1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-05806
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
December 13, 2010
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On January 11, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F
for 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) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
On January 27, 2010, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and he
requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. I received the case assignment on
March 9, 2010. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on April 2, 2010, and I convened the
hearing as scheduled on May 6, 2010. The Government offered Exhibits 1 through 8,
which were received without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and
submitted Exhibit A, at the time of hearing, which was also admitted without objection.
Three additional witnesses testified on behalf of Applicant. DOHA received the
transcript of the hearing (Tr) on May 14, 2010. I granted Applicant’s request to keep the
2
record open until June 4, 2010, to submit additional documents, and additional
documents that were received, have been identified and entered into evidence as
without objection as Exhibit B. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits,
and the testimony of Applicant and the additional witnesses, eligibility for access to
classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including
Applicant's RSOR, the admitted documents, and the testimony of Applicant, and upon
due consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of fact: 
Applicant is 36 years old. He is not married, and he has two sons. Applicant is
employed by a defense contractor, and he seeks a DoD security clearance in
connection with his employment in the defense sector.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists 13 allegations (1.a. through m.) regarding overdue debts under
Adjudicative Guideline F.  The allegations will be discussed below in the same order as
they were listed on the SOR:
1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $338.  In his RSOR,
Applicant admitted this allegation, but claimed that it was for a cable box that he had
returned, and he was disputing it. At the hearing, Applicant testified that he has disputed
this debt with the credit reporting agencies. (Tr at 58 – 60.) Exhibit 8 shows that this
debt has been disputed. I find that Applicant has a good-faith dispute of this debt. 
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $996. In his RSOR
and during his testimony, Applicant admitted this allegation, but claimed that it was not
correct as it was from the property management where he formerly lived, and since he
received back his initial deposit when he vacated the premises, the balance owed was
$0. Therefore, he has been disputing this debt.(Tr at 61 – 62.)  I find that Applicant has
a good-faith dispute of this debt. 
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a judgment in the amount of $565. 
In his RSOR, Applicant denied this allegation. However, at the hearing, Applicant
testified that he has made a payment of $300 on this debt, but there is still $565
outstanding on this debt, despite his payment, and he plans to pay this debt in the next
month or two.  (Tr at 63 – 64.) I find that the debt has not yet been resolved. 
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $28,000 for child
support. Applicant testified that he has made a payment plan where he would be paying
$400 a month, which would meet his current obligation of $247 a month and the
remainder would be applied to reduce his arrearage. This will be paid by automatic
deduction. While Exhibit 8 indicated that Applicant owes $29,499 on this debt, Applicant
testified that he has been double billed for part of the debt, because when he moved,
3
more than one state tried to collect on the same debt. He therefore believed the debt
was somewhat less, although he did not know the exact amount owed. (Tr at 65 - 69.)
Exhibit B consisted of an Order to Withhold Income for Child Support, confirming that
$400 would be withheld every month from Applicant’s wages to pay this debt. 
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $459. Applicant
testified that this debt is the same as 1.c., above. (Tr at 69.) After reviewing the credit
reports, I find this debt is the same debt to the same creditor as 1. c., and is only owed
once. (Exhibits 4 – 8.)
1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,761. Applicant
testified that this debt was paid, as it was on a secured credit card in which the credit
card company had the funds to pay the debt. Applicant testified further that this debt has
been removed from his credit report, which was confirmed on Exhibit 8. (Tr at 69 – 71.) I
find that this debt has been resolved.
1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $280. Applicant
testified that this debt for his home gas bill has been paid. (Tr at 71 – 72.)  While this
debt was listed on Exhibit 4, it was not listed on any of the other credit reports. (Exhibits
5 – 8.) I find that this debt has been resolved.
1.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $160. Applicant
testified that he has disputed this debt for a cable bill, as when he moved from his
premises, the cable company showed he had a balance of $0. (Tr at 72.) This debt was
listed on Exhibit 4, but it was not listed on any of the other credit reports. (Exhibits 5 –
8.) I find this debt has been resolved.
1.i. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,342. Applicant
testified that this debt, for a vehicle that he turned in, was paid when he returned the
vehicle in the amount of $2,100. He stated that when he disputed this bill it was
removed from his credit report. (Tr at 73.) This debt was listed on Exhibit 4, but it was
not listed on any of the other credit reports. (Exhibits 5 – 8.) I find this debt has been
resolved.
1.j. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,230. Applicant
testified that this debt for college courses that he took was supposed to be paid for by
his employer at the time. He stated that he sent a letter to the creditor, indicating that his
employer was scheduled to pay it under the college reimbursement program, and the
creditor agreed with Applicant, and this debt has subsequently been removed from his
credit reports. (Tr at 74 – 75.) This debt was listed on Exhibit 4, but it was not listed on
any of the other credit reports. (Exhibits 5 – 8.) I find this debt has been resolved.
1.k. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $333. Applicant
testified that this debt for wireless service has been paid. (Tr at 76.) This debt was listed
on Exhibits 4 through 7, but Exhibit 8 states “customer disputes this account
information. Paid, charge off.” I find this debt has been resolved.
4
1.l. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $132.  Applicant
testified that this debt has been paid, and it was removed from his credit reports. (Tr at
76 – 77.) While this debt was listed on Exhibit 4, it was not listed on any of the other
credit reports. (Exhibits 5 – 8.) I find this debt has been resolved.
1.m. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,992. Applicant
testified that he was not aware of the origin of this debt, and he thereafter disputed it.
He subsequently received a letter from Experian credit reporting service, which
informed him that this debt would be removed from his Experian credit report. This debt
was listed on Exhibit 4, but it was not listed on any of the other credit reports. (Exhibits 5
– 8.) I find this debt has been resolved.
Applicant testified that the majority of his financial problems occurred in the
period from 1999 to 2000 when he was unemployed, and he was also forced to relocate
to get other employment. Most of the overdue debts originated in 2000 and 2001. He
had not resolved these debts until recently, because he was not aware of them until he
met with the Government investigator in regards to this security clearance. He testified
that he is now doing a better job of managing his credit by retaining and reviewing all of
his documentation, as many of these debts were simply mistakes that he did not resolve
until recently. He also makes sure that he remains on budget. Finally, he pays $14 a
month to have regular access to credit reports from each of the credit reporting
agencies. (Tr at 79 – 83 .)
Mitigation
Applicant had three additional witness testify on his behalf. The first was a co-
worker, who has known Applicant since November 2009, and he sees him every day at
work. He indicated that he has no reason to doubt that Applicant is trustworthy, and he
knows no reason why he can not be trusted. (Tr at 31 - 39.)
The second witness was also a co–worker, who has known Applicant for
approximately 6 to 8 months. He testified that he believed Applicant had “an exemplary
character.” He also testified that Applicant was honest, truthful, and trustworthy. (Tr at
41 – 44.)
The third witness was Applicant’s girlfriend, who has known Applicant for one
year and seven months. She indicated that she has never seen Applicant act
irresponsibly or negatively regarding his finances. She confirmed that Applicant
considered, but did not purchase, a new vehicle, because it was outside of his budget.
She also reiterated that Applicant has been proactive in attempting to resolve all of his
debts for more than a year. She testified that Applicant had another bank account that
he is holding for his children, which he could have used to pay off his child support
arrearage, but he is saving that money for their college funds. Finally, the witness
testified that Applicant is current on all of his most recent debts. (Tr at 45 – 56.)
5
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
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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 common sense 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
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 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.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 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).  
6
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline 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 and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19 (a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶ 19 (c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant has accumulated significant delinquent debt. 
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties: Under AG ¶  20 (b), it may be mitigating 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.” As noted
above, Applicant testified that his financial problems resulted from the periods of
unemployment, together with the costs of moving to find employment. I find that he has
acted responsibly, since he has been paying off his debts or challenging the debts that
he has legitimately disputed. He has now set up a payment plan to resolve his one
remaining significant overdue debt for child support. Therefore, I find that this mitigating
condition is a factor for consideration in this case. 
AG ¶  20(c) is also applicable since Applicant has “received counseling for the
problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved.”
Finally, AG ¶  20(d) is applicable since Applicant has “initiated a good-faith effort
to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” I find that this mitigating
condition is also a factor for consideration in this case.
I conclude that Applicant has significantly reduced or resolved his overdue debt,
and he has shown that he can maintain more financial stability. Therefore, he has
mitigated the financial concerns of the Government.
7
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
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. Based on all of the reasons cited
above as to why the Mitigating Conditions apply, considered together with the positive
testimony from Applicant’s witnesses, I find that the record evidence leaves me with no
significant questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security
clearance under the whole-person concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant
has mitigated the security concerns. 
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.m.: For Applicant
8
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge