Applicant states in his Response to the FORM that he has changed his legal name. This Decision will be1
issued under the name in the SOR, which is also the name used in all other documents concerning this case.
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 10-050191
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 31, 2011
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigation Processing (e-
QIP) on October 15, 2008. (Item 5.) On December 7, 2010, the Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the
security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) concerning the
Applicant. 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. 
 
Applicant submitted an Answer to the SOR on February 4, 2011, and requested
a decision be made without a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted a File of
Relevant Material (FORM) to Applicant on March 29, 2011. Applicant received the
FORM on April 9, 2011, and was given 30 days to submit any additional information.
2
Applicant submitted additional information within that time period (Response), which is
admitted to the record without objection. The case was assigned to me on May 19,
2011. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 36, and undergoing a divorce from his wife. There is one minor child
of the marriage. Applicant is employed by a defense contractor and seeks to obtain a
security clearance in connection with his employment. 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The Government alleges that Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is
financially overextended and therefore at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds. Applicant admits all of the allegations in the SOR. Those admissions
are deemed findings of fact. 
The SOR alleges, Applicant admits, and Government exhibits substantiate seven
delinquent debts totaling approximately $39,648. The evidence shows that these debts
began accumulating in 2006. (Items 8, 9 and 10.) During an interview with an
investigator for the Office of Personnel Management in January 2010, Applicant
indicated that while he could meet his current expenses, he was not able to pay any of
his past due debts. He further stated that the debt situation happened because of a
family connected move that resulted in a reduction in income. (Item 7.) As of October
2010 Applicant was able to provide proof of payment concerning one $356.39 debt. He
stated he was working on payment plans concerning the other debts. (Item 6.) 
In his Answer to the SOR Applicant stated that he had made a payment
arrangement with the creditor in allegation 1.e. to make monthly payments of $200
towards his debt of $11,908. (Item 4 at 3.) He does not state how long this agreement
has been in existence, or how many payments have been made. He also did not
provide any documentary evidence of the agreement. He further states in his Answer,
“My goal is to take care [of] all the smaller debts by the end of the year or sooner and
work on the large debts ASAP.”
Finally, Applicant submitted a Response to the FORM. It is undated, but the
envelope is postmarked May 6, 2011. He encloses a letter, and emails from a law firm
he has retained to “assist me in my credit situation.” He further states that the emails,
dated April 27, 2011, show that the members of the law firm “have started the beginning
process to solve my current financial situation.” The emails state the firm has asked for
a formal debt validation regarding three debts, and also sent challenge letters to the
major credit reporting firms. No evidence was submitted showing that any debts of the
Applicant have been paid, or that he has any current plans to pay any of the debts in the
SOR in the near future. 
3
Applicant provided no evidence concerning the quality of his professional
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. He submitted
no character references or other evidence tending to establish good judgment,
trustworthiness, or reliability. I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or
character in person since he elected to have his case decided without a hearing. 
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  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 to be used as appropriate 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 overarching
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.  In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on his or her own common
sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the ways of the world, in
making a reasoned 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. Security clearance decisions include, by
4
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of 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.” 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. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. The Applicant, by his own admission, has over $39,000 in past due
debts, all of which have been due and owing for several years. The evidence is
sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ The Applicant=s
financial difficulties are of a longstanding nature. As stated above, he has paid off none
of his past due debts alleged in the SOR. Applicant has submitted little evidence as to
how he is going to pay his debts, other than stating that the law firm he has retained will
help him to resolve them. While that process may be successful, it has barely begun. It
is the Applicant’s burden to submit evidence showing that his financial situation has
improved. He has not done so. This mitigating condition is not applicable to this case.  
AG ¶ 20(b) states that the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where “the
conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s
5
control (e.g., . . . divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances.”  The Applicant states that he is currently undergoing a divorce. He
indicates that the divorce may have exacerbated his financial situation. However, there
is a scant record to show the impact of the forthcoming divorce, or to conclude that he
has acted responsibly during the pendency of the divorce. 
The Applicant has not initiated a good-faith effort to pay off his creditors, or
otherwise resolve the debts. There is no track record of his making payments for any
period of time.  Accordingly, AG ¶ 20(d) is not applicable.  Finally, given the fact that he
is at least $39,000 in debt, and has known of the Government’s concerns about his
delinquent debts for over a year without any substantial movement, I cannot find that
“there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control,” as
required by AG ¶ 20(c).
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 applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. 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. 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is under financial strain,
and has been for several years. His debt situation is not yet under control. Under AG ¶
2(a)(3), Applicant’s conduct is recent.  Based on the state of the record, I cannot find
that there have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, at
the present time, I find that there is the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)), and that there is a high likelihood of recurrence (AG ¶ 2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to Applicant’s
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude
Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial situation at
this time.  If he is able to pay down his debts, or otherwise resolve them, he may be
eligible for a clearance in the future.  He is not eligible now.
6
On balance, it is concluded that Applicant has not successfully overcome the
Government's case opposing his request for a DoD security clearance.  Accordingly, the
evidence supports a finding against Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary
allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the Government's Statement of Reasons.
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 THE APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.g. Against the 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.
                                              
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge