DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------------- )      ISCR Case No. 10-04436
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 29, 2012
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Questionnaire for National Agency Position (SF-86) on
August 25, 2009.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On November 29, 2011, the Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department
of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as amended), issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed reasons why DOHA could
not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether
clearance should be denied or revoked.
The Applicant responded to the SOR on January 13, 2012, and he requested an
administrative hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.  This case was assigned
to the undersigned on March 13, 2012.  A notice of hearing was issued on March 14,
2012, and the hearing was scheduled for April 17, 2012.  At the hearing the
Government presented six exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 6,
which were admitted without objection.  The Applicant presented three exhibits, referred
to as Applicant’s Exhibits A through C.  He also testified on his own behalf.  The record
remained open until close of business on May 2, 2012, to allow the Applicant the
opportunity to submit additional documentation.  The Applicant submitted six Post-
2
Hearing Exhibits on April 30, 2012, which were admitted without objection, and are
referred to as Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits A through F.  The official transcript (Tr.)
was received on May 4, 2012.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 48 years old and divorced with three children.  He has two years
of college.  He is employed with a defense contractor as a Computer Service
Representative and is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with this
employment.
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is financially overextended and at risk of
having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant admitted each of the allegations set forth in the SOR under this
guideline.  Credit Reports of the Applicant dated August 11, 2011; November 14, 2011;
and April 10, 2012, reflect that the Applicant was at one time indebted to each of the
creditors set forth in the SOR, in an amount totaling in excess of $40,000.  (Government
Exhibits 2, 4, and 6).
From 1984 to 1994, for ten years, the Applicant served honorably in the United
States Air Force.  In February 1987, he got married and had two children from the
marriage.  During that time, he worked full time, and also had a part-time evening job.
He made the money and took care of the household and his children.  His wife did not
work outside of the home, but she managed the money, paid the bills and handled their
finances.  
In 1998, the Applicant’s sister got involved with a man who had committed a
double homicide, involving a mother and her daughter.  His sister was accused of
withholding information stemming from the felony.  All of the family including the
Applicant contributed money to help with her legal fund for representation.  The
Applicant contributed about $6,500.  During this period, although he was still able to pay
for his essentials he found it difficult to pay all of his bills.  He could not afford to pay his
car payment and so he allowed it to be voluntarily repossessed.  His sister was
ultimately acquitted of all charges.  
The Applicant testified that his marriage began to suffer as there was no intimacy
or communication.  In 1999, he had an affair and a child out of wedlock.  (Tr. p. 54.)
That same year, as a result of the housing boom, the Applicant’s wife started real estate
3
school and obtained her license.  These were additional expenses.  She started selling
homes and making good money.  The Applicant soon realized, however, that she was
not contributing what she made toward the household expenses.  She decided to buy a
house on her own without consulting with him.  In December 2003, the Applicant and
his wife began arguing about their finances.  The argument escalated to the point where
they started physically fighting.  The Applicant claims that he only acted in self defense
as his wife attacked him first.  She accused the Applicant of beating her up.  The
Applicant was charged with domestic assault and battery, and malicious wounding.  As
a result, the Applicant was sentenced to six months in jail, five suspended.  He spent
two weeks in county jail and because his employer was not aware of what happened,
the Applicant was terminated from his employment in February 2004.  (Tr. pp. 50-51.)  
The Applicant and his wife separated and she filed for divorce in 2004.  During
their separation, the Applicant was unemployed and depressed.  From February 2004 to
December 2005, he had no work and lived off of his savings.  He later managed to work
temporary jobs, to have money to pay child support.  He was homeless and slept in his
car for several months.  (Tr. p. 51.)  A friend learned about his hard times and invited
him in to share his place.  The divorce was final in 2006.  
In 2006, the Applicant started working and getting back on his feet.  In March
2009, he began working for his current employer and he now earns $47,000 annually.
(Tr. p. 63.)  The Applicant’s ex-wife sent him a box of mail containing bills that he had
no prior knowledge of.  At that point, he started addressing his debts.  In November
2011, when the Applicant received the SOR, he learned for the first time that he had a
number of other outstanding debts from the past.  He contacted each of his creditors
and made arrangements to pay them.  The Applicant has resolved many delinquent
debts not alleged in the SOR.  (See Applicant’s Exhibit A.)  Some of his delinquent
debts have been paid in full, the others are being paid on a monthly basis.  The
Applicant has also given money to his ex-wife, as she is currently unemployed.  He has
also provided financial support for his adult children and grand-daughter.           
The following debts listed in the SOR have also been addressed.  1(a). A debt
owed to the creditor in the amount of $222 has been paid.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing
Exhibit A.)  1(b).  A debt owed to a state for delinquent back taxes for tax years 1991,
2001, 2002, 2003 and 2007, in the amount of $6,788.85 is being paid through monthly
installments of $125.00.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit B.)  1(c). A debt owed to a
creditor in the amount of $349 has been paid.  (Tr. pp. 73-74.)  1(d). A debt owed to a
creditor in the amount of $14,922.27 is being paid in monthly payments of $75.00.  (Tr.
p. 74-75.)  This last month, the Applicant doubled up on the payment and he now plans
to continue paying $150.00 monthly toward the debt to resolve it sooner.  1(e).  A debt
owed to the state Department of Social Services for delinquent child support in the
amount of $59,9191.91 is being paid through garnishment in the amount of $1,196.00
monthly.  (Tr. pp. 77.)  The Applicant has been making these payments since October
15, 2011, and the debt has been significantly reduced to about $32,500,000.  The
Applicant testified that in addition to the normal child support obligation, an additional
4
$100 is deducted to go toward the arrears.  (Tr. p. 75.)  He plans to pay off each of his
delinquent debts as soon as possible.  
The Applicant testified that he has recently asked his supervisor for a transfer to
take a job in another state in a job that is paying more.  (Applicant’s Exhibit C.)  He is
currently selling all of his personal belongings in his apartment so he can pay more
toward his outstanding debts.    
 Letters submitted on behalf of the Applicant from his supervisor and other
professional associates who know him well attest to his attention to detail, keen intellect,
and professionalism.  He is considered responsible, trustworthy and an honorable man
who operates with integrity at all times.  He has always secured and protected classified
information properly and according to company and DoD policy.  (Applicant’s Post-
Hearing Exhibit F.) 
   
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligation. 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
20.(b) 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;
20.(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or
there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and 
5
20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19, in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a. The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding
circumstances;
    b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavior
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct, which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in 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.”
6
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility, which demonstrates
poor judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation,
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The Applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  This evidence indicates poor
judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of
the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or
connection with his security clearance eligibility.
The evidence shows circumstances largely beyond his control, namely his
divorce and its related expenses, his two years without stable employment, as well as
his period of depression, contributed to his financial problems.  He has also been too
generous giving money to his ex-wife when he should have been paying his bills.  For
some time, he mismanaged his finances.  He now realizes what his priorities are and
has been working diligently to resolve his indebtedness.    
This was an isolated incident that will not recur since the Applicant now has a
clear head and understands that he must remain fiscally responsible if he is to hold a
security clearance.  Admittedly, the Applicant has suffered some difficult financial times.
Recently, he has made a good-faith effort to resolve his past due indebtedness.  He has
paid many of his delinquent debts off completely.  He has also addressed each debt
listed in the SOR.  Those debts that he has not paid in full, he has set up a payment
plan that he is following. He has not incurred any new debt.  He understands the
importance of paying his bills on time and living within his means.  He has clearly
demonstrated that he can properly handle his financial affairs.  There is clear evidence
of financial rehabilitation.  Considering all of the evidence, the Applicant has introduced
persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome
the Government's case. 
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligations, apply.  However, Mitigating Conditions 20.(b) the conditions that resulted in
7
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; 20.(c) the
person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and 20.(d) the
individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts also apply.  Accordingly, I find for the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations).    
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  I have considered his favorable character
reference letters as well as his military career.  (Applicant’s Post Hearing Exhibit F.)
Under the particular facts of this case, the totality of the conduct set forth above, when
viewed under all of the guidelines as a whole, support a whole-person assessment of
good judgement, trustworthiness, reliability, candor, and a  willingness to comply with
rules and regulations, and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may
properly safeguard classified information.
  I have considered all of the evidence presented, including the Applicant’s
favorable work history.  They mitigate the negative effects of his financial indebtedness
and the effects that it can have on his ability to safeguard classified information.  On
balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has overcome the Government's case
opposing his request for a security clearance.  Accordingly, the evidence supports a
finding for the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in
Paragraph 1 of the SOR.   
     FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: For the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.a.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.b.: For the Applicant.
      Subpara.  1.c.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.d.: For the Applicant.
     Subpara.  1.e.: For the Applicant.
       
8
  DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge