The Government submitted nine items in support of its case.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-06016
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: William T. O’Neill, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A, Administrative Judge:
On December 3, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under Guideline
F (Financial Considerations). 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 and requested an administrative
determination. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM),
dated January 27, 2011.  Applicant received the FORM on February 8, 2011, but did1
not submit any response. On April 1, 2011, the Director, DOHA, forwarded the case for
assignment to an administrative judge. I received the case assignment on April 4, 2011.
2
Based on a review of the case file, submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant failed to
meet her burden regarding the security concerns raised. Security clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations under
Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
Applicant is a 43-year-old employee of a defense contractor seeking to obtain a
security clearance. She graduated from high school and received a degree from a
technical college in August 2007. Applicant is divorced. She has worked for her current
employer since February 2010. (Item 5)
The SOR lists six delinquent accounts totaling $33,000. Applicant admitted the
debts and the credit reports confirm them. (Items 4, 8 and 9) She also acknowledged
that she has student loans in deferment. She provided no documentary evidence
showing that she has paid any accounts, but she intends to pay them. She submitted a
“debt cancellation spread sheet” with her answer to the SOR. She acknowledges that
the plan is entirely contingent on the approval of her security clearance. She admitted
that she did not contact any creditors before now because she had no money. She
offered to pay $10 a month to pay on the smallest debts alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d-1.f. 
Applicant attributed her debts to her mother’s serious illness which required
Applicant to participate in her mother’s care beginning in May 2005. (Item 4) Applicant
willingly left her full time employment in April 2008 to care for her mother. Applicant
used her savings and credit to live. She attempted to obtain a real estate position but
due to the economic market was unable to find a position. No significant information
was provided that linked these events to the debts at issue. She also failed to provide
information about her current finances. There is no evidence that she has pursued
financial counseling, or described her overall financial situation.
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
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
3
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 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 is something less than a2
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
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
applicant concerned.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
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 a7
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.
4
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 admitted the delinquent debts amounting to $33,000. 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. With such conditions raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the
case against her and mitigate security concerns.  
There are multiple debts at issue, amounting to $33,000. As noted above, there
is no tangible evidence that any of these debts have been resolved. Applicant wrote
three letters suggesting a monthly $10 payment to three creditors, but even those
minimal efforts were in response to the SOR. 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)
does not apply.
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,
divorce or separation) and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances)
does not apply. As noted, Applicant states that her financial problems arose from her
mother’s serious illness which required her direct participation in her care in 2005.
Applicant quit her full-time employment to 2008 to care for her mother at home. She
could not find another job and was unemployed until very recently. Although she failed
to document a clear nexus between those events, such unanticipated situations disrupt
one’s financial status. However, in the absence of details of other options than quitting
her job or detailing how the expenses during unemployment related to her prior savings,
there is no way to discern she acted responsibly during those periods. There is little
evidence that she acted reasonably under the circumstances. She allowed the
delinquent debts to remain unpaid. She had good intentions but did not make attempts
to resolve her debt until after she received the SOR. She receives partial credit under
this mitigating condition.
5
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply. Applicant submitted a debt plan
that is contingent on her obtaining a security clearance for this position. She has not
provided evidence of any payments, even the minimal $10 payments that she
suggested she could make on her three small debts. She did not present evidence that
she received financial counseling which obviates the applicability of 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).
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 43 years old. She has an ill, elderly mother for whom she cares. Applicant
was working and going to school in 2005 and apparently had no financial difficulties.
She left her employment in 2008 to care for her mother in her home. She devoted
herself to the care of her mother. She faced a challenging life event and made a tough
decision. She tried to find employment in the real estate field but was unemployed for
two years. She fully intends to pay her delinquent debts.
Applicant admitted to $33,000 in delinquent debt. She submitted a consolidation
plan that is contingent on obtaining a security clearance for this job. The evidence
related to potential efforts to mitigate the government’s concern is insufficient. There is
no evidence to evaluate her current financial situation. There is no evidence of a current
budget. While she did submit the consolidation plan, it is impossible to assess as part
of any overall personal finance strategy without more information and evidence. 
6
In the absence of documentary evidence submitted in response to this FORM to
show that Applicant has been able to begin to resolve her financial difficulties through
payment, or has obtained counseling with clear indication that the debts are being
resolved or are under control, these concerns must be decided against her in evaluating
her suitability to have access to classified information. The clearly consistent standard
indicate that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials. Applicant failed to submit sufficient information or evidence to mitigate the
security concerns raised in her case. Clearance is denied. 
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- 1.f: 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge