1
 
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-03045
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant signed a security clearance application on January 5, 2009. On
October 28, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations). 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 for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
In a response dated November 23, 2009, Applicant admitted all eight allegations
raised under Guideline F and requested an administrative determination. On January
15, 2010, Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), which
included seven attached items. Applicant received the FORM on January 15, 2010, but
did not submit any additional information for consideration. The case was assigned to
me on March 19, 2010. Based on a review of the case file, submissions, and exhibits, I
 SOR Response, dated Nov. 23, 2009.      1
 FORM, Item 8, Interrogatories, dated Jul 24, 2009, and Investigator’s Notes, dated Feb. 25-28, 2009, at      2
I-9.
 Id. at I-3.The dates of last activity shown on these accounts occurred between 2004 and 2008. See FORM,      3
Items 6-7, Credit Reports, dated Aug. 28, 2009, and Jan. 23, 2009, respectively. 
 SOR Response, supra, note 1.      4
2
find Applicant failed to meet his burden regarding the security concerns raised. Security
clearance denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 44-year-old software technician working for a defense contractor.
He began working for his present employer in September 2008. He is married and has
two young children. He has a high school diploma and a college degree in statistics. 
In December 1998, Applicant graduated from college. He worked as a program
analyst from April 1999 until about October 2002. He was then unemployed until
February 2003. He worked on a farm from February 2003 through March 2005, when
he was hired as a support services director. That job lasted until February 2008. He
then worked as a handy man until he was hired by his present employer. 
In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations set forth in
allegations ¶¶ 1.a through 1.h. Those allegations represent approximately $32,800 in
delinquent debt derived from a medical account, a credit card, a state tax lien from
1996, and three student loans. He also admitted he failed to both file a required state
tax form for tax year 2005 and resolve a state tax issue involving unemployment
benefits received during tax year 2002.
Applicant provided scant information regarding the debts at issue, his
employment history, and current finances. He is not living above his means. His
medical debt (SOR allegation ¶ 1.a for $488) arose because he has not had medical
insurance for over twenty years.  His credit card company no longer has a record of his1
debt (SOR allegation ¶ 1.f for $1,607), and he is unable to determine which collection
agency now owns the debt.   He is in continuing negotiations regarding repayment of2
his educational debt (SOR allegations ¶ 1.c-1.e for about $29,604), which became
delinquent due to periods of unemployment, underemployment, and unmanageable
payment terms.  He is resolving his tax issues (SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.b, 1.g-1.h for a3
combined debt of $29,604) as he “recover[s] tax forms from past years. . . .”  Regarding4
his current financial situation, Applicant wrote in response to the October 2009 SOR
that he is currently in the process of repaying all of his debts and noted that he intends
to repay all of his debts. He stated, “[m]y current working situation affords me benefits
that allow me to repay my debts and without proper security clearance I will not be able
 Id.      5
 FORM, Item 8, supra, note 2 at I-3.      6
 Id. at I-12.      7
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      8
3
to continue with my present employer.”  As noted above, he has worked for his present5
employer since September 2008. 
When interviewed by investigators in February 2009, Applicant stated that he
could meet all of his outstanding financial obligations.  In July 2009 interrogatories, he6
noted that he was “working to resolve all debt issues.”  In response to the October 20097
SOR and the January 2010 FORM, however, he provided no documentary evidence of
either payments on any of these accounts or attempts to consolidate or otherwise
address his debts. Moreover, he provided no evidence demonstrating any attempts to
resolve his tax issues. Further, there is no evidence he has received financial
counseling to aid him in his efforts.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not
inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they
are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An
administrative judge’s over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and
commonsense decision. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a
number of variables known as the “whole person concept.” An 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 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.
The United States Government (Government) must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is8
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      9
 See also EO 12968, § 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      10
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      11
 Id.      12
 AG ¶ 18.      13
 Id.      14
4
something less than a preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion
is on the applicant.  9
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security10
clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any11
reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive
information must be resolved in favor of protecting such information.  A security12
clearance denial does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
In this case, Guideline F is the appropriate guideline for consideration. Under
that guideline, “failure or an 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.”  It also states13
that “an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal
acts to generate funds.”  Here, Applicant admitted that he owes approximately $32,80014
in delinquent debt, including one state tax lien from 1996, and that he has yet to resolve
two other state tax issues dating from 2005 and 2002. Therefore, Financial
Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts) and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations)
5
apply. With such conditions raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against
him and mitigate security concerns.  
Applicant’s employment history has been erratic since he graduated from college
in 1998. He was unemployed from October 2002 until February 2003, underemployed
as a farm worker from February 2003 until March 2005, and underemployed as a handy
man from February 2008 until September 2008. At various points during these periods,
between 2004 and 2008, he found his student loan payments unwieldy and ceased
making payments. In the past year, he repeatedly indicated that he has been working to
resolve his  debts. Therefore, Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20(b)
(the conditions that resulted in the behavior 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) applies.
Applicant’s erratic employment and good intentions may mitigate the creation of
the debts and issues set forth in the October 28, 2009, SOR. For over a year, however,
he has noted his intentions and abilities to honor his obligations, but has yet to produce
any documentation reflecting either his efforts or his progress on these issues. Indeed,
although he notes in his response to the October 2009 SOR that his current position
“affords him benefits that allow” him to “repay his debts,” he provided no evidence that
any payments  actually have been made. Further, he provided no statement or
evidence that he has sought or received financial counseling to help him in his
endeavors. Therefore, neither Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC)
AG ¶ 20(a) (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), FC MC AG ¶ 20(c)
(the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control), nor FC MC AG ¶
20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts) applies.
In declining a hearing and relying on the written record, Applicant limited his
ability to address the debts and issues raised in the SOR. The burden for such
mitigation in these proceedings is placed squarely on Applicant. Lacking evidence of
some progress on either his debts or his tax issues, he failed to mitigate financial
considerations security concerns. 
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 an applicant’s
conduct and all the 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
6
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. 
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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the “whole person”
factors. Applicant is a mature man who completed his college education in his 30s. Now
44, he recently started a family and has young children. Unfortunately, his employment
has been erratic, having suffered through a four-month period of unemployment and
two significantly longer periods of underemployment which did not take advantage of
his expertise. As a result, debts were acquired and became delinquent. 
Applicant was hired for his current position in September 2008. Over the past
year, he maintained that he was working on resolving his debts and tax issues. In
response to the SOR, he noted that his current position has made it possible for him to
repay his debts. Despite these claims, Applicant provided no documentary evidence
reflecting such efforts.  By failing to meet his burden, financial considerations security
concerns remain unmitigated. Clearance denied. 
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 - 1.h Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant access to classified
information. Clearance denied.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge