DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-01031
SSN: ------------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jennifer I. Goldstein, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
November 24, 2009
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on November 20, 2007.  (Government Exhibit 1).  On June 16, 2009, the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865
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 July 7, 2009, and she requested a
hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.  This case was assigned to the
undersigned on August 4, 2009.  A notice of hearing was issued on August 12, 2009,
and the hearing was scheduled for September 22, 2009.  At the hearing the
Government presented nine exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 9.
The Applicant presented two exhibits, referred to as Applicant’s Exhibits A and B.  She
also testified on her own behalf.  The record remained open until close of business on
September 29, 2009, to allow the Applicant the opportunity to submit additional
2
documentation.  The Applicant submitted twelve Post-Hearing exhibits, consisting of
one hundred and one pages, referred to as Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits A though
L, which was admitted without objection.  The official transcript (Tr.) was received on
October 5, 2009.  Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 31 years old and is currently in her second year of college.  She
is employed by a defense contractor in dual positions as Administrative Support and
Facility Security Officer and is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with
her 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 she is financially overextended and at risk
of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant served in the United States Army on active duty from February
2001 through February 2004.  She served in the Army Reserves from February 2004
through March 2006.  By choice, in April 2006, she returned to active duty until May
2007.  Unexpectantly, the Applicant was  medically discharged due to a pinched nerve
in her spine and a condition known as “PCIS” that caused her to uncontrollably gain
weight.  She also has no cartilage in her knees and neuroma in both of her feet.  It  was
determined that she is 60% disabled and will received disability benefits starting in
November 2009, in the amount of $984.00 monthly.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit
J).  Her husband, who was also active duty Army, was injured in Iraq, and was found no
longer fit for military duty.  He was medically discharged in January 2008, and will
receive disability.  These unforeseen circumstances caused financial difficulties for the
Applicant. 
She admits that she became indebted to two creditors totaling approximately
$76,374.00.  These creditors are set forth in the SOR under allegations 1(a) and 1(b) of
the SOR.  Applicant takes full responsibility for her debts.  Credit reports of the
Applicant dated April 8, 2009, September 6, 2008, March 9, 2009, June 2, 2009, July
29, 2009, and September 22, 2009, reflect each of these delinquent debts as owing.
(See Government Exhibits 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 9).  
The first debt in the amount of $7,199.00 is for a credit card that became overdue
when the Applicant was medically discharged from the Army.  She destroyed the credit
card and in August 2009, entered into an agreement to resolve the debt in the amount
of $100.00 monthly.  Applicant has recently increased the monthly payment to $150.00
3
monthly.  The payment is automatically deducted from the Applicant’s bank account.
Applicant submitted receipts for payments made in January, June, July and August
2009.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A).  She plans to continue with the payment
plan until the debt is paid in full.  
The second debt in the amount of $69,175.00 is for a mortgage on a house the
Applicant purchased in November 2004.  In March 2008, during which time both she
and her husband were medically discharged from the Army, and out of work, the
Applicant and her husband fell behind on their house payments.  The Applicant had
numerous discussions with the creditor concerning a loan modification, but was told by
the bank that her income was insufficient.  In November 2008, her house was
foreclosed upon.  To the Applicant’s knowledge the house has not been resold.
Applicant has tried to contact the creditor to find out the exact payoff.  She indicates that
she will contact them, set up a payment plan and start paying on the balance to resolve
the debt. (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit B).          
Letters of recommendation from the Applicant’s Human Resource Manager,
coworkers, and past employer, attest to the Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness,
hardworking nature, organization skills, strong moral character, conscientiousness and
dedication to the job.  She is recommended for a position of trust.  (Applicant’s Post-
Hearing Exhibit E).    
Applicant has completed various military training courses and has received
awards and commendations for her service.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits G and
H). Applicant has completed between 90% and 95% of her training for Facility
Security Officer of the company, as evidenced by numerous certificates of completion in
Department of Defense security awareness matters beginning in August 2008 and
continuing through November 2009.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit I).  
Applicant’s personal financial statement indicates that she and her husband’s
monthly earnings, along with their vocational rehabilitation, and their disability, is
sufficient to cover their monthly expenses and outstanding debts. 
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
4
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; 
Conditions 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;
20.(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or
there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
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 and surrounding
circumstances;
     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 behavior
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
5
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
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 or her 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 her security clearance eligibility.
The evidence shows that circumstances largely beyond the Applicant’s control,
namely her unexpected medical discharge from the Army in April 2007, and her
husband’s injury in Iraq that led to his military medical discharge in January 2008,
6
largely caused their financial difficulties.  Their joint income was significantly reduced,
and they were left unemployed.  Now, they have both found employment and are in a
position to resolve their debts. 
The Applicant has made a good faith effort to resolve her past due indebtedness.
She has contacted each of the creditors and has either paid off the debt or is setting up
a payment plan to do so.  She does not plan on incurring any new debt.  She
understands the importance of paying her bills on time and living within her means.
Under the circumstances, she has made a good faith effort to resolve his indebtedness,
and there is evidence of financial rehabilitation.  The Applicant has demonstrated that
she can properly handle her financial affairs and that she is fiscally responsible.
Considering all of the evidence, the Applicant has 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.  However, Mitigating Conditions 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, 20.(c) the
person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control and, 20.(d) the
individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts also apply.  Accordingly, I find for 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 above, when viewed under all of the guidelines as a
whole, support a whole person assessment of good judgement, trustworthiness,
reliability, candor, and a  willingness 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, including the favorable letters of
recommendation, military awards, military training certificates, medical documents
verifying her and her husband’s condition.  They mitigate the negative effects of her
financial indebtedness and the effects that it can have on her ability to safeguard
classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has  overcome the
Government's case opposing her request for a security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports a finding for the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary
allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.   
7
     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: For the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.a.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.b.: For the Applicant.
  
   DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge