1
 
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-07844
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah A. Minster, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant signed a security clearance application (e-QIP) on July 8, 2009. On
February 1, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). 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 current Adjudicative Guidelines (AG). 
In a response notarized on February 9, 2010, Applicant admitted six of the 12
allegations raised under Guideline F and denied the sole allegation raised under
Guideline E. She also requested the matter be decided on the written record in lieu of a
hearing. On March 11, 2010, Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material
(FORM), which included nine attached items. Applicant received the FORM on March
18, 2010, and responded with a letter dated March 31, 2010. The case was assigned to
me on April 14, 2010. Based on a review of the case file, submissions, and exhibits, I
 FORM, Item 6 (Interrogatory, Personal Declaration, Aug. 12, 2009) at 7.      1
 Response to the FORM, dated Mar. 31, 2010.      2
 FORM, Item 4 (Response to the SOR, notarized Feb. 9, 2010).      3
 Id. See also Response to the FORM, dated Mar. 31, 2010.      4
 FORM, Item 6, supra, note 1, at 7. See also Response to the FORM, dated Mar. 31, 2010.      5
 FORM, Item 6, supra, note 1, at 7.       6
 Id.      7
2
find Applicant failed to meet her burden regarding the security concerns raised. Security
clearance denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 51-year-old administrative specialist. She has worked for the same
defense contractor for over five years. In choosing an administrative determination, she
provided scant information regarding her personal life or financial situation. 
Applicant is a high school graduate. She was married in 1980 and had two
children, both of whom are now grown. In 1982, she started work as a self-employed
day care provider. In 1999, she divorced and cared for her children as a single mother
“with little support.”  She remarried later that year. The couple divorced in 2000 after1
she realized her new husband had financial issues.  In 2003, she left day care for a2
managerial position, which she kept until she began her current employment. 
When Applicant submitted her e-QIP in July 2009, she did so without first
consulting her credit report.  At the time, she was unaware of its contents.  She was3 4
also unaware of any adverse judgments or delinquent debts. Therefore, she denied
having any adverse judgments or having had any debts delinquent for over 180 days
within the preceding seven years. She similarly denied being 90 days delinquent on any
current debts. 
On August 12, 2009, Applicant was interviewed about issues regarding her
finances. Specifically, she was asked about collection accounts and a judgment
reflected on her credit reports. She was “unaware” of the delinquent accounts and did
“not recall any information” about the several derogatory entries noted, although she
commented that they may have originated during her first marriage.  She recalled5
incurring a debt related to a van that was voluntarily repossessed in 2004, on which she
had ceased making payments.  During the interview, Applicant stated that she “liked to6
spend money,” attributed the debts at issue as arising because of non-specified
“event’s beyond [her] control,” stated that her financial situation was otherwise “good,”
and noted that “no one would question [her] ability to live within [her] means.”  She also7
 Id.      8
 Id.      9
 Response to the FORM, dated Mar. 31, 2010.      10
 Id.      11
3
stated that it was her intention to “stay on time” with her bills.  In addition, she8
mentioned that she had not received financial counseling or pursued debt
consolidation.  As her final comment on the issue, Applicant stated, “[m]y financial9
predicament is under control, my current debts satisfied.”10
In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted debts noted in the SOR under
allegations ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, and 1.i. These debts range from about $46 to
approximately $8,111. In sum, they represent over $11,900 in delinquent debt. She
submitted no evidence of attempts to address these debts. In addition, she denied
knowledge of the debts noted in allegations ¶¶ 1.c, 1.d, 1.h, 1.j, 1.k, and 1.l,
representing about $2,022 in delinquent debt. There is no evidence she has formally
disputed these alleged debts or otherwise attempted to address them. Applicant now 
attributes her debts to “financial difficulties incurred in the past (7 years ago). . . while
[she] was employed as a day care provider. . . .”11
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations
for each guideline, the AG 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
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      12
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      13
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      14
 Id.      15
 AG ¶ 18.      16
 Id.      17
4
by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something12
less than a preponderance of evidence. The burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  13
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 security clearance
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt14
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 not15
necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is merely an indication that the
applicant has not met the strict guidelines established for issuing a security clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Under Guideline F, “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.”  It16
also states that “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 nearly17
$12,000 in delinquent debt. The evidence indicates that her debt could be closer to
$14,000. 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 her and mitigate security concerns.  
 AG ¶ 15.      18
 Id.      19
5
Applicant depicted herself as a single mother receiving “little support” who liked
to “spend money.” The varying income often associated with day care providers may
have affected her ability to earn sufficient funds to cover her expenses, thus leading to
the creation of her debt. She failed, however, to provide a satisfactory explanation as to
how these debts first became delinquent, then neglected, or why they continue to be
neglected. 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) does not
apply.
Applicant stated that she is in good standing with her present obligations. Since
learning of the delinquent debts when she met with investigators in August 2009,
however, she has made no apparent effort to address any of the obligations at issue.
This includes one admitted debt as minor as $46. Furthermore, she demonstrated no
attempts to dispute or otherwise investigate the debts she does not recognize.
Moreover, Applicant has not received financial counseling or sought any professional
assistance in helping her address these issues. Consequently, 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. Financial considerations
security concerns remain unmitigated. 
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
Under Guideline E, security concerns arise because “conduct involving
questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with
rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information.“  In addition, “any failure to18
provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process” is of special interest.  Here,19
personal conduct concerns were raised when Applicant denied having been subject to
any adverse judgments or having had any debts delinquent for over 180 days in the
seven years preceding her execution of her e-QIP. Similar concerns arose when she
denied currently being 90 days delinquent on any debts. Such allegations, if
substantiated, are sufficient to raise Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition AG ¶
16(a) (deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any
personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to
conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status,
6
determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary
responsibilities). Consequently, the burden shifts to Applicant to mitigate the resultant
security concerns raised by the allegations.
Under the facts presented, there is no evidence that Applicant intended to
conceal or mislead when she denied having any applicable debts. Indeed, her
comments during her August 2009 interview indicate that Applicant, at the time, thought
her financial situation was “good.” Absent actual evidence that she intentionally falsified
her answer to e-QIP questions regarding her finances, and in light of both her
comments and the scant evidence of record, application of AG ¶ 16(a) does not apply.
Under these circumstances, however, I find that application of AG ¶ 17(c) (the offense
is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it
happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) is sufficient to
mitigate the personal conduct security concerns alleged.
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
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 AG 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 woman who completed high school, was a self-employed
day care provider for many years, and has worked as an employee in a professional
setting for at least seven years. Twice divorced, she has raised two children. Some of
her debt appears to have originally been acquired because of insufficient spousal aid
and fluctuating income as a day care provider, a career she sustained until about seven
years ago. Some of her debt also seems to have been created because she “liked to
spend money.” The issue is not so much her acquisition of debt, but the neglect of that
debt over the past several years.
7
Applicant was first informed of the derogatory accounts at issue after she
completed her e-QIP. She learned of these debts in early August 2009, over eight
months ago. She presented no evidence that any effort has been exerted to address
her admitted debts or to dispute those debts she denies. While she adequately
mitigated personal conduct security concerns, her failure to provide explanations and
evidence regarding both her debts and her overall financial situation leave financial
considerations security concerns 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.l Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a For 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