1
                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
            DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
          
 
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-07976 
SSN: ----------------- ) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOWE, Philip S., Administrative Judge: 
 
On August 2, 2009, Applicant submitted her electronic version of the Security 
Clearance Application (SF 86) (e-QIP). On August 30, 2010, the Defense Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 
detailing 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 on 
September 1, 2006.  
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on September 8, 2010. Applicant 
requested her case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.  
 
On October 4, 2010, Department Counsel submitted the Department=s written 
case. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to the 
 
 
 
 
 
2
Applicant on October 5, 2010. She was given the opportunity to file objections and 
submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant received the file on 
October 8, 2010. Applicant filed a Response to the FORM within the 30 day time 
allowed that would have expired on November 11, 2010. I received the case 
assignment on November 16, 2010. Based upon a review of the complete case file, 
pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant denied the allegations in Subparagraphs 1.c and 1.f. She admitted the 
allegations in Subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b,1.d, 1.e, 1.g, 1.h, and 1.i. (Items 2-6)  
 
 Applicant is 61 years old, married, and has two adult children. She works for a 
defense contractor. She has had a security clearance since November 1990. Her 
husband is ill and currently in hospice care. Applicant is the sole wage earner in her 
family. (Item 5, SOR Answer, FORM Response) 
 
 Applicant was on disability from April to August 2008 for a back problem. In 
December 2008 her employer implemented an extended holiday work schedule, closing 
the company offices and then closing its plant every other Friday. Applicant did not 
submit information showing how long the term of closing was in 2009. In October 2009 
Applicant was subject to accelerated state income tax withholding. She contended 
these actions affected her income. She did not provide salary figures showing the 
financial effect on her income of any of these company and state actions. Applicant also 
cited as a reason for her financial difficulties the facts that one son and his family lived 
with her for five years (2001 to 2006), during which time she purchased a car for him. 
She is obligated to pay that auto loan. Her older son was out of prison for 18 months, 
during which he also lived with Applicant. She purchased a vehicle for that son on which 
debt she continues to pay because her son went back to prison. (Item 5, SOR Answer, 
FORM Response) 
 
 Applicant has nine delinquent debts listed in the SOR. They total $96,078. 
Applicant enrolled in a debt repayment plan in February 2009. She did not provide a 
copy of the agreement with that company showing the amount of money she was to pay 
them each month for use in settling her debts or the plan’s fees. Applicant’s documents 
showed she was in a 48-month plan starting in February 2009. Her financial statement 
of October 29, 2010, attached to her FORM Response, shows her net income as 
$4,624 and her monthly expenses as $7,987 (my addition of her expenses results in a 
total amount of $7,886, which I take to be the correct amount). Applicant does not 
explain in any of her documents how she can spend $3,262 more than she earns 
monthly. Her monthly payments to the debt plan are listed in the financial statement as 
$1,208. From February 2009 to the present her payments at that rate would total 
$25,368. Applicant did not show any evidence that she made those payments. (Answer 
and FORM Response) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3
 Applicant’s Answer and FORM Response claim she settled four debts. She does 
not present any documents to show payments were made on those settlements. The 
total of the settlements is $2,970. The first three settlement letters are dated August 26, 
2010, and the fourth letter is dated August 2, 2010. The fourth paragraph of the first 
three letters states that if Applicant is unable to “meet any of the terms of this settlement 
(for example you are unable to make an agreed upon payment) you are responsible for 
notifying the creditor/collector on this account.” These letters do not state the terms of 
the settlement or the account numbers listed in the three credit reports in the file. The 
account numbers listed in each letter do not relate to the account numbers on the debts 
listed in the SOR and in the credit reports. The amounts of the debts on a chart 
submitted as part of Applicant’s Response list creditors and amounts that are not the 
same as those listed in the SOR. Applicant did not submit any documents showing 
which SOR debts were included in her debt repayment program and coordinate the 
account numbers. The burden of proof was on her to do so. Applicant also did not 
explain why she paid $25,368 over a 21 month period to her debt settlement company 
yet only $2,970 was settled. (Items 6-8, Answer, FORM Response) 
 
 Applicant’s nine delinquent debts were all owed to credit card companies or 
banks. These accounts were opened between February 1995 and March 2008. They 
were reported delinquent between August 2009 and July 2010, according to the dates in 
the three credit reports dated from August 2009, November 2009, and August 2010. 
(Items 6-8)   
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an applicant=s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the revised 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, the administrative judge applies the guidelines 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 Awhole-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[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.  
 
 
 
 
 
4
According to Directive & E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to 
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive & E3.1.15, an 
“applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, 
extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the 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 as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of 
classified information. 
  
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be Ain 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 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 at AG & 19 contains nine disqualifying conditions that could raise 
security concerns. From these nine conditions, two conditions are applicable to the facts 
found in this case: 
 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and   
 
(c)  a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5
 From 1995 to the present, Applicant accumulated nine delinquent debts that 
remain unpaid or unresolved. These debts total $96,078. Applicant showed a pattern of 
incurring debt she could not repay with her income. 
 
The guideline in AG ¶ 20 contains six conditions that could mitigate security 
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Those conditions are:   
 
(a) the 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; 
 
(b) 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; 
 
(c) 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; 
 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue 
 creditors or otherwise resolve debts; 
 
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy 
 of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and 
 provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the 
 dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue;  and 
 
(f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income. 
  
The debts are currently owed. The expenditures are part of a pattern of spending 
exhibited in Applicant’s credit records. There were no unusual circumstances shown 
that are not likely to recur. AG ¶ 20 (a) does not apply. 
 
Applicant’s financial problems were not beyond her control. She made the 
decision to purchase each son a vehicle and remains obligated on those debts. Money 
used to pay those debts could have been used to pay the SOR debts. Applicant 
attempted to show that her 2008 four-month disability, her company’s work schedule 
changes in 2009, and the state government’s increased withholding affected her 
income, preventing her from paying her debts. But Applicant made only assertions not 
supported by objective financial facts and calculations. Her husband’s unfortunate 
medical condition first occurred in 1992, so Applicant has had 18 years to arrange her 
finances to accommodate her husband’s disability. Through all of this time she spent 
 
 
 
 
 
6
money she could not repay. She did not act responsibly under those circumstances. AG 
¶ 20 (b) does not apply. 
 
Applicant enrolled in a debt settlement program in February 2009. She did not 
show there was any financial counseling included in the program. She has not shown by 
any evidence that her problem is under control. Applicant did not state the amount of 
money she paid to the debt settlement program, but her October 2010 financial 
statement she submitted showed a $1,208 monthly payment. Making that payment for 
21 months means she paid the program $25,368. Yet the debt settlement program only 
settled $2,970 worth of debts between February 2009 and August 2010. Applicant did 
not submit any proof the settlement payments were made. Nor did she explain how she 
could afford to spend $3,262 more than she earns each month as her October 2010 
income/expense statement shows. Applicant’s documents and financial figures are not 
credible or persuasive. She failed to present a logical mathematical report on her 
finances at the present time. She did not show that she paid her debts in this plan. 
Applicant failed to show she made a good-faith effort to resolve her delinquent debt. 
She failed to meet her burden of proof. AG ¶ 20 (c) and (d) do not apply.  
 
Applicant did not offer any basis to dispute any of the SOR-listed debts. AG ¶ 20 
(e) does not apply. 
 
There is no evidence of any affluence being a factor in this case. Therefore, AG ¶ 
20 (f) does 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 relevant 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.      
 
 
 
 
 
 
7
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant was an adult when she 
incurred the debts. The actions she took in February 2009 to resolve her debts are not 
efficacious. The evidence she submitted is not coordinated as to account numbers with 
the list of debts in the SOR that are of a security concern. The magnitude of her 
delinquent debts and the lack of substantial progress in resolving them, leave her 
vulnerable to pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress. Applicant displayed a lack of 
good judgment incurring the debts and not devising a realistic and credible plan to 
resolve them. Her failure to present documents that directly link each delinquent debt to 
action taken as part of her debt repayment plan, or show that any alleged debts were 
repaid undermines her credibility about her debts.  
 
I read through each of the three credit reports attempting to connect Applicant’s 
Answer and Response assertions to the SOR debts. I read every document Applicant 
submitted and gave each one careful consideration. My conclusion was the documents 
submitted did not present a comprehensive and cohesive explanation of efforts 
Applicant took to resolve her debts. I did not find her Answer and Response to be 
credible or persuasive on the issues. Her information does not show what debts she 
paid or if they are on the SOR. 
 
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 did not mitigate the security concerns arising under the guideline for 
Financial Considerations. I conclude the “whole-person” concept against Applicant.  
 
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 
 
          Subparagraph 1.a to 1.i:   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. 
 
 
                                         
_________________ 
PHILIP S. HOWE 
Administrative Judge