DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------- )           ISCR Case No. 09-08528
           SSN: ------------------ )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
November 10, 2010
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions (SF-86) on July 13,
2009.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On July 21, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as amended), issued a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make
the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant and
recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance
should be denied or revoked.
The Applicant responded to the SOR on August 20, 2010, and he requested a
hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.  This case was assigned to the
undersigned on September 9, 2010.  A notice of hearing was issued on September 28,
2010, and the hearing was scheduled for October 19, 2010.  At the hearing the
Government presented six exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 6.
The Applicant presented no exhibits at the hearing.  He testified on his own behalf.  The
record remained open until close of business on November 2, 2010, to allow the
Applicant the opportunity to submit additional documentation.  The Applicant submitted
2
two Post-Hearing Exhibits, which was admitted without objection, as Applicant’s Post-
Hearing Exhibits A and B.  The official transcript (Tr.) was received on October 26,
2010.  Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony,
eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 41 years old, and married with five children.  He has a high
school diploma and has completed several courses at a junior college.  He was
previously employed with a defense contractor as a Field Engineer Technician II, and if
he obtains a security clearance, he will be rehired.  He is seeking to obtain a security
clearance in connection with this employment.
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is financially overextended and at risk of
having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant and his wife started a family at a young age.  He testified that he
had his first child when he was twenty-two.  A year later, his wife had triplet girls.
Several years later they had another child.  He has been financially responsible for
supporting his five children and wife, while she takes care of the children, the house,
and paying the bills.  Over the years, given the size of the family, they have struggled
with finances.  
In May 2003, the Applicant filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and discharged
approximately $50,000 in medical bills related to the birth of his premature triplets, and
other miscellaneous credit card debt.  Following this, he worked hard to clean up his
credit and keep it in good standing.  In 2006/2007, he purchased a house with an
adjustable rate mortgage.  The plan was that after a year, he would refinance the loan
on the house to make it more affordable.  He was unable to do this given the housing
market crash.  Instead, the mortgage increased from $3,000 to $3,500 monthly.  (Tr. p.
56.)  For the past year and a half the mortgage has been frozen and under review for
modification.  (Tr. p. 57.)  The Applicant explained that during this period he has not
made any payments to the bank for the house.  
The Applicant testified that although he has been working, he has not been
earning enough money to pay his bills and support his family.  He has never held a
security clearance before, but without one, he has been unable to work full time with the
defense contractor that hired him.  To support his family, he went back to working as an
independent contractor in the wireless industry.  He has recently started working two
jobs, days at one company, and nights at another, to help get himself out of debt.  (Tr.
3
p. 61.)  He currently brings home $12,000 a month.  He states that he has contacted
some of his creditors to set up payment plans and has paid some of his delinquent
debts.  He recently caught up with his car payments that were four months behind on
one car, and two months behind on another.  He has also paid the vehicle registrations
for both cars that had been late.  He indicates that he has caught up with the household
bills and is continuing to make payments for utilities.  He states that he has also paid off
one student loan in the amount of $2,983.00.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A.)
       
The Applicant admits to each of the debts set forth in the SOR.  Credit Reports of
the Applicant dated August 20, 2009; June 23, 2010; September 7, 2010; and October
18, 2010; reflect that the Applicant was indebted to each of the creditors set forth in the
SOR, for credit cards, student loans, and telephone bills, in an amount totaling
approximately $35,000.00 not counting his mortgage arrearage.  (Government Exhibits
3, 4, 5 and 6.)  The following delinquent debts are listed in the SOR: Allegation 1(b).  A
debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $484.00 remains outstanding.  Allegation 1(c).
A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $887.00 remains outstanding.  Allegation
1(d).  A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $648.00 remains outstanding.
Allegation 1(e).  A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $5,933.00 remains
outstanding.  Allegation 1(f).  A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $3,589.00
remains outstanding.  Allegation 1(g).  A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of
$87,848.00 remains outstanding.  Allegation 1(h).  A debt owed to a creditor in the
amount of $4,916.00 remains outstanding.  Allegation 1(i).  A debt owed to a creditor in
the amount of $5,941.00 remains outstanding.  Allegation 1(j).  A debt owed to a
creditor in the amount of $789.00 remains outstanding.  Allegation 1(k).  A debt owed to
a creditor in the amount of $10,010.00 remains outstanding.  Allegation 1(l).  A debt
owed to a creditor in the amount of $57,831.00 remains outstanding.  (Applicant’s
Answer to SOR and Tr. pp. 37-70.)  The Applicant has not provided any documentary
evidence to support the fact that he has paid off, or starting making payments toward
any of the debts set forth in the SOR.  
The Applicant and his wife have received marital and financial counseling from
the pastors at their church.  They have recently contacted an attorney and plan to file for
Chapter 13 bankruptcy to repay their delinquent debts.  They were advised that they
must first clear up a tax matter.  They have filed an appeal with the tax court and are
awaiting a hearing date.  They are still waiting for the results of the loan modification on
their home.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A.)    
A letter from the Applicant’s pastor who has known the Applicant for about nine
years, describes the Applicant as faithful and trustworthy.  He is a committed husband
and father and an individual with a high level of integrity.  He is considered to be a
valuable asset to their ministry and the community in which he serves.  (Applicant’s
Post-Hearing Exhibit B.)
4
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; 
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligation. 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19,  in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding
circumstances;
     b.  The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavior
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
5
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicted
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination under this order
. . . shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a
determination as to the loyalty of the Applicant concerned.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility, which demonstrates
poor judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The Applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  This evidence indicates poor
judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of
the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or
connection with his security clearance eligibility.
6
The evidence shows that the Applicant’s unexpectedly large family, the housing
market crash, his inability to refinance the mortgage on his house, and poor financial
management have caused his financial difficulties.  He is now working two jobs to pay
his delinquent debts.  He has recently contacted an attorney and plans to file for
Chapter 13 Bankruptcy.  He is in the process of resolving his delinquent debts.
However, at the present time, his financial indebtedness remain excessive.    
Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Applicant’s delinquent debts
remain owing.  His plan to file bankruptcy has not been completed, and he has not
started a payment plan with his creditors.  There is insufficient evidence of financial
rehabilitation at this time.  The Applicant has not clearly demonstrated that he can
properly handle his financial affairs or that he is fiscally responsible.  Considering all of
the evidence, the Applicant has not introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal,
explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the Government's case. 
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligation apply.  None of the mitigating conditions are applicable.  Accordingly, I find
against the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).    
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth above, when viewed under all of the guidelines as a
whole, support a whole-person assessment of poor judgement, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, lack of candor, and an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations,
and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard
classified information.
 
 I have considered all of the evidence presented.  However, it does not mitigate
the negative effects of his financial indebtedness and the effects that it can have on his
ability to safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant
has not overcome the Government's case opposing his request for a security clearance.
Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the factual and
conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.   
     FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: Against the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.a.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.b.: Against the Applicant.
      Subpara.  1.c.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.d.: Against the Applicant.
7
     Subpara.  1.e.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.f.: Against the Applicant.
      Subpara.  1.g.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.h.: Against the Applicant
        Subpara.  1.i.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.j.: Against the Applicant.
      Subpara.  1.k.: Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.l.: Against the Applicant.
    
   DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
the Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge