Item 5.1
Item 1.2
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------, -------- -------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-02270
SSN: ------ ---- -------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Carolyn H. Jeffreys, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant accrued 33 delinquent debts, totaling more than $25,000, from 2004 to
2008. He demonstrated no effort to resolve any of these debts, and provided no
evidence to establish ongoing solvency or otherwise mitigate financial security
concerns. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for
access to classified information is denied. 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on September 26, 2008.  On1
August 4, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns under Guideline
F (Financial Considerations).  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,2
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
Item 4.3
The Government submitted eight Items in support of the SOR allegations.4
Item 5 at 2, 9, 18-23, 25, 30.5
Item 4. Applicant denied SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.r, and 1.v, and admitted the remaining allegations on the copy of6
the SOR that he annotated and returned. (Item 4 at 1-4.) In the comments that he submitted following the
annotated SOR, he said that he admitted all SOR-listed debts except those at SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.v.
Neither Applicant nor Department Counsel elaborated on this discrepancy. The ambiguity will be resolved
in Applicant’s favor, and SOR ¶ 1.r will be treated in the analysis below as though he formally denied it.
Item 8 at 3-12.7
Item 8 at 5-6.8
2
adjudicative guidelines 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 20, 2009, and requested that
his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing.3
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on August 28, 2009. A
complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was provided to Applicant, and4
he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of his copy of the FORM
on September 12, 2009, and returned it to DOHA. He submitted no further evidence or
correspondence in response to the FORM by the October 12, 2009, deadline and
expressed no objection to my consideration of the evidence submitted by Department
Counsel. I received the case assignment on November 3, 2009.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 39-year-old employee of a defense contractor, where he began
working in August 2008. He has no military service, and has never held a security
clearance. He is divorced with two children, ages 22 and 9.  In his response to the SOR,5
he formally admitted each allegation, except for three of the smaller debts.  Applicant’s6
admissions, including his statements in response to the SOR and to DOHA
interrogatories, are incorporated in the following findings.
Applicant was interviewed by an investigator from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) on November 17, 2008. He reviewed the investigator’s written
summary of the results of this interview, and adopted them as an accurate record of his
statements, under oath, on June 3, 2009.  He told the OPM investigator that he thought7
he had paid the full balance of the $406 debt listed in SOR ¶ 1.b in 2004 or 2005, using
his income tax refund.  This creditor loaned Applicant $1,600 in 2003 or 2004 toward8
the purchase of a swimming pool. He received another bill from the creditor for $100
Item 6 at 3; Item 7 at 4, 16; Item 8 at 22.9
Item 8 at 9. 10
Item 7 at 16; Item 8 at 27. See fn 6 supra.11
Item 8 at 6.12
Item 6 at 2; Item 7 at 8; Item 8 at 28. It became delinquent in July 2005.13
Item 4.14
3
about six to nine months after he thought he had paid off the account. He said he
telephoned them and stated that he would not pay any more toward this account, after
which they did not contact him further. He told the OPM investigator that he would
contact the creditor again in May 2009 to resolve the issue. Applicant submitted no
evidence documenting the basis for this dispute, or corroborating any efforts to contact
the creditor about it. All record credit reports reflect the $406 debt remains outstanding.9
Accordingly, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that Applicant still owes this
delinquent debt.
Applicant told the OPM investigator that he had no knowledge of the $77
delinquent debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.r, but that he would contact the creditor in May 2009
and pay the debt if he owed it.  He submitted no evidence concerning a valid basis for10
disputing this debt, or showing any attempt to contact the creditor to resolve it. Two
record credit reports, including one submitted by Applicant, reflect that he still owes this
debt, and he was ambiguous about admitting or denying it in his SOR response.  The11
weight of the evidence shows that Applicant still owes this debt, which became
delinquent in October 2006 and was placed for collection in January 2007.
Applicant also told the OPM investigator that he had no knowledge of the $54
collection account listed in SOR ¶ 1.v, which he denied owing in his response to the
SOR. He stated the same thing about three other accounts held by the same collection
agency that he admitted owing in his SOR response (SOR ¶¶ 1.p: $448; 1.s: $65; and
1.ff: $35.) He told the investigator that he would contact the collection agency before
November 21, 2008, and pay off the three smaller accounts and set up a payment plan
for the largest one if they were his debts.  He submitted neither an explanation for, nor12
any evidence of, his basis to dispute this debt or efforts to resolve it. All three record
credit reports report that this debt remains outstanding,  and there is no evidence13
supporting Applicant’s denial of it. 
The other 30 SOR-alleged debts, to which Applicant admitted, became
delinquent between 2004 and 2008, and total $25,169.  Accordingly, the evidence14
establishes that Applicant owes all 33 delinquent debts alleged in the SOR, totaling $25,
706. 
Item 4 at 5.15
Item 5 at 9-16.16
Item 8 at 16-20.17
4
Applicant offered no evidence of any payment toward, or other attempt to
resolve, any of these debts. In his August 2009 response to the SOR, he stated that all
of his admitted “past due debt is unpaid due to back injury in March 2009. The debt was
accrued due to lose [sic] of job.”  However, his security clearance application shows15
that he was continuously employed from May 1999 to present.  No evidence was16
submitted to corroborate any back injury, but all debts of security concern were already
delinquent before that date in any event. 
The only evidence Applicant submitted about his current income, living expenses,
and ability to resolve his delinquent debts or avoid incurring additional ones was a June
12, 2009, personal financial statement that is incomplete and unintelligible.  He17
provided no evidence concerning the quality of his recent professional performance, the
level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect to handling
sensitive information and observation of security procedures. He submitted no character
references or other evidence tending to establish good judgment, trustworthiness, or
reliability. I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or character in person
since he elected to have his case decided without a hearing.  
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 (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to
be used 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of the 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.
FORM at 6.18
5
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant 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.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns relating to the guideline for financial considerations are 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. 
Department Counsel argued that the evidence established security concerns
under two Guideline F DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19: “(a) inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts;” and “(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.”  Applicant has18
been unwilling or unable to satisfy any of his SOR-listed delinquent debts, and failed to
provide any evidence of his willingness or ability to do so in the future. DC 19(a) is
clearly established. He has demonstrated a five-year history of not meeting financial
obligations, including a failure to address any of his delinquencies even after becoming
aware of the security concerns raised by such conduct. Security concerns under DC
19(c) are also supported on this record. Applicant’s current financial state and history of
irresponsibility indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, and unwillingness to abide by
rules and regulations. 
6
The guideline includes four conditions that could mitigate security concerns
arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties in AG ¶ 20. Under MC 20(a), disqualifying
conditions may be mitigated where “the 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 irresponsibility is recent, involves numerous creditors, and
continues to date. He remains substantially in debt, and he provided no evidence
concerning his current financial situation that would support a finding that delinquent
indebtedness is unlikely to recur. The evidence does not support application of this
potentially mitigating condition. 
Under MC 20(b), it may be mitigating 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.” Applicant has worked
continuously over the past ten years, and made no effort to address any of these
delinquencies. He offered no evidence that any debt was incurred due to causes
beyond his control. He also did not demonstrate that he responsibly reduced non-
essential spending in reaction to his mounting debts. He has not established mitigation
of his presently delinquent debts, or of his financial history as a whole, under this
provision.
Evidence that “the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem
and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control”
is potentially mitigating under MC 20(c). Similarly, MC 20(d) applies where the evidence
shows “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts.” Applicant established no mitigation under these two provisions because
he offered no evidence of financial counseling, and failed to address any delinquency.
Moreover, the absence of evidence demonstrating his current solvency or ability to
resolve his outstanding delinquencies precludes findings of “clear indications that the
problem is being resolved or is under control,” or “a good-faith effort.” Insufficient
evidence was presented to alleviate the substantial security concerns raised by the
length and degree of financial irresponsibility that continues to date. 
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 relevant 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
7
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. 
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.     
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a mature
individual who is responsible for his voluntary choices and conduct that underlie the
security concerns expressed in the SOR. He established a consistent pattern of
financial irresponsibility dating back at least five years, with no evidence of any efforts to
resolve his outstanding obligations. 
Applicant failed to demonstrate financial rehabilitation or evidence of solvency
from the present time forward, so recurrence and worsening of his financial concerns
were not shown to be unlikely. He continues to bear financial obligations for significant
past debt and ongoing living expenses. He accordingly remains subject to pressure,
exploitation, or duress. The record contains insufficient other evidence about his
character, trustworthiness, or responsibility to mitigate these concerns. 
Overall, the record evidence creates substantial doubt as to Applicant’s present
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. 
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 through 1.gg: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a
security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge