dedication to all task assignments.  He is considered responsible in
respect to discretion, ownership and loyalty.  He is highly recommended for a position of
trust and is being considered for promotion.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit H).  
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; 
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligation; 
5
Condition that could mitigate security concerns:
20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem 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.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18 -19,  in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
 a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct 
     b.  The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary 
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes
g.  The motivation for the conduct 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicted
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as emphasized
6
by President Eisenhower in 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.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility, which demonstrates
poor judgment or unreliability.
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
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 a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  This evidence indicates poor
judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of
the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or
connection with his security clearance eligibility.
Considering all of the evidence, the Applicant has not introduced persuasive
evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the
Government's case. Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying
Conditions 19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts, and 19.(c) a history of not
meeting financial obligation apply.  Although, Mitigating Condition 20.(b) the conditions
that resulted in the financial problem 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
also applies, it is not controlling in this case.  
Prior to his first marriage, the Applicant had good credit.  Once in the military and
newly married, his wife at that time incurred debt that the Applicant could not afford to
pay.  Admittedly these circumstances were largely beyond his control.  He claims that
he was not aware of the extent of his indebtedness until his security clearance
investigation.  However, after becoming aware of the debt, he has done very little to
resolve it.  With regard to his student loans, he has placed them on deferment and plans
to pay them when they become due.  But, there are many other debts, some of which
are fairly small, that he has simply ignored.  He has indicated that he has started the
7
process of disputing several of his debts, and that he will clear them up, but at the
present time, they remain owing, and he has not demonstrated financial responsibility.
Under the circumstances, he has not made a good faith effort to resolve his past
indebtedness, and there is insufficient evidence of financial rehabilitation at this time.
Hopefully, the Applicant will continue to work toward resolving his delinquent
indebtedness and can demonstrate in the future that he can properly handle his
financial affairs.  Accordingly, at this time, I must find against the Applicant under
Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
    
I have also considered the “whole person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth under all of the guidelines viewed as a whole, support a
whole person assessment of poor judgement, untrustworthiness, unreliability, a lack of
candor, and an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, and/or other
characteristics indicating that the person may properly safeguard classified information.
  
I have considered all of the evidence presented, and it does not mitigate the
negative effects of his financial indebtedness and its impact on his ability to safeguard
classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has not overcome
the Government's case opposing his request for a security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary
allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.    
     FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: Against the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.a.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.b.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.c.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.d.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.e.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.f.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.g.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.h.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.i.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.j.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.k.: For the Applicant.
                                    Subpara.  1.l.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.m.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.n.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.o.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.p.: Against the Applicant.
8
    Subpara.  1.q.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.r.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.s.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.t.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.u.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.v.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.w.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.x.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.y.: Against the Applicant.
   
   DECISION
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
the Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge