1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09-05316
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Robert S. Poydasheff, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I grant Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.
Applicant signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) version of a security clearance application (SF-86) on March 9, 2009. The Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons
(SOR) on June 29, 2010, detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial
Considerations, that provided the basis for its preliminary decision to deny him a
security clearance. 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) implemented on September 1, 2006. 
 
The Order shows a date of October 25, 2010, one day before the request for continuance was received by1
facsimile. The administrative judge noted his decision in a written note dated October 26, 2010. 
GE 1; Tr. 26.2
2
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on June 6, 2010. He answered the
SOR in writing on July 19, 2010 and requested a hearing before an administrative
judge. DOHA received the request, and Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on July 29, 2010. I initially received the case assignment on August 17, 2010. DOHA
issued a notice of hearing on August 30, 2010, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on September 16, 2010. At the beginning of the hearing, Applicant was
advised of his right to have counsel. He requested an opportunity to retain counsel. I
continued the hearing. DOHA received the transcript of this hearing on September 23,
2010.
DOHA reassigned this case to another administrative judge on October 8, 2010
for workload reasons. DOHA issued a second notice of hearing on October 15, 2010,
scheduling the hearing for November 3, 2010. On October 26, 2010, counsel entered an
appearance on behalf of Applicant and requested a continuance to prepare for the
hearing. For good cause, the assigned administrative judge granted the continuance in
an Order dated October 26, 2010.1
DOHA reassigned this case to me on November 3, 2010 based on workload.
DOHA issued a third notice of hearing on November 12, 2010, and I convened the
hearing as scheduled on December 16, 2010. The Government offered six exhibits,
which were marked as Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 6, and which were received
and admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant and one witness testified. His
counsel submitted eight exhibits, which were marked as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A
through H, and which were received and admitted into evidence without objection.
DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on December 28, 2010. I held the
record open until December 31, 2010, for Applicant to submit additional matters.
Applicant timely submitted AE I - AE O, without objection. The record closed on
December 31, 2010.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all the factual allegations in the
SOR. His admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. He also provided
additional information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance. After
a complete and thorough review of the evidence of record, I make the following
additional findings of fact.  
Applicant, who is 27 years old, works as an electronic technician for a
Department of Defense contractor. He began his employment with this contractor in July
2010. He previously worked for another Department of Defense contractor from January
2009 until July 2010.  2
GE 1; Tr. 27.3
GE 1.4
GE 1; Tr. 20-25.5
GE 3; Tr. 21, 25, 35. 6
AE I - AE M.7
3
Applicant left high school in 2001. He attended a technical college from July 2003
to June 2004. He received his general equivalency diploma (GED) in March 2006.  He
returned to a technical school for no more than two months in 2007. He is currently
enrolled in school to learn management, with a goal of becoming a team leader.3
After leaving high school, Applicant worked numerous jobs, including lawn
maintenance, pizza delivery, labor, stock boy, store delivery man, assembly line,
installer, painter, cook at donut store, kennel tech, and fast food. Many of these jobs did
not pay well and many involved temporary employment. In between jobs, he received
unemployment benefits. He began working in his current career field in January 2009.4
Applicant is currently engaged. In February 2007, he married his long-time
girlfriend. They had no children. They separated in July 2007 and divorced in
September 2007. During the marriage, he provided the primary household income. His
wife worked sporadically, including as a grocery store cashier. As part of their divorce
settlement, Applicant was to keep a 2006 Honda Civic car and make the monthly
payments. After many arguments, Applicant relinquished control of the car to his former
wife. He lost his job and could not continue with the car payments. His wife also did not
pay the monthly payment, which resulted in a car repossession. He acknowledged a
continuing obligation to pay his loan on the car.5
Applicant sustained injuries in a motorcycle accident and received medical
treatment. He did not have health insurance or income to pay his bills. With the
assistance of his family, he attempted to obtain help with payment of these bills through
the medical provider. He was denied any assistance, although a program to help pay
medical bills for the indigent existed. In the summer of 2007, Applicant injured his toe
while working. He sought medical treatment, but still lacked health insurance to pay his
bills. He has medical insurance with his present employer.6
Applicant currently earns $1,638 in straight salary bi-weekly and an additional
$268 in income bi-weekly. His bi-weekly net pay totals $1,409. His total net monthly pay
is $2,819. His fiancee lives with him and contributes to the household income. Her net
monthly pay totals $956. Their monthly expenses total $2,608, leaving approximately
$1,166 a month for savings, emergencies, and unanticipated expenses. His current
expenses are paid.7
AE A; AE O; Tr. 28-29. 8
Tr. 20-21, 30-31.9
AE B - AE H; Tr. 34.10
4
In July 2010, Applicant filed a petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 of the
Bankruptcy Code after saving the $1,600 filing fee. He completed a personal financial
management course required by the bankruptcy court on August 20, 2010. The
bankruptcy court discharged his debts on October 21, 2010.8
The debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.a - 1.h, 1.j, 1.k, and 1.m are included in Applicant’s
bankruptcy debts. Prior to the issuance of the SOR, Applicant developed a payment
plan with the collection creditor for the debts identified in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.l. He made
the payments as agreed throughout 2006. His payment resolved the debt in SOR ¶ 1.l.
The debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.i ($91) and 1.n ($461) are not listed in his bankruptcy schedule
of creditors. He did not provide any evidence showing that he paid or resolved these
two debts. All other SOR debts are resolved.
Applicant acknowledged that he made some poor decisions about his finances in
the past. More recently, he has started saving money for emergencies. He does not use
credit cards. He currently drives a 2008 truck, which is titled in his mother’s name and
covered under her insurance policy. His car payment is made to his mother each month.
Applicant acknowledged that the debts listed in the SOR are his. He files his federal and
state tax returns each year.9
Applicant’s parents signed an affidavit, accepting responsibility for any of
Applicant’s debts that are not part of his bankruptcy. Applicant’s immediate supervisor
and his manager describe him as honest and a person of integrity. They praise his hard
work. His friends describe him as honest, reliable, and dependable. All recommend him
for a security clearance.  10
Policies
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 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 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,
5
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.
Under 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 applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for 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 an 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).  
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. 
6
AG ¶ 19 describes the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and especially the following:
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Appellant developed significant financial problems when he and his first wife
separated, and he injured himself in two accidents. He was unable to pay his debts.
These two disqualifying conditions apply.
The Financial Considerations guideline also includes examples of conditions that
can mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 20(a) through
20(f), and especially the following:
(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; and
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
Applicant’s debts occurred several years ago, when he did not have medical
insurance and was unemployed. When he and his wife divorced, his former wife initially
agreed that he should have the Honda Civic and make the payments. Eventually, she
took possession of the car. When Applicant lost his job and could no longer make the
car payments, his former wife failed to make the monthly car payment. In 2006,
Applicant negotiated a payment plan for a bank debt and a broken lease debt. He made
small payments for a year, but did not complete his payment plan. He filed for
bankruptcy in July 2010, and completed the required financial counseling program. He
has resolved all but $550 of the debts listed in the SOR. He pays his monthly bills and
does not incur unnecessary expenses. AG ¶¶ 20(a) and 20(c) apply. AG ¶ 20(b) is
partially applicable, and AG ¶ 20(d) applies to SOR ¶ 1.l only.
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 an 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. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct,
but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a
nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
The evidence in support of granting a security clearance to Applicant under the
whole-person concept is more substantial than the evidence in support of denial. In
reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s
financial problems first began when he sustained injuries in a motorcycle accident, and
he lacked medical insurance to pay his bills. At this time, Applicant worked in seasonal
and temporary jobs, which did not provide him with health insurance or a steady
income. Although he did not have long periods of unemployment, he did not have
steady income or health insurance for several years. When he lost his job in the
summer of 2007, he lacked sufficient income to make his car payment, and his former
wife declined to make the payment, even though she drove the car. Given the level of
his debt, Applicant decided to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Once he had saved the
required filing costs, he proceed with his bankruptcy filing. Most of his SOR debts were
included in his bankruptcy and discharged in October 2010. Applicant has not spent
money excessively and does not have new unpaid debts. Most significantly, he has
taken affirmative action to pay or resolve most of the delinquent debts raising security
concerns, and he lives within his monthly income. He has not provided proof that he
paid or resolved two small bills, totaling $550. These two small debts cannot be a
source of improper pressure or duress. Of course, the issue is not simply whether all his
8
debts are paid: it is whether his financial circumstances raise concerns about his fitness
to hold a security clearance. While two small debts remain unpaid, they are insufficient
to raise security concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(1).) Applicant has taken responsibility for his
debts and has changed his approach to his financial management.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his finances under
Guideline F.
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
Subparagraph 1.a- 1.n: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge