Item 1.1
Item 2.2
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-00811
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: D. Michael Lyles, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant accumulated more than $23,000 in delinquent debt over the past four
years. He offered no evidence of unusual circumstances or conditions beyond his
control that caused this debt. Nor did he demonstrate arrangements to repay the debt,
or the willingness or ability to avoid future financial irresponsibility. Resulting security
concerns were not mitigated. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and
exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on October 1, 2009.  On1
June 5, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations).  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding2
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Item 4.3
The Government submitted eight Items in support of the SOR allegations. 4
Item 5.5
Item 4.6
Item 5.7
Item 6.8
2
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines
promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR in an undated letter that was received by DOHA on
July 12, 2010, and requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the
written record without a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted the Government’s3
written case on August 11, 2010. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material
(FORM)  was provided to Applicant, and he was afforded an opportunity to file4
objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of
his receipt of the FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of his copy of the FORM
on August 27, 2010, and returned it to DOHA. He provided no further response to the
FORM within the 30-day period, did not request additional time to respond, and
expressed no objection to my consideration of the evidence submitted by Department
Counsel. I received the case assignment on October 26, 2010.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 25-year-old employee of a defense contractor, where he was hired
in September 2009. During the preceding three years, he was continuously employed in
a number of different positions, primarily as a restaurant cook. He has never held a
security clearance or served in the military.  He is married, with a four-year-old son.  In5
his response to the SOR, he admitted all but two allegations. He denied SOR ¶ 1.e,
stating that he did not know about that medical bill, and SOR ¶ 1.i because it is a
duplicate listing of the judgment debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b.  Applicant’s admissions,6
including his responses to DOHA interrogatories,  are incorporated in the following7
findings.
Applicant’s May 2010 credit report shows an unpaid $50 medical bill in collection,
as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e.  Applicant offered no evidence that this was not his debt, or8
that he had taken any steps to dispute it with the credit bureau. His mere declaration
that he does not know about the debt is insufficient to meet his burden to rebut, explain,
extenuate, or mitigate the allegation and the resulting security concerns.
Item 6; Item 7.9
Item 5. 10
3
Department Counsel offered no evidence concerning the debts alleged in SOR
¶¶ 1.b and 1.i, except the two credit reports. Both debts are owed to the same creditor,
with the former being a judgment for a slightly larger amount than the latter, which was
listed as a collection account on both reports. Applicant’s claim that the two represent
the same debt, the larger of which he admitted that he owes, is credible and consistent
with the evidence.  
In his SOR response, Applicant claimed that he had made some payments to
reduce the $164 debt, alleged in SOR ¶ 1.c, to $100. He failed to provide any
documentation to substantiate these payments. In any case, the debt remains
unresolved and no evidence was offered of any arrangements to resolve it.
Applicant admitted owing the remaining delinquent debts as alleged in the SOR.
These debts became delinquent during 2007, 2008, and 2009.  Eliminating the duplicate9
listing discussed above, his total delinquent debt to nine creditors is over $23,000. He
offered no evidence of unusual circumstances or conditions beyond his control that
gave rise to these debts. He offered no evidence of counseling or budget planning from
which to conclude that he has either the willingness or the means to resolve them, or to
avoid incurring additional delinquencies going forward. The personal financial statement
he submitted in response to DOHA interrogatories is incomplete, uncorroborated, and
highly improbable.   10
Applicant provided no evidence concerning the quality of his professional
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. He submitted
no character references or other evidence tending to establish good judgment,
trustworthiness, or reliability. I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or
character in person since he elected to have his case decided without a hearing. 
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 (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
4
guidelines in the context 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 the 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, “[t]he 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 clearance decision.” Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides:
“[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an applicant 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.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns relating to the guideline for financial considerations are 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. 
Department Counsel argued that the evidence established security concerns
under four Guideline F DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
FORM at 6, 8.11
5
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;
(b) indebtedness caused by frivolous or irresponsible spending and the
absence of any evidence of willingness or intent to pay the debt or
establish a realistic plan to pay the debt;
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; and
(e) consistent spending beyond one’s means, which may be indicated by
excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-
income ratio, and/or other financial analysis.  11
Applicant has been unable or unwilling to satisfy numerous debts over the past
four years, totaling over $23,000. Whether this was through unwillingness or inability, or
some combination of both, is not clear from the record evidence, but no other
explanation was offered. DCs 19(a) and (c) were accordingly established. There is no
substantial extrinsic evidence of frivolous or irresponsible spending. However, the rapid
accumulation of this much delinquent debt with no apparent means to repay it, together
with the absence of any evidence of Applicant’s willingness or intent to repay those
creditors, supports some concerns under DC 19(b). The level of indebtedness involved
in this case does not, per se, support application of DC 19(e), nor did Department
Counsel provide evidence or financial analysis of either negative cash flow or a high
debt-to-income ratio. The evidence raises security concerns under DCs 19(a), (b), and
(c), thereby shifting the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those
concerns. 
The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:
(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; 
6
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(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.
Applicant’s delinquent debts, in excess of $23,000, arose over the past four
years and continue to date. Applicant failed to demonstrate that such problems are
unlikely to continue or recur, or that his reliability and trustworthiness have improved.
The evidence does not support the application of MC 20(a). 
Applicant was continuously employed throughout the period in question,
according to his security clearance application, and offered no evidence that would
support mitigation under MC 20(b). He and his wife simply spent more than they earned
on a regular basis. Applicant did not undergo financial counseling, and he offered no
evidence to establish clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under
control. MC 20(c) is therefore inapplicable. 
Applicant claimed that he paid $64 toward more than $23,000 in delinquent debt,
but offered no evidence to corroborate any payment to any of the SOR-listed creditors.
Nor did he submit evidence of any arrangements to repay or otherwise resolve any of
those debts. No mitigation under MC 20(d) was proven. Finally, Applicant disputed the
debt in SOR ¶ 1.e, because he did not know what it was. However, he provided no proof
that it was not his debt, or that he took any action to resolve the issue. He therefore
failed to meet his burden of proof under MC 20(e). 
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. 
7
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
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is an accountable
adult, who is responsible for his voluntary choices and conduct that underlie the security
concerns expressed in the SOR. His financial irresponsibility spans the past four years,
and continues at present. It involves substantial debts to nine different creditors totaling
more than $23,000, with no indication that such conduct has ended. He demonstrated
neither the means nor the willingness to fulfill his legal obligations to these creditors. He
offered no evidence of rehabilitation or of responsible conduct in other areas of his life.
The potential for pressure, coercion, and duress remains undiminished. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with substantial doubt as to Applicant’s
present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. He did not meet his burden to
mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial considerations.
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: 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.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge