1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09-01780
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 12, 2010
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
The Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP), on December 1, 2008.  On August 27, 2009, the Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the
security concerns under Guideline F for the 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. 
The Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on September 9, 2009.  She
answered the SOR in writing on September 28, 2009, and requested a hearing before
an Administrative Judge.  DOHA received the request on December 1, 2009, and I
received the case assignment that same day.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing on
December 7, 2009, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on January 28, 2010.
AppX 9, “Copy of my TransUnion Credit Report” was cited by the Applicant, but the document was not included in1
her packet.  As such, it was not admitted into evidence.
2
The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 6, which were received without
objection.  The Applicant testified on her own behalf.  DOHA received the transcript of
the hearing (TR) on February 4, 2010.  I granted the Applicant’s request to keep the
record open until March 1, 2010, to submit additional matters.  On March 1, 2010, she
submitted Exhibits (AppXs) 1 through 8 and 10 , with some objection by Department1
Counsel.  AppX 1 had ten “Letters of character / recommendation”; and not “thirteen,”
as averred to by the Applicant.  They were otherwise admitted, as represented by the
Applicant.  The record closed on March 1, 2010.  Based upon a review of the case file,
pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is
granted.
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, the Applicant admitted all of the factual allegations in
of the SOR, except for Subparagraph 1.g., with explanations.  She also provided
additional information to support her request for eligibility for a security clearance.
Financial Considerations
The Applicant’s mother passed away in 1997.  (TR at page 25 lines 6~22, and
AppX 4.)  The Applicant and her husband “had to help with funeral costs ‘cause she
didn’t have life insurance.”  (Id.)  In 2002, her “father-in-law passed away,” which
caused a further financial burden.  (TR at page 25 lines 6~22, and AppX 4.)  Also, in
2002, her husband also retired from the Navy, and was unemployed for “three to four
months,” which caused them further financial difficulties.  (TR at page 26 lines 7~14,
and AppX 4.)
1.a.  The Applicant filed for the protection of a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in October
of 1999, and complied with its payment provisions.  (TR at page 29 lines 12~25, and GX
3.)  As a result, in December of 2002, her Bankruptcy was successfully discharged, as
evidenced by the Trustee’s Interim Final Report.  (AppX 4.)
1.b.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor B in the amount of
about $123.  (GX 4 at page 9.)  The Applicant admits this debt, and since January of
2010 has been paying $20 each month towards this delinquency, as evidenced by
correspondence to the creditor and by two cancelled checks drawn to the creditor.  (TR
at page 32 line 17 to page 33 line 17, AppX 5 at page 1, and AppX 6 at pages 5 and 9.)
1.c.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor C in the amount of
about $100.  (GX 6 at page 2.)  The Applicant admits this debt, and has initiated a
monthly payment of $20 towards this delinquency, as evidenced by correspondence to
the creditor and by a cancelled check drawn to the creditor.  (TR at page 33 line 18 to
page 35 line 5, AppX 5 at page 2, and AppX 6 at page 10.)
3
1.d.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor D in the amount of
about $76.  (GX 4 at page 4.)  The Applicant admits this debt, and since January has
been paying $20 each month towards this delinquency, as evidenced by
correspondence to the creditor and by two cancelled checks drawn to the creditor.  (TR
at page 35 line 15 to page 39 line 8, AppX 5 at page 3, and AppX 6 at pages 3 and 4.)
1.e.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor E in the amount of
about $100.  (GX 6 at page 2.)  The Applicant admits this debt, and since January has
been paying $20 each month towards this delinquency, as evidenced by
correspondence to the creditor and by two cancelled checks drawn to the creditor.  (TR
at page 39 line 9 to page 40 line 4, AppX 5 at page 4, and AppX 6 at pages 7 and 9.)
1.f.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor F in the amount of
about $377.  (GX 6 at page 2.)  The Applicant admits this debt, and since January has
been paying $20 each month towards this delinquency, as evidenced by
correspondence to the creditor and by two cancelled checks drawn to the creditor.  (TR
at page 40 line 16 to page 41 line 20, AppX 5 at page 5, and AppX 6 at pages 6 and 9.)
1.g.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor G in the amount of
about $1,710.  (GX 5 at page 2.)  The Applicant initially denied this debt as having been
charged off; and as such, no longer appeared as a delinquency on her credit report.
(TR at page 41 line 21 to page 43 line 24.)  However, at her hearing she admitted this
charged off debt, and has vowed to exercise due diligence in addressing the debt.  (Id.)
Her diligence and good character is attested to by her family, friends, and those who
know her in the work place.  (AppX 1.)
1.h.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor H in the amount of
about $813.  (GX 6 at page 2.)  The Applicant admits this debt, and since January has
been paying $40 each month towards this delinquency, as evidenced by
correspondence to the creditor and by two cancelled checks drawn to the creditor.  (TR
at page 43 line 25 to page 46 line 2, AppX 5 at page 7, and AppX 6 at pages 8 and 10.)
1.i.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor I in the amount of about
$4,998.  (GX 5 at page 2.)  The Applicant admits this debt, and since January has been
paying $50 each month towards this delinquency, as evidenced by correspondence to
the creditor and by three cancelled checks drawn to the creditor.  (TR at page 46 line 3
to page 47 line 15, AppX 5 at page 6, and AppX 6 at pages 1,2 and 10.)
1.j. and 1.k.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor J in the amount
of about $22,703, for college loans for her daughter.  (GX 5 at page 2.)  The Applicant
admits these debt, and these loans have been “In Forbearance” from “2/21/2007 to
8/21/2010,” as evidenced by documentation from the creditor.  (AppX 8.)
4
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 commonsense decision.  According to
Paragraph 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.
Paragraph 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 Paragraph E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR.  Under Directive Paragraph 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.  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).
5
Analysis
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in Paragraph 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
Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially
disqualifying.  Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations@ may raise security concerns.  The Applicant owes about $8,297 in past due
indebtedness.
These are countered by the Mitigating Conditions found in Subparagraphs 20(b)
and 20 (d).  Under Subparagraph 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 . . . or a death), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances.@  Furthermore, Subparagraph 20(d) applies where the evidence shows
“the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts.@ The loss of the Applicant’s mother in 1997, her father-in-law in 2002,
and her husband’s unemployment in 2002, caused her financial difficulties.  Given these
circumstances, I find that she has acted responsibly.  She has now addressed all but
one of her past due debts through monthly payments, and vows due diligence in
addressing the $1,700 charged off debt.
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.  Under Paragraph 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.  Here, she has the unqualified support of her family, friends and colleagues,
who attest to her due diligence and good character.  (AppX 1.)
6
The Administrative Judge should also 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.
I considered all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and
mitigating conditions surrounding this case.  Overall, the record evidence leaves me
without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security
clearance.  For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns
arising from her financial considerations.
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
Subparagraph 1.a.~1.k: For Applicant
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.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge