Authorized by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), Section E3.1.2.2.1
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------------- )
SSN: -------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-08749
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, Applicant’s request for
eligibility for a security clearance is denied.
On March 21, 2008, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance required for his job with
a defense contractor. After reviewing the results of Applicant’s background
investigation, adjudicators for the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued to Applicant two sets of interrogatories  regarding information in his background.1
Based on the results of the background investigation and his response to the
interrogatories, DOHA adjudicators were unable to make a preliminary affirmative
 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.2
 Adjudication of this case is controlled by the revised Adjudicative Guidelines, approved by the President on3
December 29, 2005,which were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. Pending
official revision of the Directive, the revised Adjudicative Guidelines supersede the guidelines listed in
Enclosure 2 to the Directive.
 See Directive, Enclosure 3, Section E3.1.7. The FORM included 14 documents (Items 1 - 14) proffered in4
support of the government’s case. I have not considered Item 12 as it appears Department Counsel himself
obtained this document in October 2009. Further, Items 13 and 14 do not constitute evidence in support of
any of the SOR allegations. 
2
finding  that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant’s request2
for access to classified information. On May 11, 2009, DOHA issued to Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which raise security concerns addressed in
the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG)  under Guideline F (financial considerations).3
On August 17, 2009, Applicant responded to the SOR and requested a decision
without a hearing. On October 22, 2009, Department Counsel prepared a File of
Relevant Material (FORM)  in support of the government’s preliminary decision.4
Applicant received the FORM on November 13, 2009, and timely responded to the
FORM in a two-page submission dated November 30, 2009. The case was assigned to
me on February 1, 2010.
Findings of Fact
The government alleged Applicant owed approximately $47,369 for ten
delinquent debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.a - 1.j. In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted
without explanation all of the allegations. In addition to the facts established through
Applicant’s admissions, I make the following findings of relevant fact.
Applicant is 42 years old and has been employed by a defense contractor since
September 2006. He served in the United States Navy between October 1986 and
November 2006, when he retired as an Engineman First Class (EN1). He and his wife
have been married since June 1991. (FORM, Items 4 and 7)
In March 2008, when Applicant submitted his e-QIP, he answered “no” to all of
the questions pertaining to his finances (debts, bankruptcy, garnishments, etc.)
However, a credit report obtained during his background investigation showed he was
delinquent or seriously past due on numerous debts totaling in excess of $47,000.
Some of his debts are being satisfied through civil judgments and involuntary
garnishment. (FORM, Items 5, 6, and 11)
In June 2008, when he was interviewed by a government investigator, he
acknowledged that he and his wife “simply got in over their heads and [were] just
starting to address these financial issues.” (FORM, Item 7) In response to DOHA
interrogatories in November 2008, he reiterated that he was paying off his debts
“slowly.” (FORM, Item 6) Applicant has not presented information that shows he has
paid or otherwise resolved any of the debts listed in the SOR. Two of those debts (SOR
 Directive. 6.3.5
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).6
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.7
3
¶¶ 1.e and 1.f) are for less than $100 each and have been delinquent for almost two
years. (FORM, Items 5 and 8) When he responded to the FORM in November 2009, he
asked that his clearance be revoked because he is still paying off his debts “and it is
going to take a while to do that.”
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the revised
Adjudicative Guidelines (AG).  Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors5
listed in ¶ 2(a) of the new guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole person”
concept, those factor are:
(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. 
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not
determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant. However, specific applicable
guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them as they
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified
information. In this case, the pleadings and the information presented by the parties
require consideration of the security concern and adjudicative factors under AG ¶ 18
(Guideline F - financial considerations).
A security clearance decision is intended to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent with the national interest  for an applicant to either receive or continue to6
have access to classified information. The government bears the initial burden of
producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or
revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, the government must be able
to prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the government meets its burden, it
then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the government’s case.
Because no one has a “right” to a security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy
burden of persuasion.  A person who has access to classified information enters into a7
fiduciary relationship with the government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the
government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the
 See Egan; Revised Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 2(b).8
4
requisite judgment, reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national
interest as his or her own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard
compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in
favor of the government.8
Analysis
Financial Considerations.
The security concern about Applicant’s finances, as stated in AG ¶ 18, is that: 
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 available information supports the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a - 1.j. Further,
Applicant admitted each of the alleged debts, which total more than $47,000. Several of
Applicant’s delinquent debts have been unaddressed since mid-2005, and he has
acknowledged that one cause of his debt problems was that he and his wife did not
manage their finances properly. Available information requires application of the
disqualifying conditions listed at AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts),
AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations), and AG ¶ 19(e) (consistent
spending beyond one's means, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness,
significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-income ratio, and/or other financial analysis).
In response, Applicant has not provided information to support any claims that he
is paying off or otherwise resolving his debts. Further, there is no information to suggest
that his debts arose through unusual circumstances or events beyond his control.
Applicant has not demonstrated that he has done anything, such as obtain financial
counseling or other professional guidance, to improve his financial standing. Finally, he
has not indicated that he is disputing any of debts attributable to him. Accordingly, none
of the mitigating conditions listed at AG ¶ 20 apply, and Applicant has failed to mitigate
the security concerns established by the government’s information about his finances. 
Whole Person Concept. 
I have evaluated the facts presented and have applied the appropriate
adjudicative factors under Guideline F. I have also reviewed the record before me in the
context of the whole person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is 42 years old and
presumed to be a mature adult. His marriage of 18 years and his 20 years of military
service reflect a stable, responsible lifestyle. However, the weight of the information
presented shows he has failed to meet his financial obligations over the past several
 See footnote 5, supra.9
 See footnote 8, supra. 10
5
years. He has not acted to resolve even the smallest of his debts despite being
interviewed about his finances almost two years ago. There is no information in this
record about any other facet of his background that sufficiently counters the adverse
information underlying the security concerns about his finances. A fair and
commonsense assessment  of all available information bearing on Applicant’s finances9
shows he has failed to address satisfactorily the government’s doubts about his
suitability for access to classified information. Because protection of the national interest
is paramount in these determinations, such doubts must be resolved in favor of the
national interest.10
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.j: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest
to grant Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
                            
                                                    
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge