1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 10-00601
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 10, 2011
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On September 9, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F
for Applicant. (Item 1.) 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 (AG) effective within the Department of Defense for SORs
issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
On October 12, 2010, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and she
requested that her case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. (Item 3.)
On December 7, 2010, Department Counsel issued the Department's written case. A
complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant. In the
FORM, Department Counsel offered 11 documentary exhibits. (Items 1-11.) Applicant
was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation. A response was due on February 11, 2011. Applicant
submitted one additional two page letter that she wrote, which has been entered into
2
evidence without objection, as Item A. She also submitted additional documents, which
have also been entered into evidence without objection, as Item B. The case was
assigned to this Administrative Judge on March 3, 2011.
Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including
Applicant's RSOR, the admitted additional documents, and the FORM, and upon due
consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of fact: 
Applicant is 48 years old. Applicant is employed by a defense contractor, and she
seeks a DoD security clearance in connection with her employment in the defense
sector.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists 15 allegations (1.a. through 1.o.) regarding overdue debts totaling
approximately $24,500 under Adjudicative Guideline F. The debts will be discussed
below in the same order as they were listed on the SOR:
In her RSOR, Applicant denied every SOR allegation. In her post FORM
document (Item A), she wrote, “I denied all of the negative amounts on my credit report
[sic] because some of the items are duplicates and some of then [sic] have been paid
and some of the balance is not correct amount that I owe.” She does not identify which
debts are duplicates, which have been paid, or which debts do not indicate the correct
amount owed. On her Security Clearance Application (SCA) Applicant listed several of
her overdue bills and she wrote, “Currently we are having financial problems, mortgage
payments, and other bills to [sic] expensive, causing problems with paying bills. We are
currently working to make arrangements to pay off.”
Among the documents submitted by Applicant in Item B are two letters from the
law firm hired by Applicant to help her resolve her debts. Their information regarding
each debt will also be discussed when reviewing each debt.
Each debt listed on the SOR, has been included in at least one of the credit
reports in Items 6, 7, 9, or 11. Additionally, they have been referred to and admitted in
other documents that are in evidence. 
1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the past due amount of $333. In
Applicant’s Response to Interrogatories (Item 8), she wrote that this debt previously had
a balance of $1,333, but it has been reduced to $333. In the letter from the law firm,
they indicate that this debt has been deleted from the credit report. A letter from the
listed creditor states that the account was closed and returned to the original creditor.
3
(Item B.)  I find that this debt, at least as owed to the collection agency listed on the
SOR, has been resolved.
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a medical account in the amount of
$342. In Item 8 Applicant wrote that she paid $145.09, but that she did not receive a
confirmation letter showing it had been paid. Without some independent confirmation or
explanation, I cannot conclude that this debt has been resolved.  
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a medical account in the amount of
$29. In Item 8 Applicant wrote that she paid $29 at the time of an office visit, but that
she did not receive a receipt. In the letter from the law firm, they indicate that ‘Proof
[was] Sent to Client.” (Item B.) No indication was given as to what this was referring.
Without some independent confirmation or explanation, I cannot conclude that this debt
has been resolved.  
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,213. In the letter
from the law firm, they indicate that this debt has been deleted from the credit report.
(Item B.) No indication was given for why this debt has been deleted. Without some
independent confirmation or explanation, I cannot conclude that this debt has been
resolved.  
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $540. Applicant wrote
that she would pay a settlement in the amount of $267.12 by August 13, 2010. (Item 8.)
In the letter from the law firm, they indicate that this debt has been transferred to
another creditor. (Item B.) The credit report included with Item B shows that this debt
was paid in full for less than the full balance. I conclude that this debt has been
resolved.  
1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $4,734 for an
education loan. Applicant wrote that the creditor refused to make a payment
arrangement without a large down payment. She planned to get the money to make a
down payment to set up a payment plan. (Item 8.) No evidence was submitted to show
that Applicant has made any payment on this debt so I cannot conclude that this debt
has been resolved.  
1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,064.  In the letter
from the law firm, they indicate that this debt has been deleted from the credit report.
(Item B.) No indication was given for why this debt has been deleted. Without some
independent confirmation or explanation, I cannot conclude that this debt has been
resolved.  
1.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,607. Applicant
wrote that she planned to dispute this debt. (Item 8.) No evidence was submitted to
show that this debt has been disputed, so I cannot conclude that this debt has been
resolved.  
4
1.i. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $121. In the letter from
the law firm, they indicate that this debt has been deleted from the credit report. (Item
B.) No indication was given for why this debt has been deleted. Without some
independent confirmation, I cannot conclude that this debt has been resolved.  
1.j. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $6,365. Applicant
wrote that the balance had been paid on this debt, but she no longer had any receipts.
(Item 8.) Without some independent confirmation, I cannot conclude that this debt has
been resolved.  
1.k. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,227. Applicant
wrote that she has attempted to contact the creditor, but has thus far been unable to do
so.  (Item 8.) She indicated that she will continue to attempt to contact this creditor, but
no evidence was submitted to establish that contact has been made and this debt has
been resolved.
1.l. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,809. In the letter
from the law firm, they indicate that this debt is being disputed. (Item B.) No indication
was given for why this debt is in dispute or the resolution of that dispute. Without
additional information, I cannot conclude that this debt has been resolved.  
1.m. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $4,204. Applicant
wrote that this was not her debt, and she planned to dispute this. (Item 8.) No evidence
was submitted to show that this debt has been disputed, so I cannot conclude that this
debt has been resolved.  
1.n. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $626.  In the letter
from the law firm, they indicate that this debt is being disputed. (Item B.) No indication
was given for why this debt is in dispute or the resolution of that dispute. Without
additional information, I cannot conclude that this debt has been resolved.  
1.o. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $380.  In the letter
from the law firm, they indicate that this debt has been deleted from the credit report.
(Item B.) No indication was given for why this debt has been deleted. Without some
independent confirmation or explanation, I cannot conclude that this debt has been
resolved.  
While it was not listed on the SOR, the letter from the attorneys did refer to a
debt in the amount of $12,821 that is in dispute, and a debt in the amount of $79 that is
in dispute. (Item B.) These debts appear to still be due and owing. 
Applicant submitted a financial statement signed by her and her husband on July
21, 2009. It shows a net monthly income of $5,507.30 and estimated monthly expenses
and taxes of $6,391.40, leaving a monthly remainder of -$884.10.
5
Applicant gave several reasons for her financial difficulties. These included
having the monthly mortgage of the home, owned by her husband and her, increased
from $1,323 to $2,300 each month, because they had only been taxed on their land and
not on the home sitting on the land. Additionally, her step daughter and her three
children had to come live with them because she was unemployed. Finally, Applicant
also had to pay for her father’s funeral during this period. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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.
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. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk 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.
6
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
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 and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19 (a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶  19 (c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt. 
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties. Under AG ¶  20(b), it may be mitigating where “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.” As
reviewed above, Applicant explained her financial difficulties occurred because of
mortgage problems and family issues. However, no independent evidence was
introduced to establish that she has acted responsibly by resolving or reducing most of
her considerable overdue debt. Therefore, I do not find that this potentially mitigating
condition is a factor for consideration in this case.
I conclude that until Applicant is able to significantly reduce her overdue debt,
she has not mitigated the financial concerns of the Government.
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 circumstances. The Administrative Judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
7
(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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, including all of the reasons cited
above as to why the Disqualifying Conditions apply and no Mitigating Condition is
applicable. Also, since this case is an Administrative Determination, I have not had the
opportunity to assess the credibility of the Applicant in person, nor has any independent
evidence concerning Applicant’s character been submitted. Therefore, I find that the
record evidence leaves me with significant questions and doubts as to Applicant’s
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance under the whole-person concept. For all
these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.e.: For  Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.b. - 1.d.; 1.f. -1.o.: 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.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge