1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 08-08059
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg Cervi, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I deny 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 8, 2008. The Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons
(SOR) on September 10, 2010, detailing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) that provided the basis for its preliminary decision to deny her 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
For Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG) implemented on
September 1, 2006. 
 
W hen  SOR allegations are controverted, the government bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient1
to prove controverted allegations. Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. “That burden has two components. First, the
government must establish by substantial evidence that the facts and events alleged in the SOR indeed took
place. Second, the government must establish a nexus between the existence of the established facts and
events and a legitimate security concern.” See ISCR Case No. 07-18525 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 18, 2009),
(concurring and dissenting, in part) (citations omitted). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection
between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See
ISCR Case No. 08-06605 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 4, 2010); ISCR Case No. 08-07290 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 17,
2009).
Item 5.2
Response to SOR.3
2
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on September 10, 2010. She
submitted a notarized, written response to the SOR allegations dated October 1, 2010
and a second response dated October 29, 2010, and requested a decision on the
written record in lieu of a hearing. 
Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) and mailed
Applicant a complete copy on December 27, 2010. Applicant received the FORM on
January 13, 2011. She had 30 days from receipt of the FORM to file objections and
submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. She submitted a response,
which she mailed on March 11, 2011. DOHA assigned this case to me on March 21,
2011. The Government submitted ten exhibits, which have been marked as Items 1-10
and admitted into the record. Applicant’s response to the SOR has been marked and
admitted as Item 4, and the SOR has been marked as Item 1. Her response to the
FORM is marked as Applicant exhibit (AE) A.
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a,
1.b and 1.d of the SOR. Her admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. She
denied the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.c, 1.e, 1.f, and 1.g of the SOR.  She also provided1
additional information to support her 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 55 years old, works as a dispatcher for a Department of
Defense contractor. She began working for her employer in June 1986, almost 25 years
ago. She received her first security clearance in 2005. The record contains no evidence
that Applicant mishandled sensitive or classified information or that Applicant has
encountered problems in the workplace.2
Applicant and her husband married in September 1988. They have one son, who
is 23 years old. Her husband works in the trucking industry. In the last 10 years, he lost
time from work due to illness and the fluctuations in the business cycle as related to the
trucking industry. Their income has been directly impacted by his variable income.3
Item 10.4
Item 8; Item 9; AE A.5
3
According to her personal financial statement attached to her responses to
interrogatories, Applicant earns $2,130 a month in gross income and receives
approximately $600 a month in net pay. She lists $1,532 in payroll deductions without
an explanation for the high level of deductions. Her husband’s net income is listed at
$4,000 a month, for a household net income of $4,600. Her monthly expenses total
$2,141 and include a first mortgage payment of $485, a second mortgage payment of
$248, utility expenses of $250, car expenses of $250, a car payment of $348, medical
expenses of $250, food expenses of $150, and three other expenses of $160. At the
end of each month, Applicant has approximately $2,460.
The SOR identified six purportedly continuing delinquencies as reflected by credit
reports from 2008 and 2010, totaling approximately $34,764. Some accounts have been
transferred, reassigned, or sold to other creditors or collection agents. Other accounts
are referenced repeatedly in both credit reports, in many instances duplicating other
accounts listed, either under the same creditor or collection agency name or under a
different creditor or collection agency name. Some accounts are identified by complete
account numbers, while others are identified by partial account numbers, in some
instances eliminating the last four digits and in others eliminating other digits.
Applicant and her husband filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy on August 18, 1997.
According to the court docket sheet, they reaffirmed two debts. On December 5, 1997,
the court discharged their remaining debts. A copy of their bankruptcy petition, including
a list of creditors, is not included in the record. The six debts identified in the SOR
became delinquent after Applicant and her husband’s bankruptcy discharge.4
Concerning the $14,830 debt listed in SOR ¶ 1.b, Applicant advised in her
response to the FORM that she reached an agreement with the collection agent for this
debt to pay $200 a month. She provided a copy of a letter dated February 15, 2011,
which indicated that a payment for $200 would be withdrawn from her account on
February 23, 2011. The letter is from a known collection agent, but does not specify the
name of the original creditor or original account number. Applicant has not provided any
other documents showing the relationship between the collection agent and the original
creditor, nor has she provided documents showing when her payments began and how
much she has paid on this debt. She did indicate in her two October 2010 responses
that she was paying $200 a month on this debt. The May 1, 2008 and November 6,
2008 credit reports indicated that this debt had been charged off and the account
closed. The collection agent is not listed on any credit report in the record.5
Applicant admitted that she was behind in her mortgage payment in the amount
of $4,623 as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d. When her husband became ill and missed time from
work, she could not make all her mortgage payments. She stated that she is current on
her payments and has paid her arrearage. She, however, did not provide any
Item 4; Item 7 - Item 9.6
Item 4; Item 7 - Item 9; AE A.7
Item 7- Item 9.8
4
documents reflecting that she paid her past due amounts and that she is current. The
July 12, 2010 credit report shows that she is still past due on her mortgage in the
amount of $4,623. The May 1, 2008 credit report indicates that her mortgage was
current, but the November 6, 2008 credit report shows that she was behind at least two
payments beginning in July 2008.6
Applicant denied owing any money to the creditors in SOR ¶¶ 1.c (credit card -
$7,835), 1.e (store account - $1,776), 1.f (credit account - $2,700), and 1.g (credit
account - $3,000). She acknowledged having an account with each creditor in the
distant past, but stated that, to the best of her knowledge, each account had been paid.
In her response to the FORM, she stated that she believed these four accounts had
been included in her 1997 bankruptcy. The May 1, 2008 credit report reflects that all
four accounts have a zero balance and have been closed because the account had
been purchased by another lender. Except for the credit card debt in SOR ¶ 1.c, the
name of the current holder of the remaining three debts is unknown, as the debt is not
listed on the credit report under the name of the new owner. As to the debt in SOR ¶
1.c, the May 1, 2008 credit report shows that the original bank creditor sold the debt to
another bank, which sold the debt to a collection agency. The credit reports of record do
not list either of the subsequent purchasers as an owner of this debt. Applicant indicated
that she has no way to contact the creditors as she has not received any
correspondence from them. The May 1, 2008 credit report shows a mailing address for
each of the original creditors for these fours debts, but the November 6, 2008 and July
12, 2010 credit reports contain no contact information for the original creditors.7
Applicant has not submitted documentation which shows that she attempted to
validate these debts with the creditors or that she had disputed the validity of the debts
with the credit reporting agencies. Likewise, the record does not contain documentation
showing that she received credit counseling.
The three credit reports in the record indicate that Applicant pays or has paid
many of her debts in a timely manner. The credit reports also reflect that she paid a
number of past due debts.8
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.
5
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,
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
6
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. 
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. 
Applicant developed significant financial problems when her husband lost time
from work due to illness and their finances were impacted by the work fluctuations of the
trucking industry. Most of the debts listed in the SOR remain unresolved. 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;
(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.
With the exception of her mortgage debt, Applicant’s remaining debts became
past due between November 2003 and November 2005. Her mortgage debt problems
are more recent. Her financial problems are the result of her husband’s variable work
7
and his illness, which makes AG ¶ 20(b) partially applicable. Because she has not
provided evidence that she acted reasonably under the circumstances, stating instead
that she has not heard from the creditors or received information that she still owes
them money, this mitigating condition is not fully applicable. Under the guidelines, she
has an affirmative duty to contact the creditors listed in the SOR about paying her debts.
Because there is no evidence that she has contacted her creditors or the credit
reporting agencies, or that she has paid the debts listed in the SOR, the remaining
mitigating conditions are not applicable.
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. 
In reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant
has worked for 25 years with her employer. She is an employee in good standing. Her
financial problems are related to her husband’s variable work and his health. She paid a
number of old past-due debts that are not listed on the SOR. This shows that she has
acted responsibly about some of her past debts and supports her statement and limited
documentation that she is paying the creditor in SOR ¶ 1.b $200 a month. She is
probably current on her mortgage, but she has not provided the documentation which
shows she paid her mortgage arrearage. Her main problem is a lack of documentation
concerning the four remaining debts listed in the SOR, which total approximately
8
$15,400. Without evidence of efforts on her part to dispute the debts remaining on her
credit reports, Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns about her finances.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to Applicant’s
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude
Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from her 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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 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.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge