DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 09-06943 
           SSN:  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Paul M. DeLaney, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the case file and pleadings, Applicant failed to provide 
adequate information to mitigate security concerns under Guideline F. Eligibility for 
access to classified information is denied. 
 
On October 11, 2007, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP), to obtain a security clearance for his employment 
with a defense contractor. (Item 5) On March 26, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings 
and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing 
security concerns for financial considerations under Guideline F. (Item 1) 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 in the Department of 
Defense on September 1, 2006.  
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on April 15, 2010. He admitted all 40 allegations 
under Guideline F. He provided an explanation for eight of the allegations that indicate 
he denied the eight allegations even thought he stated that he admitted the allegation. 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
(SOR 1.a, 1.c, 1.p, 1.q, 1.x, 1.z, 1.bb, and 1.cc) Even though his answer is ambiguous, I 
find that he admitted each of these eight allegations. Applicant also stated that there 
were 12 medical debts that were fraudulent. He did not identify the allegations in 
question nor explain why the debts were fraudulent. Since he admitted all allegations 
and the suspected fraudulent allegations were not identified, I find that he admitted to 
the 12 medical allegations. He elected to have the matter decided on the written record. 
(Item 4) Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on May 18, 
2010. Applicant received a complete file of relevant material (FORM) on May 31, 2010, 
and was provided the opportunity to file objections, and submit material to refute, 
extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying conditions. He did not provide any additional 
information in response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on September 1, 
2010.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 I thoroughly reviewed the case file and the pleadings. I make the following 
findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is 49 years old and has been employed as an outside plant technician 
by a defense contractor in Kuwait for over three years. He is a technical school 
graduate. Applicant answered that he was never married in response to a question 
concerning his marital status on the e-QIP. However, in other documents in the file, 
including his responses to interrogatories and answers to questions from security 
investigators, he refers to his ex-wife and a daughter that he supports. I find that 
Applicant has been married, is divorced, has one child, and provides support for his 
former wife and child. There is no information in the file to indicate his monthly income, 
monthly expenses, and monthly discretionary funds. It does not appear that he 
previously held a security clearance. (Items 5, 6, and 7)  
 
Credit reports (Item 8, credit report, dated December 30, 2009; Item 9, credit 
report, dated September 28, 2009; Item 10, credit report, dated March 4, 2009; Item 11, 
credit report, dated June 13, 2008, and Item 12, credit report, dated November 2, 2007), 
and court records (Item 13, Judgments and Liens, dated December 7, 2009) show 
delinquent debts in excess of $78,000. These delinquent accounts include two 
judgments totaling $7,500 (SOR 1.a and 1.b), a federal tax lien for $13,000 (SOR 1.c), 
and student loans for approximately $33,000 (SOR 1.w and 1.x). The other debts are 
smaller debts for medical services, utility service, telephone service, cable service, and 
credit card accounts. 
 
In his response to the SOR, Applicant admits responsibility for his financial 
problems. He has been overseas for over three years. He was divorced within this 
period, and his mail service has been sporadic at best. He has not received notice of 
many of his debts. However, he does not indicate how this situation contributed to or 
caused his financial problems, and why under the circumstances he was unable to meet 
his financial obligations. He does not identify any specific reasons or conditions that 
caused the debt, except for his ex-wife's poor financial management while he was 
 
3 
 
 
serving overseas and that some accounts were established without his knowledge. He 
does not provide any information to establish his ex-wife's poor financial 
mismanagement or why he was unaware of some accounts opened in his name. He 
also notes that some of the accounts are old and he has no means of showing proof of 
payment. He provides no information to dispute the legitimacy of any debts. (Items 6 
and 7) While some of the debts may appear to be duplicates, Applicant provides no 
information to indicate some are duplicates.  
 
In his response to the SOR, Applicant states that he has a plan to pay his debts. 
He will seek credit counseling to better manage his finances, legal counseling to support 
efforts to establish or dispute debts, he will obtain copies of his credit reports to know of 
the specific nature and amount of his debts, he will negotiate settlement of the 
indentified debts, and he will then pay the agreed settlement. However, he has not 
presented any documentation or evidence to show he has taken or intends to take any 
action to implement his plan to resolve or pay his delinquent debts. He does not indicate 
he sought or received financial counseling or sought legal assistance in paying or 
disputing his delinquent debts. He does not indicate he has copies of his credit reports 
so that he can understand the specific nature of his debts. He presented no information 
to show he paid any of his delinquent debts. He presents no information concerning 
present finances and his ability to pay his debts. It is noted that he has worked overseas 
for a reputable defense contractor for over three years where salaries are very good 
and expenses are very low which should provide a high percentage of discretionary 
funds. It is assumed from his employment history with the defense contractor in the 
Middle East that he is making sufficient income to pay his debts. 
 
Policy 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the revised 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 over-arching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 
2(c), 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 
 
4 
 
 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on 
the evidence contained in the record.  
 
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 as to obtaining 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 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. 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
 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, 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. 
(AG ¶ 18) Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in their obligations to protect classified 
information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an 
indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
 A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial 
obligations. Applicant’s delinquent debts listed in credit reports and admitted by 
Applicant raise Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) 
(inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not 
meeting financial obligations). The number and nature of the debts, over 40 debts 
including judgments, liens, and student loans, many over five years old with no action 
on the debts, establishe a history of unwillingness to pay debts.  
 
 
5 
 
 
 The Government produced substantial evidence in credit reports to establish the 
disqualifying conditions of a history of not meeting financial obligation or an inability or 
unwillingness to satisfy debts as required in AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c). The burden shifts to 
Applicant to produce evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security 
concerns under financial considerations. An applicant has the burden to refute an 
established allegation or prove a mitigating condition, and the burden to prove or 
disprove it never shifts to the Government. 
 
 I considered Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) 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); and FC MC ¶ 20(b) (the 
conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely beyond the person’s 
control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical 
emergency, or a death, divorce, or separations) and the individual acted responsibly 
under the circumstances). These mitigating conditions do not apply. While Applicant 
took responsibility for the delinquent debts, he stated that his ex-wife mismanaged their 
finances while he was overseas, he did not receive notice of some of the debts because 
his mail service was sporadic, and that some debts were based on fraud. However, he 
presented no information, evidence, or documentation to verify his assertions. Without 
any information from Applicant, it cannot be determined if the circumstances causing 
debt happened or that they will not likely recur. These mitigating conditions are not 
applicable. With evidence of delinquent debt and no explanation from Applicant 
concerning his financial situation, it is obvious that his financial problems are not under 
control.  
 
 I considered FC MC ¶ 20(c) (the 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). Applicant presented no information to indicate he received financial 
counseling. He stated part of his plan was to seek counseling but he presented no 
information of counseling. Even if he had received counseling, there is no indication his 
financial problems are being resolved or under control. He has not presented 
information concerning making payments on his delinquent debts, and he has not 
presented an adequate plan to resolve his delinquent debts.  
 
 I considered FC MC ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to 
repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts). For FC MC ¶ 20(d) to apply, 
there must be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” to repay, and “evidence” of a 
good-faith effort to repay. A systematic, concrete method of handling debts is needed. 
Good-faith means acting in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and 
adherence to duty or obligation. A promise to pay debts in the future is not evidence of a 
good-faith intention to resolve debts. Applicant has to show a "meaningful track record" 
of debt payment, including evidence of actual debt reduction through payment of debts. 
All that is required is that he has a plan to resolve his financial problems and takes 
significant action to implement that plan. The entirety of his financial situation and his 
 
6 
 
 
actions can reasonably be considered in evaluating the extent to which any plan to 
reduce outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic.  
 
 Applicant stated he has a plan to pay his debts, but he has not presented any 
evidence to show he implemented his plan and paid any of his debts. He has not 
presented evidence of his financial circumstances that would indicate he has sufficient 
income to meet his financial obligations. All indications in the file are that he should 
have sufficient income because of his long steady overseas employment in a war zone 
with a defense contractor which normally indicates a good salary. Applicant's lack of 
action to pay his debts is significant and constitutes credible information to show that he 
has not acted reasonably under the circumstances. Based on the information presented 
by the Government in credit reports and court records, Applicant has not acted 
responsibly towards his debts and finances. Applicant has not presented sufficient 
information to mitigate security concerns for financial considerations because he did not 
establish that the reasons for his debts were beyond his control and that he took 
reasonable and responsible efforts to manage his finances and pay his debts.   
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information by considering the totality of the 
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 access to 
classified information 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. Applicant has not established a 
meaningful track record of paying his delinquent debts. He has not provided sufficient 
credible documentary information to show he acted reasonably and responsibly to 
address his delinquent debts and resolve his financial problems, or even that he has a 
credible plan to resolve and pay his delinquent debts. Applicant has not demonstrated 
he responsibly managed his finances and has a consistent record of actions to resolve 
financial issues. On the contrary, the record shows he has been irresponsible towards 
his financial obligations. The lack of responsible management of financial obligations 
 
7 
 
 
indicates he may not be concerned or responsible in regard to classified information. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s 
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. He has not established his suitability for 
access to classified information. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not 
mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial situation. Eligibility for access 
to classified information is 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.nn:  Against Applicant  
  
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for access to 
classified information. Access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge