DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)  
---------------------------   )       ISCR Case No. 08-10092
SSN: ------------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Jim Green, Attorney At Law
June 23, 2010
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on June 23, 2008.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On January 8, 2010, 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 (DoD) for SORs
issued after September 1, 2006. 
The Applicant responded to the SOR on February 1, 2010, and he requested a
hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.  This case was assigned to the
undersigned on March 9, 2010.  A notice of hearing was issued on March 30, 2010,
scheduling the hearing for May 19, 2010.  The Government presented eight exhibits,
referred to Government Exhibits 1 to 9, which were admitted without objection.  The
2
Applicant presented twenty exhibits, referred to as Applicant’s Exhibits A through T,
which were admitted without objection.  The Applicant testified on his own behalf.  The
record remained open until June 2, 2010, to allow the Applicant the opportunity to
submit additional documentation.  The Applicant submitted five Post-Hearing Exhibits,
referred to as Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits 1 through 5, which were admitted
without objection.  The official transcript (Tr.) was received on June 3, 2010.  Based
upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to
classified information is granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact are based on the Applicant’s Answer to the SOR,
the testimony and the exhibits.  The Applicant is 33 years old, and has an Associates
Degree in Occupational Studies, and an Airframe and Powerplant certificate.  He is
employed by a defense contractor as an Aircraft Mechanic and is seeking to obtain a
security clearance in connection with his employment.  
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  After a complete and
thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same,
the following findings of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the
SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he is financially overextended
and at risk to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
The Applicant admits the allegations set forth under this guideline.  The
delinquent debts set forth in the SOR totaled in excess of $ 23,000.00.  (See Applicant’s
Answer to SOR.)  Credit Reports of the Applicant dated July 9, 2008; June 17, 2009;
October 3, 2009; February 25, 2010; and May 15, 2010, collectively reflected each of
the delinquent debts set forth in the SOR.  (Government Exhibits 5, 6, 7 ,8 and 9.)  
The Applicant served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from
March 1999 to June 2004.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit 2.)  He was married and
had a child in 2001.  In 2004, he was going through a separation and divorce from his
wife.  It was at this time that his financial problems began.  As a result of his divorce, he
was required to pay child support.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit 1.)  He was unable
to find suitable work.  He got a part time job, but only earned minimum wage and could
not make ends meet.  When he was able to obtain full time jobs, he still did not earn
enough to cover his bills.  During this time, he spend most of his money on child
support, which he has consistently paid.  (Applicant’s Exhibit J.)  
To improve his financial situation, he decided to go to college.  He attended
college from 2006 to 2008, obtained a degree, and took out student loans to accomplish
3
this.  Most of the debt set forth in the SOR, except his student loans, were delinquent
credit cards that were acquired during his marriage that only increased after he left the
military.  He became aware of the extent of the debt when he started working for his
current employer in 2008.  Since then, he has paid off each of the debts, except his
student loans.  His six student loans, totaling approximately $17,475.00 were in
deferment and are not delinquent.  The Applicant has been making the required monthly
payments since April 2009.  He is currently in the process of consolidating his student
loans and he plans on making the required monthly payment until the debt is paid in full.
(Applicant’s Exhibits H and I, and Post-Hearing Exhibits 3 and 4.)      
The Applicant was indebted to the following creditors: A debt to a creditor in the
amount of $872.00 has been paid.  (Applicant’s Exhibit B and Tr. p. 55 - 56.)  A debt to
a creditor in the amount of $54.00 has been paid.  (Applicant’s Exhibit E and Tr. p. 57.)
A debt to a creditor in the amount of $361.00 has been paid.  (Applicant’s Exhibit E and
Tr. p. 57.)  A debt to a creditor in the amount of $314.00 has been paid.  (Tr. p. 60.)  A
debt to a creditor in the amount of $3,492.00 has been paid.  (Applicant’s Exhibits D, F
and Tr. pp. 81-82.)  A debt to a creditor in the amount of $632.00 has been paid.
(Applicant’s Exhibit 3 and Tr. p. 85.)  A debt to a creditor in the amount of $278.00 has
been paid.  (Tr. p. 86.)    
The Applicant started working for his current employer in April 2008.  He is now
earning twice as much as he had previously.  (Applicant’s Exhibit G.)  His personal
financial statement that accurately reflects his current monthly budget indicates that
after paying his regular monthly expenses, he has approximately $791.00 left at the end
of the month.  (Applicant’s Exhibit A.)  He anticipates that his consolidated student loan
payment will be approximately $234.00 monthly.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits 3
and 4.)  He has sufficient monies left at the end of the month to comfortably make the
student loan payments.  He has a roommate and is sharing the living expenses.  He is
also able to save for retirement.    
Numerous letters of recommendation were submitted on behalf of the Applicant.
His manager, supervisors, co-workers, professional associates and friends attest to his
responsible nature, good judgment, and positive attitude.  He is extremely
knowledgeable and proficient as an aircraft technician.  He has received a special merit
pay increase of 13% after only eight months with the company, and has received three
special recognition awards during his employment for his outstanding workmanship,
dedication and positive attitude.  He is also described as a man of great integrity, and
intelligence. He is considered to be a vital asset to the team and highly recommended
for a position of trust.  (Applicant’s Exhibits K, L, M, N, O, P, R, S and T.)  
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
4
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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.  Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including
espionage.  Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a
security concern.  It may indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19(a)  inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;
19(c)  a history of not meeting financial obligations.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
20(b)  the condition 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 circumstance;
20(d)  the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19, in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;
b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
5
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and 
i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in 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.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, a security clearance is entrusted to civilian workers who
must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information twenty-four hours per
day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore appropriately concerned when
available information indicates that an Applicant for such access may be involved in
instances of financial irresponsibility which demonstrates poor judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The Applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  This evidence indicates poor
judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of
the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or
connection with his security clearance eligibility.
6
The Applicant’s excessive indebtedness was caused by a divorce and periods of
unemployment and/or under-employment beginning in 2004, when he left the military.
His difficulties in finding suitable employment prevented him from being able to pay his
bills.  Since April 2008, he has been working for his current employer, has earned
substantially more money, and has resolved all of his delinquent debts.  His student
loans are in the process of being consolidated and he plans to continue making the
required monthly payments to resolve them.  He is living frugally and responsibly.  He
understands the importance of paying his bills on time and living within his means.  He
is current with all of his monthly expenses, and demonstrates financial rehabilitation.
He has presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a track record of financial
responsibility.
There is sufficient evidence of financial rehabilitation at this time.  Under
Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19(a) inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts and 19(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
apply.  However, Mitigating Conditions 20(b) 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 circumstance and, 20(d) the individual initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts also apply.  The
Applicant has indeed made a good faith effort to repay his overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve his debts.  Accordingly, I find for the Applicant under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations).  
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth under all of the guidelines viewed as a whole, support a
whole-person assessment of good judgement, trustworthiness, reliability, candor, a
willingness to comply with rules and regulations, and other characteristics indicating that
the person may properly safeguard classified information.  
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has overcome the Government's
case opposing his request for a security clearance.  Accordingly, the evidence supports
a finding for the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in
Paragraph 1 of the Government's Statement of Reasons.       
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.a.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.b.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.c.: For the Applicant.
7
    Subpara.  1.d.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.e.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.f.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.g.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.h.: For the Applicant.
DECISION
In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interests to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge