1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------. )       ISCR Case No. 09-05211
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg Cervi, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On March 24, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations). DOHA acted 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).
 
On April 15, 2010, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing.
DOHA assigned the case to me on May 20, 2010. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on
June 28, 2010, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on July 22, 2010. Department
Counsel offered four exhibits, which were admitted without objection as Government
Exhibits (GE) 1-4. Applicant testified on his own behalf and offered six exhibits, which
were admitted without objection as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A-F. I kept the record open
until August 6, 2010, for Applicant to submit additional documents. Applicant timely
submitted two additional documents, which were accepted into the record and marked
2
as AE G and H. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on July 30, 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 his Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied the factual allegations in ¶ 1.a
through 1.e. 
Applicant is a 42-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He graduated from
high school in 1986. He is married and has two children. (GE 1) He has been with his
current employer since February 2009. (Tr.8)
Applicant served in the United States Air Force (USAF) from September 1986
until his retirement, as a Msgt (E-7), in September 2007. (AE A) While in the USAF, he
attended training and Airman Leadership School. He held a security clearance during
his military career. Applicant deployed to Iraq on two separate occasions in 2004 and
2006. (AE A) Applicant served as a section chief for aircraft maintenance at the time of
his retirement. Applicant receives a Veterans Administration (VA) disability. (AE B)
After Applicant’s second deployment to Iraq in 2006, he experienced
sleeplessness, anger, and hypersensitivity. He sought counseling at the Life Skills
Center at the hospital on base. He received some counseling and reported that he was
diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). He was prescribed medication.
(GE 2) 
When Applicant retired in 2007, he was diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. He
was placed on medication to help alleviate the symptoms. Applicant’s medications
caused side-effects such as memory loss. He stated that he could not drive due to his
condition. 
Applicant had a difficult transition from the military to civilian employment in part
due to his anxiety. He worked as an independent insurance agent when he first retired
in 2007. He stopped his work in this field in May 2008 due to his inability to focus and
adjustment to various medications. (Tr. 24) He could not drive. After speaking to his VA
counselor, Applicant was hospitalized for a short period. (Tr. 24)
Applicant was unemployed or underemployed from the latter part of 2008 until
February 2009. He worked part time as a ranch hand on a farm. (Tr. 25) During this
time, Applicant did not earn much income. He was living on his retirement and VA
disability. He fell behind on his mortgage and used credit cards to supplement his
income.   
The SOR alleges five delinquent debts, a judgment and delinquent credit card
debt. The approximate total for Applicant’s debts is $12,000 (GE 6). The current status
of Applicant’s delinquent debts is described below.
3
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a is for a judgment filed in February 2009 for a
charged-off credit card account in the amount of $4,683. Applicant arranged for
automatic payments from his checking account as soon as he was gainfully employed in
February 2009. (AE C) Applicant has paid this judgment in full for a total of $5,000. (AE
G )
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b for $2,578 is in a repayment plan. Applicant has
paid approximately $1,000. His last documented payment of $100 was dated May 31,
2010. (AE D) He expects to increase monthly payments since the account listed in SOR
1.a in paid in full. (Tr. 34)
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.c. for $1,011 is a duplicate of the account listed in
SOR 1.a, which is paid in full. (AE F)
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d for $4,549 is in a repayment status. Applicant has
paid approximately $1,250 since 2009. (AE E) He continues to make payments in the
amount of $100 a month. (Tr. 35).  
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e that was past due for 120 days in the approximate
amount of $9,715 is in repayment status. Applicant has already paid approximately
$1,650.  (AE F) His monthly payment is $150. 
When Applicant received the SOR, he had already been making payments on
the debts alleged. He received financial counseling as part of a routine training program
while on active duty. (Tr. 37). Applicant’s current monthly net income is approximately
$8,342, which included his wife’s monthly net salary of $1,487. (GE 2) He is current with
his monthly expenses. He has no car payment. His net monthly remainder is
approximately $1,391. He has a savings account. 
At the hearing, Applicant was forthright and candid about his current ability to
work. Since the end of 2008, his medication has stabilized his medical condition. He
continues to see a VA counselor. He is fit and able to work. He emphasized that prior to
his retirement in 2007, he had no financial difficulties. His anxiety disorder prompted the
unemployment. He has a history of paying his bills and living within his means. He
wants to sell his house and move near his present work site. (Tr. 40) He acknowledged
at the hearing that his mother loaned him $5,000 so that he could buy a parcel of land
for $10,000 to build a ranch. (Tr. 41) The land is paid for, and Applicant is regularly
paying his mother for her loan. Applicant’s goal is to be debt free.
Applicant has received numerous decorations, medals and campaign ribbons
during his military service to include: an Iraq Campaign Ribbon, Global War on
Terrorism Expeditionary Medal, Korean Service Medal, Air Force Commendation Medal
with three oak leaf clusters, Air Force Achievement Medal with three oak leaf clusters,
National Defense Service Medal with one service star and a USAF NCO PME Graduate
Ribbon with two oak leaf clusters. (AE A) 
4
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
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, which must be considered 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,
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. 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 to obtain 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 safeguard classified information.
Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential,
rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order (EO) 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 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
security concerns. Applicant accumulated delinquent debts on various accounts after he
retired in 2007. He had a 2009 judgment in the amount of $4,683. His credit reports
confirm the debts. The evidence is sufficient to raise these disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes 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.@ Applicant still has
some unresolved delinquent debts. However, he is now in a stable financial situation
and has a plan for the unresolved debt. This mitigating condition applies in part.  
Under AG & 20(b), the disqualifying condition may be mitigated where Athe
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 inability to work full time in 2008 due to his
anxiety disorder created his financial difficulties. He sought part time work as a ranch
hand to support himself until he began his current employment. As soon as Applicant
obtained his current employment in 2009, he began to address and resolve his
delinquent debts. This mitigating condition applies.
Evidence that Athe person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem
and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control@
is potentially mitigating under AG & 20(c). Similarly, AG & 20(d) applies where the
evidence shows Athe individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.@ Applicant received financial counseling when he was in the
military as part of a routine program. Applicant has a history of paying his bills. He has
resolved the majority of his delinquent debts. He has a payment plan for the other two
6
delinquent debts in the SOR. He has sufficient income to pay his bills. His efforts are
sufficient to carry his burden in this case. I conclude these mitigating conditions apply.
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. The administrative judge must 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.       
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case and conclude they are sufficient to
overcome the government’s case. Applicant served in the USAF for nearly 21 years. He
had a security clearance during his military career. He deployed to Iraq on two separate
occasions. He received many medals and awards during his military service. He retired
in 2007. During his transition to civilian life, he had difficulties due to an anxiety disorder.
This disorder prevented him from gainful employment in 2008 and part of 2009. He
received counseling and prescription medications. The medications had side effects
which exacerbated his difficulties and added to his financial problems.
Applicant began paying his delinquent bills after his disorder was addressed, and
as soon as he became gainfully employed in February 2009. He paid two accounts and
his other accounts are in repayment status. He was candid and forthright at the hearing
about his land purchase. He wants to be debt free. He supports his family. He is on the
right track. He is now stable and able to work in a position that will render him financially
stable.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions and doubts about
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising under financial
considerations. 
7
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
Subparagraphs 1.a:-1.e: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
_________________
NOREEN A. LYNCH
Administrative Judge