1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 09-02732
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
December 30, 2010
______________
Decision
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on October 9, 2008. (Government Exhibit 1.) On October 29, 2009, the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
detailing the security concerns under Guidelines F (Financial Considerations) and E
(Personal Conduct) about Applicant. 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 within the Department of Defense for SORs
issued after September 1, 2006.  
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on November 11, 2009, and requested a
hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on January 6, 2010. This case was assigned to me on January 11, 2010.  DOHA issued
a notice of hearing on February 4, 2010, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on
March 19, 2010. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 10, which
2
were received without objection. Applicant testified and submitted Applicant Exhibits A
through I, which were also received without objection. The record was left open to allow
Applicant to submit additional information. On April 7, 2010, Applicant submitted
Applicant Exhibit J, which was received without objection. DOHA received the transcript
of the hearing on March 24, 2010. The record closed on April 7, 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 46 and married. He is honorably retired after a career in the United
States Navy as an enlisted man. During his career he received several awards and
decorations. (Transcript at 53-54.) He is employed by a defense contractor and seeks to
obtain a security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense industry. 
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is
financially overextended and therefore at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds. Applicant admits allegations 1.a. through 1.gg. and 2.a. in the SOR.
Those admissions are deemed findings of fact. He denied allegation 2.b. He also
submitted additional statements supporting his request for a security clearance.
The SOR alleges, Applicant admits, and Government exhibits substantiate 33
delinquent debts totaling approximately $65,423. Some of these debts have been due
and owing since 2003. (Government Exhibits 7, 8, 9 and 10.) Applicant testified that his
financial problems were primarily caused by a period of unemployment in 2003 and
2004, after his retirement from the Navy. (Transcript at 28, 57.) As further shown below,
several of his debts have been paid. He estimates that he can resolve his debt situation
within one or two years. (Transcript at 67.)
As of the day the record closed, the status of the Applicant’s debts was as
follows:
1.a. Applicant admits this past due debt to a collection agent of a credit union in
the amount of $12,783. This debt has not been paid and the Applicant has no current
plans to pay this debt. (Transcript at 40-42, 59.)
1.b. Applicant admits that he owed this debt to the collection agent of a telephone
company in the amount of $1,664. Evidence was submitted showing this debt to be
paid. (Government Exhibit 10; Applicant Exhibit A; Transcript at 59-60.)
1.c. Applicant admits this past due debt to a collection agent of a creditor in the
amount of $76. This debt has not been paid and the Applicant has no current plans to
3
pay this debt. He further stated that he has been unable to contact this creditor using
the contact information found in his credit report. (Transcript at 60-61.)
1.d. Applicant admits this past due debt in the amount of $8,519. This debt has
not been paid and the Applicant has no current plans to pay this debt. (Transcript at 42,
61.)
1.e. Applicant admits that he owed this debt in the amount of $568. Evidence
was submitted showing this debt to be paid. (Applicant Exhibit F; Transcript at 61.)
1.f. Applicant admits that he owed this debt to the collection agent of a telephone
company in the amount of $4,318. Evidence was submitted showing this debt to be
paid. (Government Exhibit 10; Applicant Exhibit A; Transcript at 42-45, 61.)
During 2003 and 2004 Applicant bounced a considerable number of checks to a
military exchange. The SOR alleges, and the Applicant admits, bouncing approximately
100 checks. At first he stated, “I might have made a mistake or two.”  He later stated
that he was not sure how many checks he bounced. Applicant also stated that he knew
each time he bounced a check that he had no money in his bank account to cover the
check. Finally, he testified, “But I - - in the back of my mind, I was planning to pay it
back when I could afford to pay it back.” (Transcript at 28-30.) (See Transcript at 64-66.)
The Government has been attaching $122.57 from the Applicant’s retirement pay
and using that amount to pay his bounced checks. He does not know how long the
Government has been doing that. He is not making independent payments on these
debts. (Applicant Exhibits D and J; Transcript at 50, 66.) 
The following bounced checks have been repaid, according to the most recent
credit report of the Applicant in the record. (Government Exhibit 10.) (See Applicant
Exhibits A and G.) Allegations 1.g., 1.h., 1.i., 1.j., 1.k., 1.m., 1.s., 1.t., 1.u., 1.v., 1.w.,
1.cc., 1.dd., 1.ee., and 1.gg. These checks total $2,362. Two checks were for $425
each.
The Applicant submitted documentation from the Government showing that he
has now paid the debt for the bounced checks in full, including the following checks: 1.l.
for $108, 1.x. for $163, and 1.ff. for $86. (Applicant Exhibit J.)
1.n. Applicant admits this past due debt in the amount of $3,090. This debt has
not been paid and the Applicant has no current plans to pay this debt. (Transcript at 45.)
1.o. Applicant admits this past due debt to a collection agent of a telephone
company in the amount of $97. This debt has not been paid and the Applicant has no
current plans to pay this debt. He further stated that he has been unable to contact this
creditor using the contact information found in his credit report. (Transcript at 62.).
4
1.p. Applicant admits that he owed this debt to the collection agent of a telephone
company in the amount of $4,776. Evidence was submitted showing this debt to be
paid. (Government Exhibit 8; Applicant Exhibits C and H; Transcript at 45-49.)
1.q. Applicant admits this past due debt in the amount of $11,630. This debt has
not been paid and the Applicant has no current plans to pay this debt. (Transcript at 49,
62-63.)
1.r. Applicant admits that he owed this debt in the amount of $1,891. Evidence
was submitted showing this debt to be paid. (Government Exhibit 10; Transcript at 63.)
1.y. Applicant admits this past due debt in the amount of $11,824. This debt has
not been paid and the Applicant has no current plans to pay this debt. Applicant
testified, “It [the debt] might have dropped off my radar.” (Transcript at 49-50.)
1.z. Applicant admits that he owed this debt in the amount of $1,025 as the result
of a judgment against him. Evidence was submitted showing this debt to be paid.
(Government Exhibit 10; Applicant Exhibits A and B; Transcript at 63-64.)
1.aa. Applicant admits that he owed this debt in the amount of $303. Evidence
was submitted showing this debt to be paid. (Applicant Exhibit E; Transcript at 64.)
1.bb. Applicant admits that he owed this debt in the amount of $140. Evidence
was submitted showing this debt to be paid. (Applicant Exhibits A, C and I; Transcript at
58.)
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E, Personal Conduct)
2.a. As stated above, the Applicant admits bouncing approximately 100 checks at
a military exchange in 2003 and 2004. The total amount of money he obtained was
$3,861.94. It appears that this indebtedness has been repaid by the Government taking
money out of the Applicant’s retirement pay.
2.b. Applicant denied that he had been barred from a military installation due to
his conduct in bouncing checks. During his testimony he recollected that an incident
occurred on base where his identification card was confiscated and he was escorted off
base. (Transcript at 51-52, 65.) There is no evidence as to the year in which this
incident occurred.
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
5
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be used 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. In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on his or her own
common sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the ways of the
world, in making a reasoned decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that, “Any 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, and 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 about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
 Finally, as emphasized by President Eisenhower in Section 7 of Executive Order
10865, “Any determination under this order adverse to an applicant 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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing
multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information). 
6
Analysis
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
continued 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 by substantial
evidence that the Applicant has financial difficulties which may affect his ability to
safeguard classified information. Applicant, on the other hand, has not successfully
mitigated the Government's case, except in part. As set forth above, subparagraphs
1.b., 1.e., 1.f. through 1.m., 1.p., 1.r. through 1.x., 1.z. through 1.gg. are found for the
Applicant as those particular debts have been repaid. Subparagraphs 1.c. and 1.o. are
found for Applicant as he has behaved reasonably with regards to contacting those
particular creditors.
Paragraph 1 (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, by his own admission, and supported by the evidence,
continues to have over $47,000 in past due debts, all of which have been due and
owing for several years. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially 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=s financial
difficulties arose in about 2003 and 2004, and continue to the present. He submitted
evidence that he resolved several debts, and those subparagraphs are found for him.
However, he did not submit evidence concerning a budget, or how he planned to pay
7
his still substantial indebtedness. It is also a fact to be considered that his repayment to
the Government for a substantial number of bounced checks was made through
involuntary withdrawals from his retirement pay.
I have considered all these facts, but find there is a lack of consistent forward
movement. A mere statement of intent to pay or resolve his debts in the future is
insufficient evidence to conclude that he has acted responsibly towards his debts. It is
Applicant’s burden to submit evidence showing that his financial situation has improved.
He has not done so.  
AG ¶ 20(b) states that the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where “the
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 financial situation was impacted by his lack of
employment after retirement from the Navy. However, his conduct in bouncing a
considerable number of checks cannot be viewed as acting responsibly. This mitigating
condition has limited application.
Applicant has initiated a good-faith effort to pay off his creditors. However, there
is only a limited track record of his voluntarily making payments.  Accordingly, AG ¶
20(d) has only limited applicability.  Finally, given the fact that he remains $47,000 in
debt, I cannot find that “there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or
is under control,” as required by AG ¶ 20(c). Guideline F is found against the Applicant.
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E, Personal Conduct)
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in
AG & 15:      
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information.  Of special interest is any failure to provide
truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any
other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
Applicant, after his retirement from the Navy, engaged in a course of conduct
where he repeatedly bounced checks at a military exchange. As a former Sailor, he
knew that such conduct was not appropriate and, arguably, criminal in nature. He
persisted in doing it because he felt it was necessary for him to do so. His testimony did
not show any remorse or understanding of the impact of what he did on fellow
servicemembers. While the actions occurred in 2003 and 2004, under the particular
facts of this case they continue to have security significance, as does his being barred
from a military installation.
8
The following Disqualifying Conditions apply to the facts of this case:
16.(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative areas that is not
sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline,
but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person
assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability,
lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other
characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard
protected information;
16.(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any
other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse
determination, but which, when combined with all available information
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the
person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes
but is not limited to consideration of:
(3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and
16.(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s
conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or
duress, such as (1) engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the
person’s personal, professional, or community standing.
None of the Mitigating Conditions have application. As described above, under
the particular circumstances of this case, Mitigating Condition 17.(c) is not applicable.
“The offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent,
or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not
cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.” Guideline E
is found against the Applicant.
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 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
9
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. Applicant is under financial strain,
and has been so for several years. His debt situation is not yet under control. I have
also considered his conduct in bouncing a considerable number of checks at a military
exchange.
Under AG ¶ 2(a)(3), Applicant’s conduct is recent.  Based on the state of the
record, I cannot find that there have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶
2(a)(6). Accordingly, at the present time, I find that there is the potential for pressure,
coercion, exploitation, or duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); and that there is a high likelihood of
recurrence (AG ¶ 2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his Financial
situation and Personal Conduct.
On balance, I conclude that Applicant has not successfully overcome the
Government's case opposing his request for a DoD security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports a denial of his request for a security clearance.
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 THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j.: For the Applicant
10
Subparagraph 1.k.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.t.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.u.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.v.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.w.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.x.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.y.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.z.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.aa.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.bb.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.cc.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.dd.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ee.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ff.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.gg.: For the Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b.: Against the 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.
                                              
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge