1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-01061
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jennifer I. Goldstein, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
April 30, 2010
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On September 2, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F
for 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 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. 
 
On September 15, 2009, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and
she requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. The case was assigned to this
Administrative Judge on October 5, 2009. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on October
23, 2009, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on December 8, 2009, in Las
Vegas, Nevada. The Government offered Exhibits 1 through 8, which were received
without objection. Applicant testified on her own behalf and submitted Exhibits A
through F at the time of hearing, which were also admitted without objection. I granted
Applicant’s request to keep the record open until December 22, 2009, to submit
2
additional documents. She timely submitted three additional documents, which have
been identified and entered into evidence collectively as Exhibit G. DOHA received the
transcript of the hearing (Tr) on December 23, 2009. Based upon a review of the case
file, pleadings, exhibits, and the testimony of Applicant, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted.
Findings of Fact
In her RSOR, Applicant admitted and denied, in part, SOR allegations 1.a. and
1.b.  After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including
Applicant's RSOR, the admitted documents, and the testimony of Applicant, and upon
due consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of fact: 
Applicant is 44 years old. She is unmarried and has no children. Applicant is
employed by a defense contractor, and she seeks a DoD security clearance in
connection with her employment in the defense sector.
The SOR lists 2 allegations (1.a. and 1.b.) regarding financial difficulties under
Adjudicative Guideline F.  Both allegations will be discussed below in the same order as
they were listed on the SOR:
1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $20,817.  In her
RSOR, Applicant admitted that there is a debt to the creditor listed on the SOR, but she
did not agree that the amount stated on the SOR was correct. At the hearing, Applicant
testified that she believed that amount owed on this debt for vehicle that was
repossessed was less than $5,000. She conceded that the creditor stated that the
amount owed is $12,590.69 (Exhibit E), but that her attorney is still arguing with the
creditor over the amount that is actually owed. (Tr at 30.)
Applicant testified that she had purchased a vehicle at the time when she had a
full-time job that was paying her $85,000 a year. However, after she learned that her
mother had cancer, she resigned from her job so that she could be a full-time caregiver
for her mother. She sold her condominium and lived off of the proceeds of that sale. (Tr
at 31-35.) She was unemployed for a period from August 2001 until April 2002.
Thereafter, when she went back to work, her income was significantly reduced (Tr at
77-78.) (Exhibit B.)
Applicant went on to explain that after communicating with the company that
gave her the auto loan that she was having problems with the payments, a
representative of the company sent her an alternative payment plan. After making
payments for nine months according to this new schedule, she was contacted by this
company and she was told that the representative, who made the offer, was not
authorized to do so. She continued making payments while attempting to contact the
company. After being late for two weeks in making one payment, the company
repossessed her vehicle.  She was told she would have to pay them $5,000, and then
she could begin making regular payments again. At that point she informed them that
they could keep the vehicle, and she would just pay whatever it took to resolve the debt.
3
She testified that the creditor never told her an amount to pay, despite her asking over a
two year period what it would take to resolve the debt. (Tr at 37-42.)
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,014. Applicant
testified that this debt was incurred from an apartment complex in which she lived from
September 2005, through December 2006. When she took in her niece, it was
necessary for her to move to a larger apartment. She told the manager of her apartment
that she needed a larger apartment, and since there was none available in that building,
she planned to move out. The manager told her it would be necessary to pay $632 for
carpet damage, but she would not have to pay the two months remaining on her lease.
After she moved out, she received a bill both for the carpet and the rental amount owed,
which Applicant has disputed. (Tr at 42-46.)
Applicant testified that in October 2007, she engaged the services of an attorney
to dispute and try to resolve these two debts. She testified that her attorney has also
had a great deal of difficulty getting these two creditors to respond to him to try to
resolve these debts. Exhibit E contains the last correspondence received from the
creditor to Applicant’s attorney, regarding the debt listed as 1.a., above, which was on
September 16, 2009. The attorney sent a follow up letter on September 25, 2009, but
according to Applicant no further letter from the creditor was ever received. The attorney
sent a letter to the creditor from 1.b. on November 5, 2007, (Exhibit 3 at 173), but has
never received a response from that creditor. Applicant testified that after she turned
these two debts over to her attorney, she has left it to him, and made no efforts herself
to contact these creditors.  (Tr at 47-48.) Applicant has filed a notice with the credit
reporting agencies, disputing each of these two debts. (Tr at 86-87.)
On cross examination, Applicant conceded that she has had problems with other
apartments, because after she has moved out she has been told there was an amount
still owing, although when she has moved out she always believed that she had paid
what was owed.  When she became aware that there was still an outstanding balance,
she has always paid off these other debts as soon as possible. (Tr at 58-59.)
Mitigation
Applicant testified that she is not overdue on any of her other debts. She
purchased another vehicle for $17,000, and she is current on the monthly payments of
$478 on that vehicle. She has not been late in paying her credit cards. (Tr at 50-51.)
She purchased a home in September 2008, and has made the payments of $2,300 a
month, since that time. She has not been late on any house payments. (Tr at 78-79.) 
Applicant prepared a Personal Financial Statement (Exhibit 3 at 162), which
shows that she has a net monthly remainder of approximately $380. She testified  that
she could make payments on these two debts, but she testified credibly that she wants
to make sure they will be resolved before she starts making payment to these creditors.
(Tr at 74.)
4
Applicant’s attorney submitted a letter on behalf of Applicant. (Exhibit G.) He
confirmed that he has been engaged by Applicant to contest these two debts. He stated
that Applicant “believes with good cause that the amounts claimed as owing and placed
in collections and appearing on her credit report are debts that are not actually owed by
her or are not properly accounted for.” It is his plan to continue negotiating to attempt to
satisfactorily resolve these debts.  
Finally, Applicant submitted two positive character letters in Exhibit G, from
individuals who know her in her current employment. She was described by a retired
United States Air Force Colonel as someone who is “responsible and trustworthy. I
would have absolutely no reservations in recommending her for a position of trust.”  The
Facility Security Officer of her current employer wrote that Applicant “has unquestioned
loyalty, integrity, trustworthiness and reliability.”
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 common sense decision. According to AG ¶
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. 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.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ 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
5
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 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. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19 (a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶ 19 (c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant accumulated two significant delinquent debts. 
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties: Under AG ¶  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.” As noted
above, Applicant testified that her financial problems resulted in part from the period
when she was unemployed due to the illness of her mother, and her reduced income
thereafter. Since then the only two debts that remain unresolved appear to be because
of legitimate and good-faith disputes that Applicant has with the creditors. By engaging
the service of an attorney to help resolve these debts, after she could not do it by
herself, I find that Applicant has acted responsibly. Therefore, I find that this mitigating
condition is a factor for consideration in this case. 
6
Applicant is current on all of her debts with the exception of two that she is
disputing. Therefore, I conclude that Applicant has mitigated the financial concerns of
the Government.
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. 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
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 facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on all of the reasons cited
above as to why the Mitigating Condition applies, together with the very strong
recommendations on her behalf, I find that the record evidence leaves me with no
significant questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security
clearance under the whole-person concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant
has  mitigated the security concerns. 
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.b.: For Applicant
7
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge