1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 09-01561
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
April 28, 2010
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Questionnaire for National Security Positions (Standard
Form 86), on November 6, 2008. (Item 5.) On November 2, 2009, the Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
detailing the security concerns 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 adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant submitted an undated Answer to the SOR, and requested that a
decision be made without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant
Material (FORM) to Applicant on February 22, 2010. Applicant received the FORM on
March 2, 2010, and was given 30 days to submit any additional information. Applicant
submitted additional information on March 12, 2010. Department Counsel did not object
to my considering this information, and it is admitted into the record as Applicant Exhibit
2
A. The case was assigned to me on March 26, 2010. Based upon a review of the written
record, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 46, and married. He is employed by a defense contractor and seeks
to obtain a security clearance in connection with his employment. 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is
financially overextended and therefore at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds. Applicant admits all the factual allegations in the SOR. Those
admissions are hereby deemed findings of fact.
 1.a. Applicant admitted that he was indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of $338. He submitted documentary evidence from the creditor stating that this
account was settled in November 2009. (Item 4 at 2-3.)
1.b. Applicant admitted that he owed $3,450 for a past due account. He
submitted evidence showing that he has a payment arrangement with this creditor, and
that he has been making consistent monthly payments to the creditor in fulfilment of that
arrangement. This debt has been reduced to $2,100. (Item 4 at 4-5; Applicant Exhibit A
at 2.)
1.c. Applicant admitted that he was indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of $268. He submitted documentary evidence from the creditor stating that this
account was settled in September 2009. (Item 4 at 6-7.)
1.d. Applicant admitted that he was indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of $962. He submitted evidence showing that he has a payment arrangement
with this creditor, and that he has been making consistent monthly payments to the
creditor in fulfilment of that arrangement. Applicant states in Applicant Exhibit A that this
item has now been paid in full. (Item 4 at 8-9.)
1.e. Applicant admitted that he was indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of $298. He submitted documentary evidence from the creditor stating that this
account was settled in June 2009. (Item 4 at 10-11.)
1.f. Applicant admitted that he was indebted to a collection agency in the
amount of $275. He submitted documentary evidence stating that this account was
settled in November 2009. (Item 4 at 12-13.)
1.g. Applicant admitted that he was indebted to a home builder for a deficiency
balance on a foreclosed mortgage account in the amount of $20,3100. This company
was the defendant in a class action lawsuit concerning its actions with regards to people
3
like the Applicant. Applicant is a Class Member. The “Final Order & Judgement
Approving Settlement, Certifying Settlement Class, and Dismissing Action” states, in
part:
12. Defendant [home builder] shall (a) forego all collection efforts and
waive its right to collect from and sue Class Members for deficiency
balances on the Accounts, and refrain from assigning, selling, transferring,
or otherwise attempting to collect from Class Members for the deficiency
balances, (b) request the Credit Reporting Agencies to delete the trade
line associated with the Account of each Class Member for whom
sufficient identifying information is contained in Defendant’s readily
searchable computer media, to the extent such trade line is present, and
cease all credit reporting on the Accounts of Class Members to the Credit
Reporting Agencies. (Item 9 at 4-5.)
This debt has been resolved by this law suit. (Item 4 at 14-22, Item 6 at 6-7, and
Item 9.) (See Footnote 8 in FORM.)
Mitigation
Applicant’s current financial situation is stable. His financial difficulties arose
primarily because of unemployment issues. (Item 6 at 4-7.) In his response to Financial
Interrogatories, he submitted documentary evidence that he had resolved several
additional debts beyond those listed in the SOR. (Item 6 at 12-17, 23, and 26.) He also
submits that he is “attending free counseling [sic] and debt management education”
classes. (Applicant Exhibit A at 2.) 
Applicant submitted letters of recommendation from his current supervisor, and a
past supervisor. Both state that he has kept his employer fully informed about his
financial situation, that he is an asset to the employer, and recommend that he receive a
security clearance. (Applicant Exhibit A at 4-5.)
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  When evaluating an
applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider
the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each
guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions, which are to be used as appropriate 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 commonsense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
4
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.  In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on his own
common sense, as well as his knowledge of the law, human nature and the ways of the
world, in making a reasoned 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
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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of 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.” 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
5
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. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant, by his own admission, had over $25,000 in past due
debts, all of which have been due and owing for several years. The evidence is
sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ In addition, AG
¶ 20(b) states that the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated 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 stated above, Applicant=s financial difficulties arose primarily because of
unemployment issues. He documented serious and long-standing attempts to resolve
his past due debts. The record shows that he has paid all but one of his legitimate
debts, and that the remaining debt is not being collected by the creditor due to a law
suit. At all times he has acted responsibly. These two mitigating conditions apply.
Applicant has initiated a good-faith effort to pay off his creditors. As stated above,
all but one have been paid. Indeed, he paid several debts before issuance of the SOR.
Accordingly, AG ¶ 20(d) is applicable.  
 Applicant’s current financial situation is stable. He is able to pay his current
indebtedness in a timely manner. I find that “there are clear indications that the problem
is being resolved or is under control,” as required by AG ¶ 20(c).
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 relevant circumstances. 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. 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
6
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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant had some
financial problems, but his current financial condition is stable. Under AG ¶ 2(a)(2), I
have considered the facts of the Applicant’s debt history. He has worked hard over the
past year to resolve all of his indebtedness. Based on the record, I find that there have
been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I find that there is
little to no potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); and
that there is no likelihood of recurrence (AG ¶ 2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with no questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
situation.
On balance, I conclude that Applicant has successfully overcome the
Government's case opposing his request for a security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports granting his request for a security clearance.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.g.: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.  Eligibility
for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge