1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-05945
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 6, 2010
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing on
November 13, 2007. (Government Exhibit 1.) On March 2, 2009, the Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the
security concerns under Guideline F. 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 answered the SOR in writing on May 6, 2009, and requested a hearing
before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on June
29, 2009. This case was assigned to me on July 1, 2009. DOHA issued a notice of
hearing on July 14, 2009. I convened the hearing as scheduled on September 10, 2009.
The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 9, which were received without
objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf, and submitted Applicant Exhibits A
2
through H, which were also received without objection. Applicant asked that the record
remain open for the receipt of additional documents. The Applicant submitted Applicant
Exhibit I on October 8, 2009, and it was admitted without objection. DOHA received the
corrected copy of the transcript of the hearing on October 5, 2009. The record closed on
October 8, 2009. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 52 and divorced. He is employed by a defense contractor and seeks
to retain 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 the factual allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a., 1.b., 1.c., 1.f.,
1.g., and 1.h. Those admissions are hereby deemed findings of fact. He denies the
remaining subparagraphs in the SOR.
Applicant testified that the majority of his financial problems occurred in
connection with the divorce from his ex-wife, which occurred in 2004. This was followed
by a period of unemployment and underemployment. Specifically, in August 2006 the
company the Applicant used to work for lost a Government contract and he lost his job.
After a year, he was able to obtain employment with a different Government contractor.
(Government Exhibit 1; Transcript at 51-62.) 
Applicant received financial counselling through the military in early 2008.
(Applicant Exhibit A.) He began working with a bankruptcy law firm starting in July 2008.
He retained the firm, and they filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy on April 30, 2009. Through
no fault of the Applicant, he did not receive a Discharge in bankruptcy until September
23, 2009. (Government Exhibit 3 at 5-13; Applicant Exhibits D, I at 3, 5-14; Transcript at
65-68.) As part of the bankruptcy process, the Applicant successfully completed two
financial counselling courses.
The following debts were included in the Applicant’s Chapter 7 filing: ¶¶ 1.a., 1.b.,
1.e., 1.f., 1.g., 1.h., 1.i., 1.j., 1.l., 1.n., 1.o., 1.p., and 1.q. Applicant received a discharge
for all of these debts. (Government Exhibits 7, 9; Applicant Exhibit I at 3, 5-14.)
The current status concerning the other debts in the SOR is as follows:
1.c. Applicant admitted that he owed $5,963 for a past due credit card account.
He has paid this debt. A credit report dated July 25, 2008, confirms this debt was paid
and is resolved. (Applicant Exhibit C at 4; Transcript at 41.)
3
1.d. and 1.k. Applicant denied that he owed $114 and $426 for two debts to
different mobile phone companies. Applicant stated that most of the mobile phone bills
were incurred by his ex-wife without his permission. He filed disputes concerning these
debts with the credit agencies, or placed the debts in his bankruptcy. (Transcript at 42-
44.) Several of the debts included in the Applicant’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy concern
these particular mobile telephone companies. These particular debts appear in a credit
report from November 2007. (Government Exhibit 2.) They do not appear after that.
Under the particular circumstances of this case, I find that these debts have been
resolved either by dispute, or by being included in the Applicant’s bankruptcy.
1.m. Applicant denied that he owed $139 for a debt to a mobile phone
company. This is Applicant’s telephone, and he submitted his most recent mobile phone
bill to show that he is current on that account. (Applicant Exhibit I at 15-16; Transcript at
48-49.)
Mitigation
Applicant’s current financial situation is stable. His most recent credit report does
not show any past due indebtedness. (Government Exhibit 9; Transcript at 69-73.)
Applicant retired after a successful military career. (Applicant Exhibit E.)  He
submitted his most recent employee evaluation. His overall rating was “Outstanding/Far
Exceeds Expectations.” (Applicant Exhibit G.) Finally, Applicant submitted letters of
recommendation from two work supervisors. They describe the Applicant as
“conscientious and honest,” and “dedicated, and committed.” (Applicant Exhibit F.)
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. 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 overarching
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
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.
4
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 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. 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
5
security concerns. Applicant, by his own admission, and supported by the documentary
evidence, had substantial past-due debts. 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.”
Applicant=s financial difficulties arose primarily because of a contentious divorce,
combined with a bout of underemployment and unemployment. He documented serious
and long-standing attempts to resolve his past due debts. The record shows that he has
discharged the vast majority of his past due debts in bankruptcy, as well as paying other
debts, and disputing those that were not his. At all times he has acted responsibly.
These two mitigating conditions apply.
Applicant received financial counselling through the military family support
system. His advisor recommended a bankruptcy. He retained a law firm, which filed a
Chapter 7 for him after confirming he met the means test. His debts were properly
discharged. Accordingly, since he has resolved his debts, 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
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.      
6
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. As stated at length above,
much of this was brought about because of a divorce, and a period of unemployment
and underemployment. 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.q.: 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