1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 08-10613
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jennifer Goldstein, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
March 8, 2010
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
The Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP), on February 20, 2006.  On May 20, 2009, the Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the
security concerns under Guideline F for the 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. 
The Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on June 30, 2009.  He
answered the SOR in writing on July 6, 2009, and requested a hearing before an
Administrative Judge.  DOHA received the request on July 9, 2009, and I received the
case assignment on July 31, 2009.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing on August 5,
2009, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on September 17, 2009.  The
The debts found in Subparagraph 1.a. and 1.b. are to the same creditor.  The debts found in Subparagraphs 1.e. and1
1.j. are to another creditor, and the debts found in Subparagraphs 1.o.~1.q. are yet to another creditor.
2
Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 9, which were received by way of
stipulation.  The Applicant testified on his own behalf.  DOHA received the transcript of
the hearing (TR) on September 25, 2009.  I granted the Applicant’s request to keep the
record open until October 15, 2009, to submit additional matters.  On October 8th and
14th, 2009, he submitted, through Department Counsel, Exhibits (AppXs) A and B,
without objection.  The record closed on October 19, 2009, on receipt of AppXs from
Department Counsel.  Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, the Applicant admitted all of the factual allegations of
the SOR, without explanations.
The Applicant was unemployed or underemployed from 2001 until 2006, when he
obtained his present employment (TR at page 15 line 21 to page 16 line 6).  This
caused the Applicant’s current financial difficulties (TR at page 17 line 20 to page 18 line
8, and at page 24 line 12 to page 28 line 14).  He avers that he has “about $100,000
equity in . . . [his] house,” and “about $80,000 access to cash in banks and 401(k)s” (TR
at page 19 lines 3~5, and at page 36 lines 6~23).  Most recently, he and his spouse “are
engaged in a Federally sponsored Loan Modification process and have retained
Professional services to expedite the process” (AppX A at page 1).
1.a.~1.r.  The Applicant admittedly owes about $72,642 in past due debts to 13
different creditors (TR at page 22 line 7 to page 24 line 11, and GX 4 and 5).   The1
Applicant is unsure of the origin of many of these debts, and has done nothing, apart
from looking at a loan modification program, to address his debts (Id, and TR at page 20
line 18 to page 21 line 7).  Of particular note is the fact that the last four debts alleged in
Subparagraphs 1.o.~1.r. of the SOR total only about $430, yet the Applicant has done
nothing of any substance to address them.
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, which are useful 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 over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision.  According to
3
Paragraph 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.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.
Paragraph 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 Paragraph E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR.  Under Directive Paragraph 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.  Decisions include, by necessity, consideration
of the possible risk 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.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “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 Paragraph 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
4
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
Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially
disqualifying.  Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations@ may raise security concerns.  The Applicant incurred his past due
indebtedness during an extended period of unemployment or underemployment.
The Mitigating Condition found in Subparagraph 20(b) is applicable where “the
conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s
control (e.g., loss of employment . . .).@  However, Subparagraph 20(d) under the
Mitigating Conditions is not applicable, as it applies where the evidence shows “the
individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts.@  Here, the Applicant has done little to address the alleged past due debts.  They
are still outstanding despite his considerable net worth, and he has only started to
address them though a loan modification program, with unclear results, if any.
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.  Under Paragraph 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 also consider the nine adjudicative process
factors listed at AG Paragraph 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 all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and
mitigating conditions surrounding this case.  Here, he has the unqualified support of his
Supervisor, and of his Team Lead (TR at page 22 line 14 to page 25 line 12, and AppX
B).  However, the record evidence leaves me with questions or 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
considerations.
5
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
Subparagraph 1.a.~1.r.: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge