1
 
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-03807
SSN: ------------ )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant signed a security clearance application (e-QIP) on February 27, 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 the four allegations
under Guideline F and requested an administrative determination. Department Counsel
submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), dated December 31, 2009. Applicant
received the FORM on January 11, 2010, but did not submit any additional information
for consideration. The case was assigned to me on March 7, 2010. Based on a review
 The facts in the case are derived from interrogatories conducted in April 2009 and July 2009. See Ex. 5-6      1
(Interrogatories), respectively.
2
of the case file, submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant failed to meet her burden
regarding the security concerns raised. Security clearance denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 24-year-old professional analyst working for a defense contractor.
She began working for her present employer in January 2009. Prior to this position, she
was unemployed for about three months. Applicant has a high school diploma and a
bachelor’s degree. She is single. In responding to the SOR, Applicant noted that she
denied the applicability of Guideline F, but admitted she owed approximately $19,365
on four delinquent credit cards.  1
In July 2006, Applicant’s sister approached Applicant and their mother regarding
an investment opportunity. Applicant called the contact person regarding the investment
and was told that they would help her take out credit cards, from which cash advances
could be made and applied to its investment strategy. Under this scheme, she was told
she would be reimbursed and, eventually, make a profit from the investment.  She
proceeded on the plan, opening four credit card accounts. From those accounts, she
took two cash advances of $5,000 each and two cash advances of $2,000 each. She
then turned the $14,000 over to the investment entity. In the interim, she never visited
the entity’s physical address and no evidence indicates she ever investigated the entity
or its scheme.
Initially, Applicant made minimum payments on the cards and was reimbursed
for her payments. In February 2007, however, she was unable to contact anyone at the
investment entity. She then discovered neither her sister nor their mother could make
contact with anyone from the investment group. Her sister informed the Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) later that month of their situation. They soon learned that a
number of similar complaints had been received regarding the scheme. On behalf of
her mother and Applicant, Applicant’s sister worked with the FBI.
Since February 2007, Applicant has relied on her sister to work with FBI
investigators. That same month, Applicant stopped making payments on the four credit
cards, which she no longer uses. Without seeking counsel, she chose to await the
outcome of the FBI investigation before she starts to pay off her debts. In the interim,
she hopes that some of her money will be recovered. She has had no contact with any
of the four credit card companies. When contacted by collection agents for three of the
cards, she only informed them that she was a victim of fraud waiting for an FBI
investigation to conclude.
Otherwise, Applicant lives within her means and her financial condition is stable.
She has a total net monthly income of about $2,647 and expenses amounting to about
$800. Regarding her assets, Applicant only notes a savings account with about $800.
She has no other delinquent debts. Applicant has not received financial counseling.
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
3
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 is2
something less than a preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion3
is on the applicant.  4
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
 See also EO 12968, §  3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
 Revised Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18.      8
 Id.      9
 There is no evidence that Applicant’s brief period of unemployment at the end of 2008 gave rise to any      10
of the debts at issue.
4
applicant concerned.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  A security clearance denial does not7
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 states that8
“an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal
acts to generate funds.”  Here, Applicant admitted that she has approximately $19,3659
in delinquent debts. To date, those debts remain unpaid, none of the credit card
companies at issue have been contacted since the accounts became delinquent in
2007, and her contact with collection agencies has been minimal. 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)
apply. With such conditions raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against
him and mitigate security concerns.  
Applicant’s debt was essentially incurred when she was the victim of fraudulent
inducements by parties unrelated to her creditors.  In the intervening three years,10
however, she has done little more than wait for the FBI investigation to conclude.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) 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) does not
apply because she has not acted responsibly toward her creditors.
5
Applicant opened credit cards and took cash advances in 2006, relying only on
representations from her sister and a representative of the investment entity. She never
visited the entity’s physical address. There is no evidence she ever verified the
business’ legitimacy. When she discovered the investment scheme was most likely a
scam, she relied on her sister to work with the FBI. She failed to contact her credit card
companies directly, only informing subsequent collection agents that she was probably
a victim of fraud that was being investigated. 
Rather than make some arrangement with either the credit card companies or
the collection agencies, she is waiting resolution of the FBI investigation in the hope she
might recover some of her investment. By investing before investigating the entity that
induced her to open credit cards, take out high cash advances, and turn the money
over to it, she proceeded at her own peril. In continuing to neglect significantly high and
delinquent account balances, she has similarly chosen to proceed without taking
reasonably prudent actions to pay her creditors. There is no evidence that she has
consulted a financial counselor or personally sought the advice of an attorney regarding
her financial situation. While she must be commended for her compliance with the FBI’s
investigation, her total neglect of the credit cards companies and accounts at issue is
troublesome. 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.
While Applicant’s acquisition of delinquent debt may be mitigated, her continued
neglect from February 2007 to the present of the four accounts at issue does not
mitigate financial considerations security concerns regarding her present financial
situation. Her net monthly income is about $2,647 and she has expenses amounting to
only about $800. She should have sufficient remainder to arrange payment plans with
her creditors pending resolution of the FBI investigation. Also of concern is the fact that
she presented no evidence as to how she hopes to address her delinquent debt either
in the near future or after the resolution of the FBI investigation. Consequently, her
present ability to address the nearly $20,000 at issue appears remote. Based on the
few facts presented by the Applicant, she failed to meet her burden in mitigating
finance-based 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): 
6
(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. 
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 young, educated woman who became an unfortunate and
unknowing victim of a scam she did not first investigate. As a result, she was left with
nearly $20,000 in debt which has been delinquent for about three years. 
Since acquiring that debt, Applicant has made minimal effort toward working with
her creditors. The evidence reflects that her only initiative in this matter outside of any
efforts with the FBI was in informing the collection agents of three of the four credit
cards at issue that she was a likely victim of fraud. There is no evidence the fourth
account holder was notified of her situation. Moreover, there is no evidence that she
ever discussed with her creditors any strategies or plans to honor these debts which,
although induced through fraud, were legitimately created through her own initiative and
her lack of prior investigation. Were this fraud recently perpetrated or had Applicant
personally sought the aid of a financial counselor or attorney, the situation might be
different. Such neglect, however, has continued since February 2007, when Applicant
first became aware that she was a likely victim of fraud. Unfortunately, based on the
record, her situation demonstrates misplaced reliance and poor judgment. The clearly
consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err on the
side of denials. Financial considerations security concerns remain. 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
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
7
Subparagraph 1.d: 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