1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-02031
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
September 29, 2009
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF86), on
October 14, 2008 (Item 4). On June 2, 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 June 16, 2009, and requested a
decision without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material
(FORM) to the Applicant on July 16, 2009. The Applicant received the FORM on July
24, 2009, and was given 30 days to submit any additional information. She submitted
additional information on August 26, 2009. The Department Counsel had no objection to
2
this material and it is admitted into evidence as Applicant’s Exhibit A. The case was
assigned to me on September 9, 2009.  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 57 and single.  She is employed by a defense contractor and
seeks to obtain a security clearance in connection with her employment.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because
she is financially overextended and therefore at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.  The Applicant admitted all of the allegations under this paragraph.
Those admissions are hereby deemed findings of fact.
1.a.  The Applicant admits that she is indebted to an automobile finance
company in the amount of $9,516 for a judgment entered against her in 2002. This debt
has not been paid.
1.b.  The Applicant admits that she is indebted to a credit card company in the
amount of at least $839 for a past due account with a balance of approximately $1,332.
This debt has not been paid.
1.c.  The Applicant admits that she is indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of $135 for a telephone bill. This debt has not been paid.
1.d.  The Applicant admits that she is indebted to a second collection agency in
the amount of $4,551.  This debt has not been paid.
1.e.  The Applicant admits that she is indebted to a bank in the amount of $1,860.
This debt has not been paid.
1.f.  The Applicant admits that she is indebted to a second bank in the amount of
$773.  This debt has not been paid.
1.g.  The Applicant admits that she is indebted to a third bank in the amount of
$495. This debt has not been paid.
1.h.  The Applicant admits that she is indebted to a third collection agency in the
amount of $797. This debt has not been paid.
1.i.  The Applicant admits that she is indebted to a fourth collection agency in the
amount of $914. This debt has not been paid.
3
1.j.  The Applicant admits that she is indebted to a fifth collection agency in the
amount of $34. This debt has not been paid.
1.k.  The Applicant admits that she is indebted to a sixth collection agency in the
amount of $8,069. This debt has not been paid.
1.l.  The Applicant admits that she is indebted to the sixth collection agency for a
separate account in the amount of $9,518. This debt has not been paid.
1.m.  The Applicant admits that she has owed a tax lien in the amount of $572
since 1999. This debt has not been paid.
1.n.  The Applicant admits that she filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection in
March 2000. The case was dismissed in December 2001. This occurred after the
Applicant became unemployed. The Applicant states:
I previously filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy to arrange with my
creditors to make payments monthly so that I could provide relief for the
expenses that I had incurred at that time. The attorney that I hired and
paid turned out to be incompetent and as a result, I ended up losing my
home and automobile. (Item 6 at 6.)
1.o.  The Applicant admits that she considered filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy
protection. In Applicant’s Exhibit A, the Applicant states that she is having discussions
with a credit counseling service that she was referred to by her credit union. She states,
“The impression that I want to project is that I am not a careless individual who
continues to create debt and not be responsible enough to pay my creditors. It is my
intention to try to remedy the debts not only to strengthen my credit history but also to
show that I am reliable enough to trust with a security clearance.” (Applicant’s Exhibit A
at 2.)
Concerning her debts, the Applicant submitted no evidence showing that she had
made payments to any of her creditors. There is also no evidence of a payment plan
with any of her creditors. The total amount of her admitted indebtedness is over
$38,000.
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 to be considered as appropriate in evaluating an
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
4
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).  
5
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 her own admission, has over $ 38,000 in past due
debts, all of which have been due and owing for several years. 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 possible
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 are
of long standing. By her own admission, she has paid none of her delinquent debts, no
matter how small. 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 many of these debts
came from financial hardship. However, she has been employed by her current
employer since 2003 and there is no evidence that she has acted responsibly with
regards to her substantial debt during that time.  She states several times that she will
resolve these debts, but has not taken sufficient affirmative action. A statement that she
intends to resolve the indebtedness in the future is not sufficient evidence that she can
or will resolve the debts.  I cannot find under these particular facts that the Applicant has
acted responsibly under the circumstances.
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, she is making sufficient payments on her current indebtedness.
6
However, she has done nothing to resolve her past due indebtedness. A desire to
resolve her substantial past due indebtedness is not enough.  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 her debts.  As set forth above, I find that there have not been permanent
behavioral changes as required 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 her financial
considerations.  
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has not successfully overcome the
Government's case opposing her 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. 
7
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
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.o.: 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