DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-00555
SSN: -------------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
March 31, 2010
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on October 21, 2008.  (Government Exhibit 4).  On August 10, 2009, the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865
and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as
amended) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed
reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the
Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a
security clearance for the Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative
Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked.
The Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on September 8, 2009, and he
elected to have the case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing.
Department Counsel submitted  the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) to
the Applicant on October 9, 2009.  The Applicant was instructed to submit information in
rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt.  Applicant received the
FORM on October 20, 2009, but he submitted no reply.  The case was assigned to the
undersigned for resolution on January 11, 2010.  Based upon a review of the case file,
pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.  
2
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 37 years old and has a high school diploma.  He is employed by
a defense contractor as an ALSE Technician and is seeking to obtain a security
clearance in connection with his employment.
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is financially overextended and at risk of
having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant admits twelve of the sixteen past due debts set forth in the SOR
under this subparagraph; which include allegations 1(a) through 1(q); except allegation
1(b), that he contends is the same debt as 1(k); 1(c), that he discharged in his 2001
bankruptcy; 1(l), that he claims he paid; and 1(p).  Credit reports of the Applicant dated
July 9, 2009; April 28, 2009; January 21, 2009; and October 29, 2008; indicate that he
remains indebted in the amount of approximately $35,642.00.  (Government Exhibits 9,
10. 11 and 12).  Applicant admits owing $23,135.00.  
The Applicant has a long history of financial problems.  From April 1999, to
March 2009, he was active duty in the United States Army, and received financial
counseling offered by the military.  In 2001, he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief and
received a discharge of all of his known debts at that time.  He attributes his earlier debt
to a divorce and debt accumulated during the marriage.   
Presently, the Applicant indicates that most of his delinquent debts set forth in
the SOR, were incurred due to periods of unemployment and/or relocation, and have
again been included in a recently filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, and will be
discharged.  Several of the debts he claims have been paid.  He submits no
documentary evidence to support any of his assertions.  The Applicant’s e-QIP
(Government Exhibit 4) and his personal statement (Government Exhibit 7) indicate that
with the exception of two brief periods in 2006, his employment has been stable since
August 2004.  There is also evidence in the record that among other things, the
Applicant purchased a truck and a boat that were repossessed in 2005, for failing to
make payments, and were resold.  
Applicant received the FORM on October 20, 2009, and was given the
opportunity to respond to the FORM concerning the present status of his bankruptcy
case, which is critical in this case.  (See file).  His response was due by November 19,
2009, and he failed to respond.  There is insufficient evidence in the record to
demonstrate that he has resolved his current indebtedness.  There is no documentary
evidence that supports the fact that he has recently filed bankruptcy or that the court
has discharge any of his delinquent debts.  There is no track record of systematic
3
payments on any of his accounts, thus, his delinquent debts remain outstanding.
Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record as to whether he has sufficient income
at this time, even if the debts are considered discharged, to pay his current monthly
expenses in a timely manner.      
 
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; 
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19,  in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
 a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;
     b.  The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
 c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
4
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavior
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in 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.”
CONCLUSION
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility, which demonstrates
poor judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation,
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The Applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant his a security clearance.
5
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  This evidence indicates poor
judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of
the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or
connection with his security clearance eligibility.
Considering all of the evidence, the Applicant has failed to introduce persuasive
evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the
Government's case.  Under the circumstances, he has failed to make a good faith effort
to resolve his indebtedness.  He has failed to submit any evidence to support the fact
that he has paid even one of the debts.  Applicant contends that the most of the debts in
the SOR are listed in his bankruptcy petition and that they will be discharged some
future date.  He did not submit a copy of the actual bankruptcy petition, nor did he
respond to the FORM to provide the court with additional documentary information
concerning the status of his delinquent debts.  He failed to provided any supporting
documentary evidence.  Without more, it is impossible to determine that the Applicant
has resolved his indebtedness or that he is sufficiently financially responsible for access
to classified information.  He has failed to demonstrate that he can properly handle his
financial affairs.
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and, 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligations apply.  None of the mitigating conditions are applicable.  Based upon the
large amount of debt owed by the Applicant and his failure to provide sufficient
documentary evidence as to why he became indebted in the first place, what he has
done to resolve it, and how he has changed or reformed his past spending habits, the
Applicant has failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial rehabilitation.
Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).    
The evidence in the record is void concerning the status of the delinquent debts
set forth in the SOR.  Furthermore, the Applicant has no favorable recommendations or
sufficient documentation to support his allegations.  Accordingly, I have no choice than
to find that he is not sufficiently trustworthy to have access to classified information. 
 I have also considered the “whole person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth under all of the guidelines viewed as a whole, support a
whole person assessment of poor judgement, untrustworthiness, unreliability, a lack a
candor, and an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, and/or other
characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard classified
information.
  
I have considered all of the evidence presented and it does not sufficiently
mitigate the adverse information brought against him.  On balance, it is concluded that
the Applicant has failed to overcome the Government's case opposing his request for a
6
security clearance.  Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against the Applicant
as to the factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.    
     FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: Against the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.a.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.b.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.c.: Against the Applicant.
           Subpara.  1.d.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.e.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.f.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.g.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.h.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.i.: Against the Applicant.
           Subpara.  1.j.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.k.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.l.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.m.: Against the Applicant.
           Subpara.  1.n.: Against the Applicant.
                                    Subpara.  1.o.: Against the Applicant.
           Subpara.  1.p.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.q.: Against the Applicant.
   DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
the Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge