1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-05526
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant signed a security clearance application (SF-86) on May 22, 2009. On
September 14, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations). 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 for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
In a response notarized on October 13, 2009, Applicant admitted all eight of the
allegations set forth in the SOR and requested an administrative determination.
Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), dated November
13, 2009. Applicant received the FORM on November 30, 2009, but declined to
respond to its contents. On January 20, 2010, the Director, DOHA, forwarded the case
for assignment to an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on the same
day. Based on a review of the case file, submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant
2
failed to meet his burden regarding the security concerns raised. Security clearance is
denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 31-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He is single and
has no children. He worked as a blaster from June 2003 through May 2009, the same
month in which he completed the security clearance application for his present
employment. He also worked as a part-time bartender from April 2001 to June 2005,
then from September 2005 to May 2009.
In choosing an administrative determination, Applicant chose to rely on the
written record. The facts he submitted with regard to his past and his financial situation
are limited to admissions to each of the eight financial allegations noted in the SOR.
The only other facts submitted were contained in his answer to the SOR allegations, in
which he stated:
The debts listed are the result of a sudden relocation to my current
address as well as lack of work during this time. I do not believe the sum
of the debts listed is an alarming amount, or an amount that would cause
someone to take illegal actions as listed in Guideline F. . . . I do plan on
repaying all my debts & being granted a security clearance would be a
reason for a better position/pay w/in my company.
Applicant’s admitted delinquent debts amount to approximately $22,881. They
are comprised of debts referred for collection or charged off, plus a judgment in the
amount of $6,907. Applicant did not disclose information as to what kind of expenses
gave rise to these obligations. He similarly declined to offer information as to the
circumstances surrounding his recent relocation or its relationship to the debts at issue.
He also declined to provide information regarding any period of unemployment,
although it is noted that there was a break in employment between part-time bartending
jobs between July and August 2005. No indication is given as to whether he ever
pursued financial counseling or has made any efforts to address the debts at issue
since the summer of 2005. Applicant did not provide any evidence regarding his current
financial situation. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not
inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they
are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An
administrative judge’s over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and
commonsense decision. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a
number of variables known as the “whole person concept.” An administrative judge
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      1
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      2
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      3
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      4
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
 Id.      6
3
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.
The United States Government (Government) must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is1
something less than a preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion2
is on the applicant.  3
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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. 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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance4
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt5
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a6
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
 Revised Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18.      7
4
Guideline (Financial Considerations) is the most pertinent to the case. Applicable
conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as
those which would mitigate such concerns, are set forth and discussed below.
Analysis
Under Guideline F:   “Failure or an inability to live within one’s means, satisfy7
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.” It
also states that “an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to
engage in illegal acts to generate funds.” Here, Applicant admitted that he has
approximately $22,881 in delinquent debts. To date, those debts remain unaddressed.
Consequently, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a)
(inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not
meeting financial obligations) apply. With such conditions raised, it is left to Applicant to
overcome the case against him and mitigate security concerns.  
Applicant was continuously employed as a blaster from 2003 until May 2009,
when he completed his security clearance application and apparently started his current
position. There was, however, a two-month break in his employment as a part-time
bartender in the summer of 2005. While this brief break in secondary employment
might have complicated Applicant’s ability to meet his obligations, he provided no
information about his efforts to otherwise meet those obligations during this period.
Consequently, neither his financial circumstances at the time, nor how he acted during
this time period can be analyzed. Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC
MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the behavior 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) does not apply. 
Applicant’s delinquent debts are multiple in number and remain unpaid.
Amounting to approximately $22,881, the amount at issue is significant. Lacking
information regarding his “sudden relocation,” “lack of work during this time,” or any
other relevant facts regarding either how the debts at issue became delinquent or why
they remain delinquent, neither Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC)
AG ¶ 20(a) (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) nor FC MC AG ¶
20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts) applies. Applicant’s failure to disclose whether he ever pursued or
received financial counseling obviates the applicability of FC MC AG ¶ 20(c) (the person
has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications
that the problem is being resolved or is under control).
5
Applicant attributes his delinquent debts to a “sudden relocation” and “lack of
work” during the time of his relocation. He provided no information or documentation,
however, regarding either circumstance. The record only notes a brief break in
employment as a part-time bartender. Lacking additional facts, particularly with regard
to his finances, Applicant failed to meet his burden in mitigating financial considerations
security concerns.
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 an 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 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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the “whole person”
factors. Applicant is a mature, single man who maintained at least two jobs for the past
several years. He apparently faced a sudden relocation that, when combined with an
undefined period of unemployment, caused him financial distress. Applicant failed,
however, to provide any relevant facts or explain any and circumstances regarding that
period.
In requesting an administrative determination, Applicant chose to rely on the
written record. In so doing, however, he failed to submit sufficient information or
evidence to supplement the record with relevant and material facts regarding his
circumstances, articulate his position, and carry his burden in this process. He failed to
offer evidence of financial counseling. He failed to provide documentation regarding
either his past efforts toward addressing his delinquent debts or his future plans for
satisfying those obligations. By failing to provide such information, and in relying on only
a scant paragraph of explanation, financial considerations security concerns remain.
Clearance is denied.
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 APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge