The Government submitted eight items in support of its case.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-06959
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Paul DeLaney, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On January 31, 2011, 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 March 7, 2011.  Applicant received the FORM on March 14, 2011, but did not1
submit any response. On April 26, 2011, the Director, DOHA, forwarded the case for
assignment to an administrative judge. I received the case assignment on April 27,
2011. Based on a review of the case file, submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant
2
failed to meet his burden regarding the security concerns raised. Security clearance is
denied.
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted four factual allegations (SOR ¶¶
1.a, b, bb, and ff). under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). He denied the other
allegations in his answer.
Applicant is a 26-year-old employee of a defense contractor seeking to obtain a
security clearance. He graduated from high school and attended several college
courses. Applicant’s first marriage ended in July 2009. He has three children from his
marriage. Applicant remarried in August 2009 and has three step-children from this
marriage. He has worked for his current employer since June 2010. (Item 5)
The SOR lists 32 delinquent accounts totaling $54,000. The delinquencies
include a 2007 and a 2008 judgment, medical accounts, vehicle repossession, and
collection accounts. Applicant admitted four delinquent accounts totaling $18,700 and
the credit reports confirm them. (Items 7 and 8) He also acknowledged on his security
clearance application that he defaulted on a mortgage loan of $65,000 that is past-due
in an amount of $21,384.(SOR ¶1.y). However, he denied this allegation in his answer
to the SOR. He provided no documentary evidence showing that he has paid any
accounts. 
.
Applicant simply denied the majority of the accounts alleged in the SOR.
However, during his June 2010 investigation interview, he reported to the investigator
that he was aware of the judgments and a vehicle repossession. He attributed his debts
to his separation and divorce. (Item 6) Applicant also acknowledged several collection
accounts and personal loans. Applicant provided no significant information that linked
his divorce in 2009 to his inability to pay the debts at issue. He provided no information
about his current finances. There is no evidence that he has pursued financial
counseling, or described his 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.
 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
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 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 delinquent debts amounting to $18,000. Although he denied
the majority of the debts in his answer to the SOR, he acknowledged others in his
interview and his security clearance application. 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
him and mitigate security concerns.  
There are multiple debts at issue, amounting to $54,000. As noted above, there
is no tangible evidence that any of these debts have been resolved. Applicant’s debts
are recent and ongoing. 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 his financial problems arose from his
2009 divorce. He failed to document a clear nexus between the event and his
delinquent debts. The judgments predate the actual divorce. There is no way to discern
he acted responsibly during those periods. There is little evidence that he acted
reasonably under the circumstances. He allowed the delinquent debts to remain
unpaid. He did not report any unemployment. This mitigating condition does not apply.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply. Applicant has not provided
evidence of any payments or a plan for repayment of the debts. He did not present
evidence that he 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).
5
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 26 years old. He has worked for his current employer since June 2010. He
was divorced in 2009. He has delinquent debts that he has not paid. He presented no
evidence in mitigation.
In the absence of documentary evidence submitted in response to this FORM
showing that Applicant started to resolve his 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 him in evaluating his suitability
to have access to classified information. The clearly-consistent standard indicates 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 his 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.ff: Against Applicant
6
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