The Government submitted nine items in support of its case.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-08533
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen, A. Administrative Judge:
On March 9, 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), effective for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
On March 22, 2010 in a notarized response, Applicant requested an
administrative determination. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material
(FORM), dated April 15, 2010.  Applicant received the FORM on April 21, 2010. On July1
16, 2010, the Director, DOHA, forwarded the case for assignment to an administrative
judge. The case was assigned to me on the same day. Based on a review of the case
2
file, submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant failed to meet her burden to mitigate the
security concern raised. Security clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 40-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She graduated from
college in May 2002. She is divorced, and has two children from her marriage.
Applicant held a security clearance from 1991 through 1998 while employed with the Air
Force. (Item 1) She has worked for her current employer since October 2009. (Item 5)
Applicant explained that her financial problems began in May 2008 when her
husband suffered a “mental breakdown.” He abandoned the family and he quit his job.
Applicant was not working at the time. She relocated to her family home in another
state and sought full-time employment. She was unemployed for approximately ten
months. (Item 1)
The Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleged eleven delinquent debts for unpaid
credit card accounts totaling $41,871. In addition, Applicant reported a defaulted home
mortgage loan that was past-due in the amount of $162,000. (Item 1) Applicant
admitted the allegations in SOR ¶ 1.a through k. 
Applicant denied having “poor self-control.” In 2008, her husband abandoned her
and her two children. He was later institutionalized for mental health issues. (Item 4)
She finally obtained a divorce on January 26, 2010. She incurred additional expenses
to pay for the divorce. She is now in the process of filing bankruptcy. Her financial
problems are directly related to her ex-husband. (Item 5) Applicant receives sporadic,
limited financial support from her former spouse. She claims that bankruptcy is her only
option because she has been unsuccessful in selling her home. (Item 4) Applicant
hopes that a short sale will occur soon. She fully intends to pay her delinquent debts.
Applicant submitted documentation in response to the FORM to include her July
23, 2010, Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Petition filed by her attorney. In addition, she
completed the required financial counseling on April 7, 2010. On May 25, 2010, she
completed a personal financial management course via the internet. She paid the filing
fees and the attorney fee. Applicant stressed that now that she is divorced, she will be
liable only for her bills, which she is able to pay.
The household’s income, which included her husband’s income was more than
$200,000. As a result of the marital settlement agreement and divorce, Applicant
expects to receive child support in the amount of $1,500 a month. She was candid in
relating that she is not sure if she will in fact receive the child support from her ex-
husband. (Item 7) Applicant’s current net monthly income is $3,394. After expenses,
she has a negative net remainder of approximately $200. 
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
3
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 overarching 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 by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is2
something less than a preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion3
is on the applicant.  4
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 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
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
4
applicant concerned.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a7
security clearance 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
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG ¶ 18:
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.” It also states that “an individual who
is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in
illegal acts to generate funds. 
Applicant has approximately $41,000 in delinquent credit card debt. In addition,
she has defaulted on a home loan and is past-due in the amount of $162,000. She filed
a petition for bankruptcy in July 2010. Consequently Financial Considerations Mitigating
Condition (FCMC) 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) does not
apply.
FC MC 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) applies in part. As noted, Applicant’s
sudden separation and divorce impacted her family finances. She received limited
financial support from her husband. She supported her children. Applicant was
unemployed for ten months. She did not pay any of her delinquent debts due to her lack
of income. However, she filed for bankruptcy in July 2010, but the debts have not been
discharged. While filing bankruptcy is a legal remedy that released Applicant from the
5
requirement to pay the majority of her debt, insufficient time has passed for her to
demonstrate the necessary qualities of sound judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.
Even so, while a discharge in bankruptcy is intended to provide a person with a
fresh start financially, it does not immunize an applicant’s history of financial problems
from being considered for its security significance. See, e.g., DISCR Case No. 87-1800
(February 14, 1989) at p. 3 n.2 (“Although bankruptcy may be a legal and legitimate
way for an applicant to handle his financial problems, the Examiner must consider the
possible security implications of the history of financial debts and problems that led to
the filing of the bankruptcy.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) applies in part. Applicant filed for Chapter 7
bankruptcy in July 2010. This is a legal means of resolving debts. Applicant believes
that her debts will be split due to her recent marital settlement and divorce decree.
However, she does not believe that she will receive child support. Applicant has been
steadily employed since October 2009 and expects that now that she is divorced and
has filed for bankruptcy, she has resolved her debts. However, the debts have not been
discharged due to the recent filing. Applicant received the required financial counseling
as part of her bankruptcy petition.  There is no indication the financial problems will not
recur. 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) partially applies.
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 guidelines and the whole-person concept. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
6
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 an educated, recently divorced mother of two children. She held a
security clearance for a period of time when she worked for the Air Force. She suffered
financial difficulty when her husband abandoned the family in 2008. Applicant has not
been able to sell her home, and she filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in July 2010. She
has been steadily employed since October 2009. However, it is too soon to show a
demonstrated track record or that her financial problems are resolved or under control. 
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 through 1.k: 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge