1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 09-05390
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 15, 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 2, 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
23, 2010, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on July 20, 2010. Department
Counsel offered four exhibits, which were admitted without objection as Government
Exhibits (GE) 1-4. Applicant testified on her own behalf. She did not submit any exhibits
for the record. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on August 3, 2010. Based upon a
review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a
through 1.s and ¶ 1.u. She denied the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.p, t, v, and w.
Applicant is a 47-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She graduated from
high school in 1981. Applicant held a security clearance for approximately three years in
the 1990's. (Tr. 47) She has been with her current employer since January 2009. (Tr.18)
Applicant is divorced and has two children. She supports her family without any
child support from her ex-husband. (Tr. 12) Although, she has tried, she has been
unsuccessful in having her ex-husband’s wages garnished to provide child support.
Applicant held various full time positions but was unemployed from March 2003 until
June of 2003. (GE 1) Until then, she claimed her financial status was fine. In order to
seek career advancement, she moved to another state in late 2003. However, the
higher cost of living prohibited Applicant from locating a reasonable place to rent. (Tr.
11) She incurred additional expenses and used credit cards to help pay for her
household needs. 
In 2006, Applicant moved to another state to accept a position with a new
company. (Tr. 20) Applicant was assured that she would receive a raise due to higher
living costs. (Tr. 21) When Applicant did not receive a higher salary, she decided to
return to her home state. She was unsuccessful in her attempt to find a less expensive
place to rent or to live with friends. She had to finally return to a state that had a more
reasonable cost of living. She had purchased a vehicle in 2006, but she was
unemployed for a few months and could not maintain the car payments. (GE 2) The
vehicle was repossessed in August 2007. (Tr. 23) Applicant obtained employment in
2007 but at a lower rate of pay. She worked full time until she obtained her current
employment in 2009.
When Applicant received the SOR, she did not recognize many of the accounts.
She also believed that the medical and hospital bills had been paid by insurance. She
does not have any documentation to support the claims because she has moved and
has shredded old statements. (Tr. 14)
The SOR alleges 23 delinquent debts, including a vehicle repossession, hospital
and medical accounts, and delinquent credit card debt. The approximate total for
Applicant’s debts is $36,000 (GE 4). The current status of Applicant’s delinquent debts
is described below.
When answering the DOHA interrogatories, Applicant believed she would have
approximately $3,000 to pay some of the accounts listed in the SOR. She loaned
money to several people years ago and they were to pay her back recently. This did not
occur and Applicant had no money to pay any of the accounts listed in the SOR. (Tr. 37)
3
The debts alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a through ¶ 1.w have not been paid. Applicant
stated at the hearing that the debts that she had denied in her answer to the SOR are
her debts but she disputes some of the interest and penalties. (Tr. 40) She has called
some of the collection agencies but she has not been able to arrange a settlement for
any of them. (Tr. 41) Applicant elaborated on the fact that many of the bills are from
2006 when she moved out of state. She has no repayment plan for the accounts. 
Applicant’s current monthly net income is approximately $2,237. (GE 2) She is
current with her monthly expenses. Her net monthly remainder is approximately $100 or
less. She has no credit cards. She pays $300 a month for her automobile. Applicant met
with credit counselors who advised her to file for bankruptcy. (Tr. 45) She does not want
to file for bankruptcy as she believes it would prohibit her from working for the
Government. (Tr. 45)
At the hearing, Applicant was forthright and candid about her inability to pay her
delinquent debts. She struggles to make ends meet each month. She intends to pay her
debts but at the present time she cannot afford to do so. She wants to get a second job
to supplement her income, but she has not been able to find one given the current
economic climate. (Tr. 50) She is a hard worker and finds it stressful to manage each
month. She acknowledges that it was a “bad decision” to move in 2006 because it only
created financial hardship.   
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.
4
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).
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 totaling
approximately $36,000. Her 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
5
unresolved delinquent debts. She is not able to pay her delinquent debts due to her low
income. This mitigating condition does not apply.  
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 pay her delinquent debts is partially
due to several short periods of unemployment and moving to another state for a position
that created problems due to the high cost of living. Applicant is divorced and does not
receive any child support for her two children. She has been a single parent since 1990.
This mitigating condition applies in part.
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.@ Neither of these mitigating conditions apply. Applicant met
with credit counselors who advised her to file for bankruptcy. She has not been able to
settle any debts because she does not have sufficient income.  Despite her good
intentions to pay her delinquent debts, Applicant has not been able to do so. Applicant’s
efforts are insufficient to carry her burden in this case. 
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 mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and
circumstances surrounding this case and conclude they are insufficient to overcome the
government’s case. 
6
Applicant has been a single parent for many years. She is a hard worker who
supports her two children. She has tried to better her job opportunities by moving to
another state. This decision to move only exacerbated Applicant’s financial situation.
Through no fault of her own, she has not been able to find a second job to supplement
her income. She admits that she struggles to pay her regular expenses each month.
Applicant wants to pay her delinquent debts but does not have the ability to do so at the
present time. She sought financial advice and was told to file for bankruptcy. She is
reluctant to do so. She noted repeatedly that she will pay her debts when she is able to
do so. Under Applicant’s current circumstances, a clearance is not warranted.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising under 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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a:-1.w: 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 eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
_________________
NOREEN A. LYNCH
Administrative Judge