1
 
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-06990
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant signed a security clearance application on June 25, 2009. On March 3,
2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising 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). 
In a response dated March 16, 2010, Applicant denied all four allegations raised
under Guideline F and requested an administrative determination. On March 29, 2010,
Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), which included nine
attached items. Applicant received the FORM on April 6, 2010, and timely responded
with additional information in an undated package received by DOHA on May 3, 2010.
The case was assigned to me on May 19, 2010. Based on a review of the case file,
 See SOR Response, dated Mar. 16, 2010, and Response to FORM, received on Apr. 6, 2010.      1
 SOR Response, dated Mar. 16, 2010.      2
 Id.      3
 Id.      4
2
submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant failed to meet his burden regarding the
security concerns raised. Security clearance denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 29-year-old system engineer who has worked for his present
employer, a government contractor, since December 2006. Before his present
employment, he worked as an engineer/scientist from February 2004 through
December 2006 for a different company. Applicant earned a bachelor’s degree in 2002
and a master’s degree in 2008. He is single and has no children. In requesting an
administrative determination, Applicant offered scant facts regarding his personal life,
family, and his financial situation. 
After submitting his security clearance application, investigators reviewed
Applicant’s credit report. Four derogatory account entries were noted. These accounts
ultimately formed the basis for SOR allegations ¶ 1.a (approximately $22,473), ¶ 1.b
(approximately $12,306), ¶ 1.c (approximately $11,760) and ¶ 1.d (approximately
$13,596). In sum, about $60,000 in delinquent debt is alleged.
With regard to SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.a-1.c, Applicant denied responsibility for the
debts at issue.  Rather, he stated that the debts are “tied” to his parents’ financial1
difficulties and “occurred approximately four years ago.”  Noting that his parents were2
not previously employed on a steady basis, and stressing that they were supporting his
brother at the time, Applicant stated that the credit cards at issue were applied for on
their behalf. His parents were to pay for any debts acquired on those credit cards.
Applicant’s parents, however, filed for bankruptcy and informed Applicant they could not
pay the credit card balances they had accrued. In the absence of reimbursement from
his parents, Applicant left the balances on his credit cards unpaid. He stated “base [sic]
on the situation, I don’t believe I am accountable for this debt and [the accounts] remain
unpaid.”  Applicant introduced no evidence suggesting he was relieved from3
responsibility for the debts accumulated on the credit cards noted in SOR allegations ¶¶
1.a-1.c.
Regarding SOR allegation ¶ 1.d, Applicant initially denied the allegation raised.
In his March 16, 2010, response to the SOR, he stated: “I’ve initiated a good-faith effort
[to] otherwise resolve this dispute. The matter is pending civil trial . . . . At the
completion of the trial I will adhere to the courts [sic] decision and resolve this matter
legally.”  In his response to the FORM, received on April 6, 2010, Applicant noted that4
 Applicant only noted in his response to the SOR that the debt set forth at SOR allegation ¶ 1.d “is not even      5
in my credit records and is being disputed....” No information was provided to identify which credit records are
referenced or what the dispute was.
 Response to the FORM, received on Apr. 6, 2010, at 4.      6
 Id.      7
 Any response to the FORM was due by May 6, 2010. No evidence of payment was submitted.       8
 SOR Response, dated Mar. 16, 2010.      9
3
he had “resolved the dispute” with the creditor at issue.  As evidence, he submitted a5
“stipulation without judgment” from litigation in which the creditor is the plaintiff and
Applicant is the defendant.  The signed stipulation states that Applicant “admits nothing”
and “has agreed to pay the amount of $4,000 with interest to accrue at the rate of
0.00%, in order to avoid the cost and risks of trial.” It further states that Applicant “shall
make one payment in the amount of $4,000 on or before May 13, 2010, to settle the
account in full.”  According to the stipulation, if Applicant fails to make the payment, the6
plaintiff/creditor “may move the court to enter judgment ex parte in the amount of
$4,000.”  No evidence of actual payment, however, was submitted.7 8
Applicant stresses that he lives within his means, has no financial difficulties, and
has no substance or gambling habits that would affect his finances. He currently has
$49,000 in personal savings, including stock assets. He has retirement accounts
totaling approximately $100,000. His current income is about $84,000 per year. He
further notes that his ability to save the sums of money he has saved in the past six
years is attributable to his ability to live within his means. He concludes by stating that in
his latest credit report “all [his] recent debts are in good standing [sic] never missing any
payment.”9
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. 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
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      10
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      11
 See also EO 12968, § 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      12
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      13
 Id.      14
4
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 by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is10
something less than a preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion
is on the applicant.  11
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 security12
clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any13
reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive
information must be resolved in favor of protecting such information.  A security14
clearance denial does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
In this case, Guideline F is the appropriate guideline for consideration. Under
that guideline, “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
 AG ¶ 18.      15
 Id.      16
 There is insufficient information regarding the debt noted at ¶ 1.d to determine whether this mitigating      17
condition applies to that allegation.
5
reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.”  It also states15
that “an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal
acts to generate funds.”  Here, Applicant denies responsibility for the four debts16
alleged. Although he admits that three of the debts were acquired by his parents in an
arrangement under which they were to repay him for any debts incurred, he provided no
evidence indicating he was relieved of his responsibility for the credit card balances
reflected on his credit report due to his parents’ bankruptcy. Those balances are now at
least four years old and remain unpaid. There is no evidence that Applicant has
conveyed his interpretation of the situation to the creditors or the credit reporting
bureaus. Moreover, Applicant stated he disputes the fourth account balance at issue,
but failed to clearly identify the basis for that dispute. While he provided evidence of a
stipulation extending an offer to settle the matter for $4,000, there is no evidence that
this sum was timely paid. Consequently, this fourth alleged debt remains unresolved.
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 him and mitigate security concerns. 
Applicant’s delinquent debts remain delinquent, thus representing a continuing
course of conduct. He failed to show this his delinquencies arose under such conditions
that they are unlikely to recur. This is particularly true given the fact Applicant failed to
discuss whether he is continuing to provide his parents, or would provide them in the
future, any similar form of financial aid or access to his credit, and that there is no
evidence his parents are now financially stable. Moreover, Applicant failed to explain
why his parents’ bankruptcy should relieve him of all responsibility for charges they
made on credit cards he provided them to help them during their period of financial
difficulty.  Consequently,  Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶17
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)
There is no evidence or suggestion that Applicant’s parents induced him to offer
them credit cards for their use through fraudulent means. The scant facts presented
indicate that Applicant freely provided them with credit cards for their use. He did so in
full knowledge that his parents were facing financial difficulty. Given his parents’
financial difficulty and their ultimate move toward bankruptcy protection, it was
foreseeable that his parents might not be able to reimburse Applicant for the debts they
incurred on his credit cards. Therefore, despite Applicant’s demonstration of generosity
to his parents, he remains responsible for the now delinquent balances on those credit
cards. Such facts do not raise Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20(b)
 Id.      18
6
(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) applies.18
Applicant provided no evidence that he has received financial counseling,
obviating application of 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).
The facts reveal no attempts by Applicant to correspond or negotiate with the
creditors noted in SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.a-1.c. With regard to the debt noted at SOR
allegation ¶ 1.d (approximately $13,596), Applicant stated that he disputed the debt,
although the basis for his dispute is unclear. He also provided a stipulation related to a
civil action brought by the creditor against him in which he does not admit liability, but
agreed to pay $4,000 “in order to avoid the cost and risks of trial.” Although he failed to
provide evidence that this sum has been timely paid, his offer to settle the matter is
sufficient to partially raise FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort
to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) with regard to SOR allegation ¶
1.d.
In declining a hearing and relying on the written record, Applicant limited his
ability to address the debts and issues raised in the SOR. The burden for such
mitigation in these proceedings is placed squarely on Applicant. Lacking evidence of
any effort to resolve the allegations set forth in SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.a-1.c, amounting
to over $46,000, he failed to mitigate financial considerations security concerns. 
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. 
7
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. 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 and well-educated man who has accrued significant
savings in approximately six years working in his chosen field. He demonstrated
gracious generosity in trying to assist his parents when they faced financial difficulties in
the mid 2000s. Although there is no indication he has received financial counseling, it
appears he is thrifty and generally lives within his means. 
What is troubling in this matter is two-fold. First, Applicant knowingly neglected
the three delinquent accounts at issue in SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.a-1.c. Second, with
regard to those credit cards he gave to his parents to ease their financial distress, he
somehow feels absolved of any responsibility for the debts they accumulated on his
credit cards. Applicant failed to provide any evidence or explanation as to how such
fiscal absolution on his credit cards was extended to him simply by virtue of his parents’
bankruptcy. While the gesture was noble, the facts provide no basis to conclude
anything except that the underlying liability for their debt remains squarely on Applicant.
With those debts yet unaddressed, and with no evidence that his settlement on the
fourth debt has been satisfied, financial considerations security concerns remain
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.d Against 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