1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-03384
SSN:------------------ )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Alan V. Edmunds, Esq.
December 8, 2010
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing on
February 13, 2009. (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 Guideline F. 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 17, 2009, and requested a
hearing before an administrative judge (Answer). Department Counsel was prepared to
proceed on December 20, 2009. This case was assigned to me on January 11, 2010.
DOHA issued a notice of hearing on February 4, 2010. I convened the hearing as
scheduled on March 17, 2010. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through
7, which were received without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf, called
2
two additional witness, and submitted Applicant Exhibits A through R, which were also
received without objection. Applicant asked that the record remain open for the receipt
of additional documents. The Applicant submitted Applicant Exhibit S on March 23,
2010, and it was admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the
hearing on March 24, 2010, and the record closed. Based upon a review of the case
file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is
granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 38, divorced and has three children. He is employed by a defense
contractor and seeks to retain a security clearance in connection with his employment. 
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 all the factual allegations in the SOR. Those
admissions are hereby deemed findings of fact. He also submitted additional
information to support his request for a security clearance.
Applicant’s financial problems began in 2008. At that time, after several years of
increasing turmoil, Applicant separated from his wife and began divorce proceedings.
The record shows that the wife has a history of mental illness, including several suicide
attempts and subsequent hospitalizations. Applicant has been awarded legal and
physical custody of his two minor children. (Transcript at 41-45, 56; Answer; Applicant
Exhibits K, L and M.)
Before Applicant filed for divorce, he was not delinquent on his bills. This is
confirmed by the full data credit report from February 2009. (Government Exhibit 4.)
Once Applicant filed for divorce in 2008, his wife took several of their joint credit cards
and ran up excessive debts, which subsequently became allegations in the SOR.
(Transcript at 43, 50, 58-59; Government Exhibits 2 and 3.) At that time (2008), the
Applicant did not work for the defense industry. He began his current work in February
2009. Because of his wife’s conduct, his original divorce attorney advised Applicant not
to pay any of the credit card bills, since these debts would be part of any divorce
property settlement. (Transcript at 45, 60-61.) He has since replaced his divorce lawyer,
and also was represented before DOHA. Based on the advice of his new counsel, he
has begun making payment arrangements regarding his debts, as set forth below. The
payments will continue for at least six months. As of the date the record closed, no
settlement regarding marital debts had been reached. Applicant realizes that he may
still have a responsibility to pay all of the marital debts, even if the court orders his wife
to pay part of the debts. (Transcript at 70-72.) His current financial situation, other than
these debts, is stable. He is able to pay his normal expenses, and has taken several
financial management courses. (Transcript at 64-65; Applicant Exhibit J.)
3
Credit reports in the record show that Applicant owes approximately $60,000 in
past due debt. (Government Exhibits 3 through 7.) The current status of the debts in the
SOR is as follows:
1.a. Applicant admitted owing this medical debt in the amount of $2,262.
(Transcript at 43.) He sent this creditor a check to begin payments while the property
settlement was being resolved. (Applicant Exhibit E.) The creditor returned the check to
the Applicant, indicating they could not identify the account number as their patient.
(Applicant Exhibit P.) Applicant has sent an additional check to the collection agency.
(Applicant Exhibit S at 5.)
1.b. Applicant submitted documentary evidence confirming that he paid this $54
debt in November 2009. (Transcript at 44; Applicant Exhibit S at 3-4.)
1.c. Applicant admitted owing this credit card debt in the amount of $16,277.
(Transcript at 45.) He has sent this creditor two checks to show good faith while the
property settlement is being resolved. (Applicant Exhibits H, and S at 5.)
1.d. Applicant admitted owing this credit card debt in the amount of $8,575.
(Transcript at 46-47.) He submitted documentary evidence showing that his wife
maliciously ran up the amount on this credit card, including using this card to pay a
$5,000 retainer to her divorce lawyer in February 2008. (Applicant Exhibit S at 6-8.) He
has sent this creditor two checks to show good faith while the property settlement is
being resolved. (Applicant Exhibits G, and S at 5.)
1.e. Applicant admitted owing this credit card debt in the amount of $15,790. This
credit card was used to pay for an expensive, court-ordered, psychological examination
of the Applicant’s wife. (Transcript at 47-48.) He has sent this creditor two checks to
show good faith while the property settlement is being resolved. (Applicant Exhibits F,
and S at 5.)
1.f. Applicant admitted owing this repossessed automobile debt in the amount of
$17,070. Applicant’s wife took this automobile, refused to return it to Applicant, and it
was repossessed while in her possession. (Transcript at 48, 63.) He has sent this
creditor two checks to show good faith while the property settlement is being resolved.
(Applicant Exhibits D, and S at 5.)
Mitigation
A former supervisor of Applicant, who has known him over 14 years, testified on
his behalf. He has worked with the Applicant at four different companies, but not
currently, and in fact recruited Applicant for past jobs. Witness is a senior executive at
his current employer, and has held similar positions in the past. He highly
recommended Applicant for a position of trust, stating, “He [Applicant] just does
everything right.” (Transcript at 22-29.)
4
Applicant’s current supervisor also testified. In recommending the Applicant for a
position of trust she stated, “He [Applicant] is one of the most trustworthy people I have
working for me.” (Transcript at 34.)
A current work associate also submitted a letter on Applicant’s behalf. He has
known Applicant for ten years. Applicant was recruited by this person to work at his
current employment. In recommending Applicant for a position of trust he states, “He
[Applicant] is intelligent, results driven, thoughtful, and respectful toward others and
patiently works to help those around him succeed.” (Applicant Exhibit C.)
Applicant also submitted his latest performance review. They show that he is an
“Outstanding” employee, who exceeds performance requirements. (Applicant Exhibits I
and O.) 
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum. When evaluating an
applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider
the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each
guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions, which are to be used as appropriate 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(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 “[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
5
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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of 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.” 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, by his own admission, and supported by the documentary
evidence, had substantial past-due debts. The evidence is sufficient to raise these
potentially disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of 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.@ In addition, 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
6
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 difficulties arose primarily because of his wife’s mental and
emotional difficulties, which resulted in a divorce. As shown, his wife maliciously ran up
debts, and he followed legal advice in not paying his debts earlier. He now is engaged in
serious attempts to resolve his past due debts. At all times he has acted responsibly.
These two mitigating conditions apply. 
Applicant has received financial counselling. His current financial situation is
stable. I find that “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,”
as required by AG ¶ 20(c).
Applicant has followed legal advice and, during pendency of the property
settlement, begun paying his past due debts. Under the particular circumstances of this
case, I find that Applicant has “initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts,” as required by AG ¶ 20(d). As the Appeal Board ruled
concerning the successful mitigation of security concerns arising from financial
considerations, “[a]n applicant is not required to show that [he] has completely paid off
[his] indebtedness, only that [he] has established a reasonable plan to resolve [his]
debts and has ‘taken significant actions to implement that plan.’” ISCR Case No. 06-
12930 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 17, 2008) (quoting ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2-3 (App. Bd.
Jul. 6, 2006)). 
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 relevant circumstances. 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. 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant had some
financial problems, not of his making, but his current financial condition is stable. Under
AG ¶ 2(a)(2), I have considered the facts of the Applicant’s debt history. As stated at
7
length above, much of this was brought about because of his divorce and related
financial issues. Based on the record, I find that there have been permanent behavioral
changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I find that there is little to no potential for
pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); and that there is no likelihood
of recurrence (AG ¶ 2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with no questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
situation. On balance, I conclude that Applicant has successfully overcome the
Government's case opposing his request for a security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports granting 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 ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.f.: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.  Eligibility
for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge