1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09-08558
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On October 7, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns arising under
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The action
was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within
Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DoD) Directive
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2,
1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), implemented in
September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR, admitted four of six delinquent debts, and
requested a hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me on December 23, 2010. DOHA
issued a notice of hearing on January 26, 2011, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on February 18, 2011. Department Counsel submitted five exhibits (GE 1-5)
which were admitted into the record without objection. Applicant testified and submitted
13 exhibits (AE A-M). At Applicant’s request, I kept the record open until February 28,
2011, for additional submissions. Applicant timely submitted AE N, which was admitted
into the record. DOHA received the transcript on February 28, 2011. Based on a review
2
of the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is
granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 32-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He graduated from
high school in 1997. He later obtained a certification from an apprenticeship program
for fire alarm systems. (AE A) Applicant is married and has two children, ages 13 and 5.
(Tr. 17) He has worked for his current employer since January 2008. He submitted his
first application for a security clearance on August 10, 2009. (GE 1)
Applicant was a stay-at-home father from 2006 until 2008. At that time, his wife
worked. For the past three years, he has been the sole provider. His wife just recently
started employment after the company downsized.
Applicant has one older brother. His brother has on numerous occasions
throughout the years illegally “used” Applicant’s identity by taking his social security
number. Applicant’s brother has been in and out of jail for various offenses. He is
currently in prison for murdering his girlfriend. (AE K, L, and M)
Financial
The SOR lists delinquent accounts, including a hospital bill, child support, and
several accounts totaling $10,000. Applicant admitted four of the delinquent debts and
the credit reports confirm them. (GE 2,3)
When Applicant received the SOR, he had no idea that his credit report noted
the alleged debts. He pays his bills and has not received any notices from creditors. He
submitted receipts for various bills that he has recently paid that were not on the SOR.
(AE C and H) He contacted a debt consolidation company to research and dispute
some debts as soon as he received the SOR. (GE 5) He also made a formal dispute
concerning several accounts. (AE I) After an investigation, he learned that it was more
efficient and less costly for him to continue on his own. He also learned that he was the
victim of identity theft. (AE L)
Applicant denies owing any hospital bills. He has medical insurance and has not
been in the hospital for the past three years. (SOR ¶ 1.a) He also denies owing any
child support (SOR ¶ 1.d) He presented documentation that supported his denial. The
hospital bill and the child support account do not belong to him. They are the result of
his brother using his social security information. (AE B and D)
Applicant presented documentation that he has paid the debts in SOR ¶ 1.b and
¶ 1.c for $50. (AE N) The bills were the result of ambulance rides for his wife. Applicant
and his wife moved in late 2008, and did not receive any notices. (Tr. 56) 
The alleged debt in SOR ¶ 1.d for $160 is the result of x-rays that were taken
home by Applicant and his wife. Due to a misunderstanding, they were billed for the x-
3
rays. In fact, they have the x-rays but did not understand they need to return them and
then sign them out. They have contacted the company and are in the process of
returning them. Applicant did not receive any notice due to a change of address. (Tr.
23) There will be no charge for the x-rays and the debt will be resolved. (Tr. 21; AE E)
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f for $523 is a utility account. Applicant’s high
heating bills created a problem in late 2010 when his wife was not working. The account
is in a repayment plan. Applicant is paying $210 each month for six months. (AE N) 
Applicant explained that he made payments on some accounts that were not his
before he finally learned about the identity theft. He noted that he was grateful that the
DoD investigation revealed the extent of the accounts that were on his credit report that
were not his. He was very sincere and candid that he was shocked to learn the extent
of the problem. 
Applicant’s 2011 monthly net income is approximately $3,500, which includes his
wife’s income. After monthly expenses, there is a net remainder of $50 in disposable
income. They do not own a car. They use public transportation. They live a frugal life.
They have no credit card debts. They are trying to save now that they are both working. 
Applicant submitted several letters of recommendation. Each attests to his
responsibility as a father, husband and employee. (AE A) Applicant is active in his
community. He mentors young fatherless boys.
Applicant also explained that his older daughter is from a previous marriage. The
child’s mother had custody of the child until the day she left the child at Applicant’s
home and never returned. Applicant had provided for his daughter by giving money to
his former wife. However, he has had custody of her and has provided for her since she
was about five years old.   
Personal Conduct
Applicant completed his security clearance application in August 2009. He
answered “No” to section 26 concerning his financial indebtedness in the last seven
years. He states that he did not intentionally mislead the government about any
delinquent debts that were 90 or 180 days delinquent.  He had no idea that he had any
listed on a credit report. At the hearing, it became clear that Applicant was credible
about the identity theft and his lack of knowledge of any delinquent debts.
Department Counsel, in fact, acknowledged the identity theft and found that
Applicant was credible concerning his answers on the security clearance application. At
the hearing, Department Counsel withdrew the allegation under the personal conduct
guideline.
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      1
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      2
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      3
4
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An 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.
The United States Government (Government) must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. 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. . . .”  The burden of proof is1
something less than a preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion2
is on the applicant.  3
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of 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
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      4
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
 Id.      6
5
applicant concerned.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance4
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt5
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a6
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an 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.” It also states that “an individual who is
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.
Applicant acknowledged that he learned during the investigation that he had
some small accounts that were delinquent. He also learned that he was the victim of
identity theft and did not owe $9,500 of the debt alleged in the SOR. Consequently,
Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial
obligations) apply in part. With such conditions raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome
the case against him and mitigate security concerns.  
Applicant has one utility account that is in repayment status. His other accounts
are paid. He provided documentation concerning the identity theft. He has no other
debts. Consequently, Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FCMC) AG ¶ 20(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) applies.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (the
conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g.,
loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death,
6
divorce or separation) and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances)
applies. Applicant had no idea that his credit report noted a $7,000 hospital bill and a
child support account for $2,000. After investigation, he learned that his older brother
had used his social security number. The accounts do not belong to Applicant. He was
the victim of identity theft. This mitigating condition applies.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) applies. When Applicant learned about the alleged
debts, he contacted a consolidation company to investigate and help him. He disputed
formally. He took action immediately. Applicant provided evidence of payments for
several bills. He is in a repayment plan for the one utility account that is delinquent. FC
MC AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and
there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control)
applies.
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 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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case as well as the “whole-person”
factors. Applicant is 32 years old. He is a good father and husband. He is providing for
his family. He was the victim of identity theft. He cooperated with the security clearance
process. He was candid and forthright at the hearing. He has been responsible since
learning about the financial issues. The Government withdrew the allegation under
personal conduct. I have no doubts about Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified
information.
7
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
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.f: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: WITHDRAWN
Subparagraph 2.a: Withdrawn
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 a security clearance.
Clearance is granted.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH
Administrative Judge