1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-08611
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
February 17, 2010
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on August 15, 2007 (Item 5). On June 26, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the
security concerns 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 within the Department of Defense for
SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant submitted an Answer to the SOR on September 3, 2009, and
requested that a decision be made without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted a
File of Relevant Material (FORM) to Applicant on December 1, 2009. Applicant received
the FORM on December 7, 2009, and was given 30 days to submit any additional
information. Applicant did not submit any additional information. The case was assigned
2
to another administrative judge on February 5, 2010. It was reassigned to me on
February 8, 2010. Based upon a review of the written record eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 48, 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 Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is
financially overextended and therefore at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.  Applicant admits all of the allegations in the SOR, with the exception of
subparagraph 1.j., which he denies. Those admissions are hereby deemed findings of
fact. He also submitted additional statements supporting his request for a security
clearance.
The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits substantiate, 19 delinquent debts
totaling $25,228. Applicant admits 18 debts totaling $25,088. Some of these debts have
been due and owing since 2003. (Item 6.) Regarding each of the debts he admits,
Applicant states in his Answer, “I agree, hopefully I can work of (sic) this debt.” (Item 4
at 2.) 
He repeatedly denies owing a state tax lien in the amount of $140. (SOR 1.n.) He
states, “I have paid it in full, not sure why I owed them money since I was in the Military
and living in [another state] at the time.” (Item 8 at 7.) The fact that he freely admits
debts in much larger amounts supports this statement. Based on all available evidence,
this subparagraph is found for Applicant. (Item 4 at 2, and Item 5 at 8.)
Applicant states that he has a medical condition which makes it “hard to pay off
past debts when most of your spare cash goes to medical bills.” (Item 4 at 2.) I have
considered the fact that many of his past due debts appear to be medical in nature.
However, the record is otherwise devoid of explanations for his debt, or any efforts to
resolve them. His personal financial statement showed a $356 positive cash flow as of
December 2008. (Item 8 at 6.)  
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 used as appropriate 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 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 Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant, by his own admission, has over $25,000 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. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe 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 arose recently, starting about 2003, and continue to the present. In
addition, Applicant has failed to provide any evidence that he is paying any of his debts,
other than his tax debt, or has any plan to do so. It is Applicant’s burden to submit
evidence showing that his financial situation has improved.  He has not done so.  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.,. . . unexpected medical emergency . . . ), and the individual acted
responsibly under the circumstances.”  Applicant submits that he has medical problems
that effect his ability to pay his debts. However, a mere statement is insufficient
evidence to conclude that he has acted responsibly towards his debts.
Applicant has not initiated a good-faith effort to pay off his creditors.  There is no
track record of his making payments for a consistent period of time.  Accordingly, AG ¶
20(d) is not applicable.  Finally, given the fact that he is $25,000 in debt, I cannot find
that “there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control,”
as required by AG ¶ 20(c).
5
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 relevant 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 must 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is under financial strain,
and has been so for several years. His debt situation is not yet under control. Under AG
¶ 2(a)(3), Applicant’s conduct is recent.  Based on the state of the record, I cannot find
that there have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, at
the present time, I find that there is the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress (AG ¶ 2(a)8); and that there is a high likelihood of recurrence (AG ¶ 2(a)9). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
situation.
On balance, I conclude that Applicant has not successfully overcome the
Government's case opposing his request for a DoD security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports a denial of his request for a security clearance.
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
6
Subparagraph 1.c: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1k: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1l: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s: 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