On February 19, 2010, Applicant’s counsel withdrew from his representation. As of that date, Applicant is1
representing himself, Pro Se.
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-08649
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jennifer I. Goldstein, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: B. Daniel Lynch, Esq.1
March 4, 2010
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on January 20, 2008 (Government Exhibit 1). On May 28, 2009, the Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to
Applicant detailing the 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. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on July 8, 2009, and requested a hearing
before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on
Subparagraph 1.b. of the SOR was amended to read that amount. (Transcript at 33.)2
2
October 23, 2009.  This case was assigned to me on October 30, 2009.  DOHA issued
a notice of hearing on December 14, 2009, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on
January 14, 2010. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 7, which
were received without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf, called one
additional witness, and submitted Applicant Exhibits A and B, also without objection.
DOHA received the transcript of the hearing, and the record closed, on January 26,
2010. 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 45, has a longtime companion, and nine 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 denied all the allegations in the SOR, submitting evidence
that his financial situation is stable.
1.a. Applicant paid this $250 medical debt in November 2009, as shown by a
statement from the creditor, and several credit reports. (Transcript at 45-48;
Government Exhibit 2 at 9-11, and Exhibit 7 at 2; Applicant Exhibit B at 32.)
1.b. A state tax lien was filed against Applicant in July 2003 in the amount of
$4,894.  (Government Exhibit 3 at 6.) It was released in August 2009. (Transcript at 48-2
50; Applicant Exhibit B at 34-35.) 
1.c. A state tax lien was filed against Applicant in October 2003 in the amount of
$8,963.18. (Government Exhibit 3 at 3.) It was released in August 2009. (Transcript at
49-50; Applicant Exhibit B at 36-37.)  
1.d. A state tax lien was filed against Applicant in October 2007 in the amount of
$4,848.30. (Government Exhibit 4 at 1.) It was released in June 2009. (Transcript at 51-
53; Applicant Exhibit B at 38-39.) 
1.e. A Federal tax lien was filed against Applicant in March 2007 in the amount of
$11,059.16. It was released in April 2009. (Transcript at 53-54; Applicant Exhibit B at
40-41.) 
Applicant admitted that these tax liens were filed because he was delinquent in
filing his tax returns. According to the Applicant, due to his number of deductions, he
It is not alleged that the Applicant improperly received any of these welfare payments.3
3
usually does not have to pay any income tax. He further stated that he has now filed all
of his tax returns. He further admitted that the failure to file timely tax returns was
entirely his fault. (Transcript at 43-45, 81-92.)
1.f. The debt alleged in this paragraph is the same debt as that in subparagraph
1.a. (Transcript at 54-56.)
1.g. This allegation was amended to read as follows, “You are indebted to
[redacted] CO FDS on an account that is being paid by court order the approximate
balance of $106,707.22.” (Transcript at 93-98.) 
This debt is in relation to public support the Applicant’s family received over ten
years ago. At that time, Applicant decided to change careers. In order to do this, he had
to go to school full time. His companion does not work, so they found it necessary to file
for public support while he went to school. There is no allegation or evidence that this
was done improperly or illegally.
Once the Applicant attained his training, he immediately got a job with a
substantial increase in pay and began paying the money back to the state authority. The
reason for this recoupment is not set forth in the record. Payment is being made
pursuant to an income withholding order. In the ensuing years, he has paid over
$20,000 towards reducing this debt,. The records show that Applicant is current with his
payments to this governmental creditor. He pays $1,500 a month towards this debt, and
has been paying that amount for at least two years. Applicant further testified, and
evidence shows, that he has been working with the governmental creditor to reduce this
debt. (Transcript at 39-42, 56-58, 64-81; Government Exhibit 2 at 3; Applicant Exhibit B
at 20-21 and 42-53.)3
Mitigation
Applicant has worked for his employer for two years. His Program Manager
testified that customers “have identified him [Applicant] as the poster child for a good
employee.” (Transcript at 26.) 
In recommending the Applicant for a security clearance, the witness stated:
[W]ith respect to his work ethics and his performance on the job, he
is someone that I would trust. He demonstrated high ethical values and,
you know, good moral character. I know he’s a family man. You know,
everything I’ve seen has indicated that he is a good guy, upstanding, solid.
(Transcript at 32.)
Applicant testified that his financial situation is stable. He and his family live
frugally, and have for many years. They have no problems making their debt payments,
4
including those to the governmental authority. The most recent credit report in the file
shows that his financial situation is good. (Transcript at 71-75; Government Exhibit 2 at
4; Applicant Exhibit B at 1-31.)
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.
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 to obtain 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 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.
The evidence shows that the tax liens were filed because the Applicant failed to file his tax returns in a timely4
fashion. This act was not alleged in the SOR. However, I have considered the Applicant’s actions in making
my findings under the whole person concept, further discussed below.
5
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).  
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 had one delinquent debt, in the amount of $250. He also
had tax liens filed against him, and owes over $100,000 to a governmental creditor. The
evidence is arguably sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions.4
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.@ As stated
above, the Applicant had one past due debt, which he has paid. All the tax liens have
been lifted. Finally, he is not delinquent on his large government debt. This mitigating
condition applies.
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
6
under the circumstances.”  This mitigating condition does not apply because the
Applicant’s financial situation was not, and is not, dire.
Applicant paid his one delinquent debt, and also settled his affairs with the state
and Federal taxing agencies so that they released all of their liens. I have considered
the fact that all but one return was filed after the issuance of the SOR. Applicant admits
that he was foolish, but has learned an important lesson. Accordingly, AG ¶ 20(d) is
applicable under the particular facts of this case in that he “initiated a good-faith effort to
repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.”  
As fully stated above, Applicant has resolved his tax situation, is paying the
governmental creditor in a way that is sufficient for them, and has no delinquent bills.
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 was dilatory in
filing his tax returns, but all have now been filed. He fully understands that a return to
his dilatory ways of the past can put his holding of a security clearance in jeopardy. He
paid the one delinquent debt that was alleged in the SOR. I have considered the fact
that the governmental creditor in 1.g. is being paid by an income withholding order. In
this case, given the nature of the account, and the fact that the creditor has reported the
Applicant to be “current” or “paying as agreed,” I find that this is a different situation than
where a debt is paid by garnishment.
His spending has not been irresponsible, (AG ¶ 2(a)(2)). Based on the state of
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 no potential for pressure,
7
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 DoD security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports granting 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 ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.g.: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, 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