1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-02910
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
March 23, 2011
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on December 10, 2008. (Government Exhibit 4.)  On November 23, 2009, the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
detailing the security concerns under Guidelines F and E concerning Applicant. 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 guidelines (AG) effective within the Department
of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant submitted an Answer to the SOR on December 15, 2009, and
requested a decision be made without a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted a File
or Relevant Material (FORM) to the Applicant on September 16, 2010. Applicant
received the FORM on September 28, 2010, and was given 30 days to submit any
additional information. Applicant elected not to submit any additional information. The
case was assigned to me on December 1, 2010. Based upon a review of the case file,
pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 31 and single.  He is employed by a defense contractor and seeks to
obtain a security clearance in connection with his employment. 
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he is financially overextended and therefore at risk of having to
engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant admitted subparagraphs 1.a., 1.b.,
and 1.g. Those admissions are deemed findings of fact. He denied subparagraphs 1.c.,
1.d., 1.e., 1.f., 1.h., and 1.i. He also submitted additional information to support his
request for a continued security clearance.
1.a. Applicant admits that a judgement was filed against him in 2008 in the
amount of $3,704.59. Applicant states in his Answer, “I was working overseas in Korea
when judgment was made. No summons mailed to me, saw it was on credit report.” No
other information was provided. The judgement has not been resolved.
1.b. Applicant admits that he is indebted to a creditor for a delinquent debt in
the amount of $3,871.00 for a repossessed automobile. There is no evidence that
Applicant has paid this debt or intends to pay this debt. This debt is unresolved.
1.c. Applicant denies that he is indebted to a creditor in the amount of $419.00.
Applicant states in his Answer that the debt was paid in June 2009. Attached to his
Answer he submitted a letter from the collection agent for this debt dated August 14,
2009, indicating that they could not find a file with his name and the account number.
(Answer at 7.) This debt is in dispute.
1.d. Applicant denies that he is indebted to a utility in the amount of $208.00.
Applicant states in his Answer that the debt was paid in June 2009. A credit report dated
July 24, 2010, confirms that a debt to this creditor was paid. However, the credit report
also shows an additional unpaid debt for this amount under the Applicant’s name.
(Government Exhibit 7 at 2.) Applicant stated in a set of interrogatories, “$208 was paid
in full, corresponding conformation numbers and customers service rep’s info was
provided.” (Government Exhibit 8 at 8.) Given the factual status of this case, I cannot
determine the current status of this debt. This debt is in dispute.
1.e. Applicant denies that he owes a medical creditor $530. He further stated
that this medical bill was in relation to a vehicle accident he was involved in during the
time he was on active duty with the United States military. As such, the medical bills
were to be paid by Tricare. He stated in his Answer that Tricare has been in contact with
the creditor and that the account has been removed from his credit report. This debt is
not contained on Applicant’s most current credit report. (Government Exhibit 7.) Given
the factual status of this case, I cannot determine the current status of this debt. This
debt is in dispute.
3
1.f. Applicant denies that he owes a medical creditor $731. He further stated
that this medical bill was in relation to a vehicle accident he was involved in during the
time he was on active duty with the United States military. As such, the medical bills
were to be paid by Tricare. He stated in his Answer that Tricare has been in contact with
the creditor and that the account has been removed from his credit report. This debt is
not contained on Applicant’s most current credit report. (Government Exhibit 7.) Given
the factual status of this case, I cannot determine the current status of this debt. This
debt is in dispute.
1.g. Applicant admits that he is indebted to a creditor for a delinquent debt in
the amount of $970.00. Applicant has made no recent payments on this debt, and there
is no evidence that he is going to make payments on this debt.
1.h. Applicant denies that he is indebted to a creditor in the amount of $305.00.
Applicant states in his Answer that the debt was paid in full. Attached to his Answer he
submitted letters from the collection agent for this debt dated June 3, 2009, indicating
that two accounts were paid in full. (Answer at 4-5.) This debt is resolved.
1.i. Applicant denies that he is indebted to a creditor in the amount of $69.00.
Applicant states in his Answer that the debt was paid in full. Attached to his Answer he
submitted letters from the collection agent for this debt dated June 3, 2009, indicating
that two accounts were paid in full. (Answer at 4-5.) This debt is resolved.
Applicant states in an interview with a Government investigator:
[Applicant’s] credit problems began when he got out of the military.
He was paying his bills via allotment. When he got out, it took awhile to
find a job and he could not pay. He did not even receive his last pay check
until 2 months after he got out. When he got out, he was on
unemployment. He then got a job in 10/07. He went to work for [Company
One] in Korea until 10/07 (sic). From 10/08 to present, he works for
[Company Two]. Since he got back from Korea, he has been paying for
hotels and storage. He is trying to get back on his feet. His son was also
born while he was in Korea. (Government Exhibit 8 at 5.)
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct)
The Government alleges under Guideline E that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he has engaged in conduct which displays questionable judgment,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. Applicant admits all of
the allegations under this paragraph. Those admissions are deemed findings of fact.
In November 2005, Applicant was arrested and charged for Driving Under the
Influence of Alcohol. He used cocaine in December 2005, after being granted a security
clearance in 1999. Because of his use of cocaine, he tested positive in a urinalysis
taken in conjunction with his attending a military substance abuse program in December
4
2005. As a result of these activities, he received a General Discharge Under Honorable
Conditions for Drug Rehabilitation Failure in July 2006.
Applicant states that he had personal issues in November and December 2005,
which lead to this conduct. In the Additional Comments section of his Electronic
Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (eQIP) dated December 10, 2008, he
states:
The months following may 2005, I was unsure about living life. My
close friend died while I was deployed in Iraq and I came home on R&R
and my uncle and myself was (sic) involved in a accident that resulted in
him dying in my arms. I self recommended myself to division mental health
because I didn’t know what to do. I made decisions in those months that
resolted (sic) in a chain reaction of events that overwhelmed me. I was
diagnosed with bereavment (sic)/ptsd. I have taken control of my situation
and made the best possible attempt to continue to look forward.
(Government Exhibit 4 at 36.) (See Government Exhibit 8 at 4-5.)
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
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  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 and
mitigating conditions, which are to be used as appropriate 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 over-arching
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.  In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on his or her own common
sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the ways of the world, in
making a reasoned decision.
5
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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any
determination under this order . . . 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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access
to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Paragraph 1 (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 notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
6
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. The Applicant, at the time the SOR was issued, had approximately
$11,907 in past due debts, all of which have been due and owing for several years. The
evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ Applicant=s
financial difficulties arose in about 2006, when he left the military. The most recent
credit report in the record indicates that Applicant pays his current bills in a timely
manner. In addition, while he paid or disputes six of the debts in the SOR, and those
subparagraphs are found for him, he has not shown any movement in paying his largest
debts. This mitigating condition does not have application in this case. 
AG ¶ 20(b) states that the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where “the
conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s
control (e.g., loss of employment. . .), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances.”  Applicant was unemployed for a considerable period of time after
leaving the military. Once he became employed and received notice of his debts, he has
moved to pay some off and dispute others. This mitigating condition has some
application in this case.
The Applicant has not yet made a good-faith effort to pay off his creditors.  There
is little to no track record of his making payments for a consistent period of time.
Accordingly, AG ¶ 20(d) is not applicable.  Finally, at the present time, I cannot find that
“there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control,” as
required by AG ¶ 20(c). Paragraph 1 is found against the Applicant.
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E, Personal Conduct)
The security concern relating to Personal Conduct is set out in AG ¶ 15:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty or unwillingness to comply with rules or regulations can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information.
The Applicant’s conduct set forth under Paragraph 2, brings into play
disqualifying condition ¶ 16(c) under Guideline E: 
credible adverse information in several adjudicative areas that is not
sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline,
but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person
assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability,
lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other
7
characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard
protected information.
The following mitigating conditions under Guideline E ¶ 17 apply to his conduct:
AG ¶ 17(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the
behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment, and
AG ¶ 17(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained
counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to
alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused
untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such
behavior is unlikely to recur.
The Applicant’s conduct in November and December 2005 was singular in
nature, and there is no evidence of recurrence. It took place five years before the record
closed and has no current security significance. Paragraph 2 is found for the Applicant.
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 relevant circumstances. 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 administrative judge must 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The discussion under
Guidelines F and E, above, applies here as well. Applicant had financial problems when
he got out of the military. He has begun to make strides in getting his financial situation
under control. However, I cannot find that his financial situation is under control. Under
AG ¶ 2(a)(3), I cannot find that there have been permanent behavioral changes under
AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, at the present time, I also cannot find that there is little to no
8
potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); and that there is
no likelihood of recurrence (AG ¶ 2(a)(9)). 
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 his financial situation.
Accordingly, the evidence supports denying his request for a security clearance.
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 THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g.: Against the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i.: For the Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR THE APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d.: For the Applicant
Subparagraph 2.e.: For the 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.
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge
9