1
                                                            
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-05650
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Daniel f. Crowley, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
February 3, 2011
Decision
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On March 1, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for
Applicant. (Item 1.) 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. 
 
Applicant responded to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, on March 24, 2010. (Item 2.)
He requested that his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. 
On July 14, 2010, Department Counsel submitted the Department's written case.
A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant. In
2
the FORM, Department Counsel offered nine documentary exhibits (Items 1-9).
Applicant was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation. A response was due on August 26, 2010. Applicant did not
submit additional evidence. The case was assigned to this Administrative Judge on
October 14, 2010.
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access
to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including the
FORM, Applicant's RSOR and the other admitted documents, and upon due
consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of fact: 
Applicant is 40 years old. He works for 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 seven allegations (1.a. through 1.g.) regarding overdue debts
under Adjudicative Guideline F. All of the allegations will be discussed in the same order
as they were listed in the SOR:
1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $6,499. Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and claimed that he had been making
payments of $25 a month since June 2009, but he stopped payments when he received
a claim for this debt from another collection agency. No evidence has been introduced
to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced. I find that this debt has not
been paid. 
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR on a mortgage account that is past
due in the approximate amount of $10,000, for a home in foreclosure with a total loan
balance of $146,000. Applicant denied this debt in Item 2, stating that he has not been
contacted regarding this debt. He wrote, “As the property has long since foreclosed I
have no intentions regarding this debt at this time.” Applicant listed this debt on a
Security Clearance Application (SCA) (Item 4), and it is listed on all of the credit reports.
(Items 5, 6, and 9.) No evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has
been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $7,557.  Applicant
denied this debt in Item 2, stating that he does not know the status of this debt, nor does
he believe the amount stated is the actual amount owed. Applicant listed this debt on
Item 4, and it is listed on all of the credit reports. (Items 5, 6, and 9.) No evidence has
been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still
outstanding. 
3
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $6,543. Applicant
denied this debt in Item 2, stating that he does not know the status of this debt, nor does
he believe the amount stated is the actual amount owed. Applicant discussed this debt
on his Response to Interrogatories (Item 7), but it is not clear if it is listed on the credit
reports. (Items 5, 6, and 9.) The Government has not established that this debt is still
outstanding.
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR on a mortgage account that is past
due in the approximate amount of $10,000, for a home in foreclosure with a total loan
balance of $238,000.  Applicant denied this debt in Item 2, stating that he has not been
contacted regarding this debt. He wrote, “As the property has long since foreclosed I
have no intentions regarding this debt at this time.” Applicant listed this debt on Item 4,
and it is also listed on Item 5. No evidence has been introduced to establish that this
debt has been resolved. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $41,952.  Applicant
denied this debt in Item 2, stating that he has not been contacted regarding this debt.
He wrote, “As the property has long since foreclosed I have no intentions regarding this
debt at this time.” He also indicated that this debt was for a mortgage on a home that he
owned, which was sold and settled on October 17, 2007. Item 5 lists two debts to this
creditor with one debt of $41,952 still owed. I find that this debt is still outstanding. 
1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $6,274.  Applicant
admitted this debt in his RSOR (Item 2), and claimed that he had been making
payments of $25 a month since June 2009.  No evidence has been introduced to
establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced. I find that this debt has not been
paid. 
In his RSOR, Applicant stated that the reason he has only been making
payments of $25 is because since October 2007, he has only been employed for 17
months in total, spanning three different jobs. Also, in August 2009, Applicant’s wife had
a 10 level spine fusion and lost her job.  
In a subject interview, Applicant blamed his financial problems on his
unemployment and also bad real estate investments, including purchasing property that
was consistently vandalized. (Item 7.)
 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, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
4
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).  
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
5
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 accumulated significant delinquent debt the majority of which has not
been resolved. 
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 indicated that his financial problems resulted from his unemployment
and that of his wife. However, since no evidence was introduced to establish that
Applicant has repaid or resolved most of his considerable overdue debt, I cannot find
that he has acted responsibly. Therefore, I do not find that this potentially mitigating
condition is a factor for consideration in this case, nor do I find that any other mitigating
condition can be considered to apply to this case. 
I conclude that until Applicant is able to significantly reduce his overdue debt, and
show that he can maintain more financial stability, he has not mitigated the financial
concerns of the Government.
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.  
  
6
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 Disqualifying Conditions apply and no Mitigating Condition applies,
I find that the record evidence leaves me with significant questions and 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 not 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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.c.: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.d.: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.e. through 1.g.: 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.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge