1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-10940
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jennifer I. Goldstein, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant failed to mitigate the government’s security concerns raised under
Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Clearance is denied.
On September 2, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under
Guideline F. 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. 
On September 30, 2009, Applicant answered the SOR, denied all of the
allegations except SOR subparagraph 1.a, and requested an administrative
determination. On October 21, 2009, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant
Material (FORM), and DOHA mailed it to Applicant. He received it on October 27, 2009,
2
along with instructions to file any objections or supplementary information within 30
days. Applicant prepared a written response within the allotted time, and Department
Counsel had no objection. The case was assigned to me on December 14, 2009. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 46-year-old married man with three adult children. After graduating
from high school in 1982, he joined the United States (U.S.) Air Force, where he served
for 21 years through his retirement in 2003 (Item 4 at 10). Since 2003, he has been
working as a security guard for a defense contractor (Id.).
Applicant has four delinquent debts, as listed in the SOR, totalling approximately
$245,000. SOR subparagraph 1.a is a dental bill in the amount of $1,974. Applicant
disputes this account contending that he paid the copayment, as required, but that his
dental insurance provider failed to pay the remainder (Item 4 at 31). When Applicant
contacted his insurer, he was informed that they were waiting to receive copies of x-rays
from his dentist before they would pay the remainder (Item 2 at 3). Applicant’s dentist
never provided copies of the x-rays to the insurance provider, as Applicant requested
(Id.). Applicant did not provide any documentation supporting his dispute.
SOR subparagraph 1.b is Applicant’s home mortgage that the bank foreclosed
upon. The date of the foreclosure is unknown from the record. Also, it is unclear
whether the amount listed in the SOR ($227,000) is the mortgage balance or the
deficiency. Applicant fell behind on his mortgage after the monthly payment increased,
per the terms of the loan, from $1,765 to $2,495 monthly (Item 2 at 3). At or about the
time Applicant’s mortgage payment increased, one of his children incurred a major
medical bill (Item 4 at 33). 
Applicant unsuccessfully attempted to negotiate a reduced monthly mortgage
payment. He then used money borrowed from his 401(k) account to make mortgage
payments. Ultimately, Applicant was unable to prevent the bank from foreclosing on his
home. Applicant provided no evidence of the current status of the delinquency.
SOR subparagraph 1.c is a credit card account that became delinquent in
November 2008 (Item 8 at 6). As of the SOR date, the balance was $8,250. Applicant
contends he has been making monthly payments debited from his military retirement
account (Item 3 at 2). The evidence he provided in support of his contention (Item 3 at
5) is inconclusive.
SOR subparagraph 1.d is a delinquent credit card account in the amount of
$8,000. Applicant contends that he satisfied the account in August 2009 (Item 3 at 3).
The evidence he provided indicates he made a $300 payment in February 2009, but is
inconclusive as to whether he made any other payments (Id.).
Applicant maintains a budget. He has approximately $1,529 of after-expense
income, and $21,000 in his 401(k) plan (Item 5 at 3). 
3
Policies
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.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied together with the factors
listed in the adjudicative process. 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.” 
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 for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “[f]ailure 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”
(AG ¶ 18). Applicant’s history of financial delinquencies triggers the application of AG ¶
19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations.”
Applicant’s most significant delinquency is the mortgage balance from his
foreclosed home. The escalation of Applicant’s adjustable rate mortgage on this home
occurred at or about the same time a major medical bill for one of his children became
due. Applicant took multiple steps to avoid foreclosure including negotiating with the
lender and borrowing money from his 401(k) to make payments. Although these efforts
were unsuccessful, they are sufficient to trigger the application of AG ¶ 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.” 
4
Applicant’s dispute with his dental insurance provider, which is the source of the
delinquency alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.a, is credible. However, Applicant failed to 
either “provide documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provide
evidence of actions to resolve the issue,” as required for AG ¶ 20(e) to apply.
Similarly, Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to support his contention
that he is satisfying the delinquency listed in SOR subparagraph 1.c, and that he has
satisfied the delinquency listed in SOR subparagraph 1.d. Consequently, none of the
other mitigating conditions apply.
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. 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.
Absent sufficient proof that Applicant has rehabilitated his finances, the likelihood
that his financial problems will continue is unacceptably high. Upon considering this
case in the context of the whole person concept, I conclude Applicant’s troubled
finances continue to render him a security risk.
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
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.d: Against Applicant
5
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.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge