1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 09-08116
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On June 1, 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).
 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. He denied the
allegations without explanation. DOHA assigned the case to me on August 3, 2010.
DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on September 10, 2010, and I convened the hearing
as scheduled on October 6, 2010. Department Counsel offered eight exhibits, which
were admitted without objection as Government Exhibits (GE) 1-8. Applicant testified
and presented five exhibits, which were admitted without objection as Applicant Exhibits
(AE) A-E. I kept the record open until October 15, 2010, for Applicant to submit
additional documents. Applicant did not submit additional documents. DOHA received
2
the transcript (Tr.) on October 13, 2010. Based upon a review of the case file,
pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is
denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 52-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He graduated from
high school in 1971 and obtained an undergraduate degree in 2000. He served in the
United States Army (USA) from 1977 until 1997. He has held a security clearance since
1978. Applicant has been with his current employer since 2005. (GE 1)
Applicant’s first marriage in 2001 ended in divorce in 2005. (Tr. 74) Although, he
has no children from the marriage, he is the father of four children. Applicant’s financial
difficulties started when he separated and divorced his wife. (Tr.34) He was investing in
homes with his first wife. (Tr 90) He explained that they were buying the homes and
then “turning them over for a profit.” (Tr. 68) He purchased an expensive car based on
the projected profits. (Tr. 93) The profits did not materialize.  
Applicant remarried in 2006, and has two children under the age of three from
the marriage. He used credit to buy furniture and other items. (Tr. 84) He cosigned a car
loan for his older daughter in 2006. In 2006, he attended a theological college. He fell
behind on tuition payments even though he had the GI bill to pay for the cost. (GE 2) 
The SOR alleges delinquent debts, including medical accounts, a 2007 judgment,
and wage garnishments for tax liens from failure to pay taxes from 2005 until 2007. The
approximate total for Applicant’s debts is $40,000. (GE 8) 
When Applicant was interviewed by an OPM investigator in June 2009, he
claimed that he paid alimony of $1,600 to his ex-wife for three years and that all
payments were made. However, when questioned at the hearing, he reported that it
was not alimony but money for repayment of a loan involved with the property
investments. (Tr. 93)  He also described his financial status in 2009 as “good.” He noted
that has his military retirement pay to help support him. 
Applicant testified that he submitted payment receipts for each allegation with his
answer to the SOR. There were no attachments in the file but there were copies of bank
statements for some accounts in his interrogatories. (GE 2). He paid his delinquent
debts starting this year due to “financial hardship.” He noted that there are several
accounts he is not familiar with. (SOR 1. I and 1.j) He claims that he is investigating
them.
Applicant claimed that the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, b, c, e, and n, are fully
paid. (Tr. ) His wages were garnished in 2006-2007 for the $1,896 judgment alleged in
SOR 1.c (Tr. 28) from an apartment lease. Applicant claims he had no notice of the
judgment. He notes that the judgment has been paid and should not appear on his
3
credit report. (Tr. 51) The other debts were small medical co-pays that were not covered
by his military insurance. (GE 2) Applicant paid them in 2010.
He has not resolved the debt for $4,509 in SOR 1d. He co-signed on a car loan
for his daughter in 2006. (Tr.29) She defaulted on the note. He believes it is his
daughter’s primary responsibility. (Tr. 55) It is on his credit report, and stated that if he
has to pay it, he will. (Tr. 56) However, during his 2009 interview he stated that he had
no idea what the account was.
Applicant submitted documentation at the hearing for several delinquent debts
that are in repayment status. The debt alleged in SOR ¶1.f ( military credit card charge-
off account) has a balance of $8,288. (AE A) Applicant began paying $228 per month in
December 2009. (Tr. 33) 
He is also making monthly payments on his collection account in SOR ¶1.g for
the tuition ($2,311) owed the theological college. His monthly payments are $100. His
first payment was March 2010. (GE 2)
Applicant has not paid legal fees to his divorce attorney from 2005 (debt 1. h.) He
does not like the representation that he received. They are disputing the actual amount
that is owed due to “interest charges.” (Tr. 34) He would like to negotiate a lower
payment rather than pay the $7,503. (Tr. 35)
Applicant made his first payment of $382 for the debt alleged in SOR ¶1.k On
March 2010. He acknowledged that he was negligent in allowing this cell phone debt to
go unresolved for so long. He will pay two additional payments to bring the account to
closure. (GE 2)
Applicant made a partial payment to settle the account alleged in SOR 1.l This is
due to non reimbursement for a medical bill. (GE 2)
The delinquent account alleged in SOR ¶ 1.m is for $301. Applicant claims this
was for a satellite network and has been paid in full. (Tr. 61)
Applicant ‘s delinquent debt in SOR 1.o is for a $10.00 parking ticket. He states
that he will pay the ticket. (Tr. 42)
Applicant’s state tax lien in the amount of $5,085 is in repayment status. (AE B)
His wages were garnished in 2009 for failure to file the taxes from 2004 -2008. He is
paying $100 a month. He did not provide documentation to support his claim. 
Applicant submitted documentation that the federal tax lien in the amount of
$11,459 is in repayment status. (AE B) His wages were garnished in 2009 for the failure
to pay taxes from 2005 until 2008. He pays $404 monthly. The payment plan began in
February 2010.
4
Applicant’s monthly net income is $7,281. He has a net monthly remainder of
approximately $2,400. He has a retirement account and $11,000 in stocks and bonds.
Applicant reported an asset of $25,000 in car/boat in his 2009 interview. (GE 2)
Applicant also earns money from speaking in church. (Tr. 95) ($1,700 a month)
He is current on a $6,000 credit card account. He is paying his wife’s car payment and
her student loans. (Tr. 100) His $686 monthly car payment is current. He listed $316 for
alimony. (AE C)
Applicant submitted two letters of reference. (AE D) He is described as a veteran,
ordained minister, and father. He is an honorable man who loves his family and country.
He is recommended for a position of trust.  
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
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
5
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 many accounts and had
garnishments for tax liens. 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.@ He acknowledged his
delinquent debts are continuing. Applicant still has unresolved debts. 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.@ Five years ago Applicant’s financial difficulties began with his
divorce. However, that same year or year after he purchased an expensive car, co-
signed a car loan for his daughter, and remarried. He was steadily employed. He did not
6
act as responsibly as he should have given the circumstances. He acknowledged that
he was dilatory with some of the debts. 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.@ Applicant has not received any financial counseling. He has
sufficient income to pay his debts but he began repayment late in 2009 or 2010. He has
not shown good-faith efforts to pay his delinquent debts. Even the $10 parking ticket
has yet to be paid. He had wage garnishments and judgments. His efforts are
insufficient to carry his burden in this case. I conclude these mitigating conditions do not
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 insufficient to
overcome the Government’s case. 
Applicant served in the military for 20 years. He retired with an honorable
discharge. He held a security clearance during his service without incident. He has
worked for government conractors for the past 15 years. He is a loyal employee. He
considers himself a patriot. He is a father and an ordained minister.
Applicant divorced in 2005. His divorce may have exacerbated conditions but he
made some poor decisions when he was having financial difficulties. He co-signed a
loan for his daughter. He did not file taxes until recently. He was not active in finding
7
solutions to repay his delinquent debts. He took on additional expenses that he needed
have. There were also other debts that he has paid instead of his delinquent debts. He
has a very high car payment and is paying his wife’s student loans. He has other
assets. The amount of his delinquent debt is sizeable.
He has failed to act with due diligence. He was questioned about his debts in
June 2009. He still is unfamiliar with two debts listed in the SOR. It has been more than
a year since he was questioned about his debts and the majority of his debts remains
unpaid.
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.q: 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