1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-00880
SSN: ------------------ )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jennifer I. Goldstein, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
February 11, 2010
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on September 9, 2008 (Government Exhibit 1). On July 27, 2009, the Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing
the security concerns under Guideline F concerning Applicant. 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 answered the SOR in writing on August 11, 2009, and requested a
hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on September 9, 2009. This case was assigned to me on September 16, 2009.  DOHA
issued a notice of hearing on September 22, 2009, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on October 27, 2009. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1
2
through 6, which were received without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf,
and submitted Applicant Exhibits A through I, also without objection. Applicant asked
that the record remain open for the receipt of additional documents. The Applicant
submitted Applicant Exhibit J on November 23, 2009, and it was admitted without
objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing on November 4, 2009. The
record closed on November 23, 2009. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings,
exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 38 and married. He and his wife have been married 20 years, and
have three children. 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 SOR ¶¶ 1.a., 1.c., 1.d., and 1.f. Those admissions are
hereby deemed findings of fact. He denies SOR ¶¶ 1.b., and 1.e. 
Applicant testified about his financial situation. Much of it is related to the health
of the Applicant and his wife. Applicant was a manual labourer when he was younger. In
1990, he was seriously injured on the job. His injury required surgery, and he was
informed that he could not return to manual labour. He went back to school and
obtained the equivalent of an Associate’s degree in a technical field. Applicant has
worked his way up in this technical field from 1993 to the present day. (Transcript at 34-
36.)
When she was a teenager, Applicant’s wife was diagnosed with a serious and
chronic health condition which affects her ability to work or even lead a normal life. She
has had five major surgeries, nine surgeries in total, in connection with her condition.
She can only work sporadically. Her health care provider states, “Currently the patient is
on a regimen of oral medications and infusion therapy for her [condition]. Her disease is
advanced and severe and will require chronic lifelong treatment.” (Applicant Exhibit J at
3, 12-13; Transcript at 33-34, 37-39, 49-56.)
 1.a. Applicant admits that he filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 of
the Bankruptcy Code in 1999. He received a discharge in about February 2000.
According to the Applicant, the family debt situation never recovered from his injury and
two years of unemployment. Eventually, a bankruptcy was the only way they saw to
resolve the situation. (Transcript at 36-37, 40-41.)
1.b. Applicant denied that he was currently indebted to a cable television
company in the amount of $116. He states, exhibits support, and the Government
3
agrees, that this debt has been paid. (Government Exhibit 6 at 1; Applicant Exhibit H;
Transcript at 13, 66-71.)
1.c. Applicant admitted that he owed a debt to an automobile finance company
on a repossessed vehicle. He denies that the amount he owes is $6,876. According to
Applicant, he owed less than $3,000 on this vehicle when it was repossessed in
approximately 2006. This was after paying on the automobile for seven years, and four
major engine repairs. After the vehicle was sold for substantially less then that, the
finance company informed him that he owed the amount stated in the SOR.
(Government Exhibit 2 at 3; Transcript at 74-79, 89-91.) In November 2009, Applicant
wrote the three credit reporting agencies, disputing the amount he owes on this
account. (Applicant’s Exhibit J at 9-11.) Applicant also wrote a statement concerning his
actions after the hearing regarding this debt. This letter states that this finance company
“is no longer in business and all attempts to contact them were unsuccessful.” Applicant
expresses a credible desire to resolve this debt if possible. (Applicant’s Exhibit J at 8.)
1.d. Applicant admitted that he owed a debt to an automobile finance company
on a repossessed vehicle in the amount of $5,938. Applicant owned this car at the same
time as the one in 1.c. The family could not afford two automobiles on one income, so
he allowed this car to be repossessed in 2001. (Transcript at 79-82.) Applicant wrote a
statement concerning his actions with regards to this debt after the hearing. Specfically,
Applicant has made payment arrangements with the successor in interest to the original
creditor. (Applicant’s Exhibit J at 8.)
1.e. Applicant has consistently denied that he is indebted to a collection
agency in the amount of $35 for a returned check. This was a check to a pharmacy and
the Applicant states that it has been paid directly to the hospital. The hospital has
confirmed with the Applicant that he does not have any returned check charges
currently owing. (Government Exhibit 2 at 2; Applicant’s Exhibit J at 8; Transcript at 82-
85.)
1.f. Applicant admits that he was indebted to a collection agency for a
telephone bill. Applicant has paid this bill, as shown by a statement from the creditor.
(Applicant Exhibit I; Transcript at 85-87.)
Applicant maintains, and records show, that he is able to pay his regular debts.
Applicant, and his family, budget as they can, and they have been successful in this,
given the Applicant’s wife’s limitations and the responsibility of the family.  (Government
Exhibit 6; Transcript at 57-66.)
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
4
mitigating conditions, which are to be used as appropriate in evaluating an applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.
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 overarching
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).  
5
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, and supported by the documentary
evidence, has approximately $12,000 in past-due debts for two automobile
repossessions, 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 about six to ten years ago, primarily between 1999-2004. In
addition, these two repossessions occurred because of the unique situation regarding
the health of the Applicant and his wife. He has paid off two of the other past due debts
alleged in the SOR, stated credibly that he does not owe a third, evinced a credible and
believable intent to pay off his remaining past due indebtedness, and his current
financial situation is stable. This mitigating condition applies 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., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical
emergency, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly
under the circumstances.”  As stated above, the Applicant and his wife both have
suffered from severe medical conditions. The wife’s situation is severe and chronic.
Despite that, and with a family of five to support on his salary alone, with the exception
of the two repossessions, his financial condition is stable. This mitigating condition also
applies.
Applicant has initiated a good-faith effort to pay off his creditors. As stated above,
several have been paid, including at least one debt not alleged in the SOR.
(Government Exhibit 2 at 2, 6.) Accordingly, AG ¶ 20(d) is applicable.  
6
Applicant is over $11,000 in debt. However, the record is clear that he is not
running up new debt. Indeed, he is paying his debts as his financial situation allows him
to do so. Under the particular circumstances of this case, I find that “there are clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control,” as required by AG ¶
20(c).
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 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant had some
financial problems about four to ten years ago, but his current financial condition is
stable. Under AG ¶ 2(a)(2), I have considered the facts of the Applicant’s medical
condition and that of his wife. Under the particular circumstances of this case, it is clear
that they have done the best they can. Her debilitating disease makes the “normal” two
income marriage impossible. Based on the record, I find that there have been
permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, at the present time, I
find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress (AG ¶
2(a)(8); and that there is no likelihood of recurrence (AG ¶ 2(a)(9). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with no questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
situation.
On balance, I conclude that Applicant has successfully overcome the
Government's case opposing his request for a security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports granting his request for a security clearance.
7
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.f.: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.  Eligibility
for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge