Item 4.1
Item 1.2
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09-07938
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant accrued more than $122,000 in delinquent debt over the past four
years, while he was employed in his current job. He made no showing of unusual
circumstances giving rise to these debts, or of changes to prevent continued financial
irresponsibility. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated. Based on a review of
the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on May 26, 2009.  On1
September 27, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns under Guideline
F (Financial Considerations).  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,2
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
Item 3.3
The Government submitted nine Items in support of the SOR allegations. 4
Item 3; Item 4; Item 6.5
Item 3.6
Item 5; Item 6.7
2
adjudicative guidelines promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and
effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on November 13, 2010, and requested
that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a
hearing.  Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on December3
14, 2010. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was provided to4
Applicant, and he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in
refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of his copy of the FORM
on December 30, 2010, and returned it to DOHA. He provided no further response to
the FORM within the 30-day period, did not request additional time to respond, and
expressed no objection to my consideration of the evidence submitted by Department
Counsel. I received the case assignment on February 14, 2011.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 33-year-old employee of a defense contractor, where he has
worked as a communications analyst since September 2005. He was honorably
discharged in April 2005 after six years and four months of active service. He held a
secret security clearance throughout his enlistment. He is was married in December
2009, and has one stepchild.  In his response to the SOR, he admitted the delinquent5
debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.b through 1.m, 1.o, 1.p, 1.q, and 1.s, and that he had made
no payments toward any of them. He denied the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.n, and 1.r,
for reasons discussed below.  Applicant’s admissions, including his responses to DOHA6
interrogatories,  are incorporated in the following findings.7
Applicant had about $10,000 in savings when he left the service, and very little
debt. He decided to relax, rather than work, for the next five months. He was able to
meet all of his financial obligations during that period from his savings. He began
accumulating debt, including a number of credit cards, after beginning his current job.
He purchased a condominium in April 2007. Within the next year, his condo association
dues rose from $190 to $300 per month, the association levied a special assessment of
$1,000 per unit for common repairs, and he had to replace his water heater after
causing, and being billed for, about $800 in water damage to the unit below his. At
about the same time, he met and began supporting his wife and her daughter. His wife
Item 3; Item 5.8
Item 3. 9
FORM at 6; Item 3; Item 7; Item 8; Item 9.10
3
has not worked most of the time they have been together. She is pursuing an
associate’s degree and raising their daughter.  8
In July 2009, shortly after his interview with an investigator from the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) to discuss his multiple delinquent debts, Applicant
consulted a bankruptcy attorney who recommended filing for Chapter 7 relief. In order to
pursue this option, he decided to resign from his job and go to school. He also followed
the attorney’s advice to stop paying old bills and save at least one month’s income.
Applicant stopped making mortgage payments in August 2009. On September 30,
2009, he resigned from his job and moved in to live with his wife. Within a month, his
employer contacted him and asked him to resume working, with retained tenure, in
another city. He accepted that offer, and rented a residence in the new location. He said
that he was current on his rent, car payments, and present living expenses in November
2010. On August 26, 2010, he paid $588.32 toward the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a,
leaving a balance due of $155. In his response to the SOR, Applicant said that he
planned to pay this remaining balance, and the minor debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.b
through 1.g between November 2010 and February 2011. As noted above, he offered
no proof that he implemented these intentions when offered the opportunity to respond
to the FORM. The 16 SOR-listed delinquent debts that Applicant admitted he owes in
full total $111,350, including the outstanding $86,622 balance on his condo mortgage
that is in foreclosure.    9
Applicant denied the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.n because he said it was a
duplicate listing by a different creditor of the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.k. Department
Counsel disputed this assertion, but offered no evidence to support her position other
than to note that the two creditors reported different account numbers to the credit
bureau. My analysis of the information concerning these two accounts in the three
record credit reports confirms Applicant’s claim that the creditor alleged in SOR ¶ 1.n is
the successor collection agency on the debt allegedly owed to the original creditor in
SOR ¶ 1.k.  10
Applicant also denied the $10,608 credit card collection account alleged in SOR
¶ 1.r. In both his OPM interview and his response to the SOR, he said he had no record
or recollection of dealing with the original creditor. During the June 2009 interview, he
said he would contact the creditor to determine if it was a valid debt, in which case he
would negotiate a repayment plan. His SOR response a year and a half later reflected
no such actions, but stated that he reviewed all three credit reports and none of them
listed the debt. The FORM Item 7 credit report contains an Experian listing of this debt
reported in May 2009. The FORM Item 8 credit report contains an Equifax listing of the
same debt reported in October 2009. The debt does not appear on the FORM Item 9
Equifax credit report, but that does not establish either satisfaction or successful dispute
Item 3; Item 5; Item 7; Item 8; Item 9.11
Item 3; Item 6; Item 9.12
4
of the debt absent additional evidence. I conclude that the weight of record evidence
proves the allegation in SOR ¶ 1.r. This brings his total admitted and proven delinquent
debt to $122,113.    11
Applicant’s personal financial statement, dated April 22, 2010, reflected $4,583 in
gross monthly salary, $1,483 in deductions, and a net salary of $3,100. Although his
November 2010 response to the SOR indicated that his wife has not worked most of the
time they have been together, his financial statement listed “Spouse’s Salary” of $1,200
per month. His monthly living expenses were $3,560, and he listed a monthly debt
payment of $504 on a car loan for total monthly payments of $4,064. With the $1,200 of
spouse income, this left a monthly surplus of $236. Without that income, the deficit is
$964 per month. He said his condominium was “Pending Short Sale,” although his May
2010 credit report shows it in foreclosure. Applicant submitted no evidence of financial
counseling, except for his consultations with the bankruptcy attorney in July 2009.  12
Applicant submitted an unsigned letter of recommendation dated September 30,
2009, from a Government employee for whose office he provided technical support
before resigning to pursue bankruptcy. The letter described him as an outstanding asset
to the office, whose dedication to customer service and professionalism were
unparalleled. Other than this document, he provided no evidence concerning the quality
of his professional performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his history
of handling sensitive information and observing security procedures. He submitted no
other character references, or 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
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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.
5
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 the 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, “[t]he applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and
other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant
or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to
obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides:
“[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an applicant 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.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns under the guideline for financial considerations are set out
in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:      
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 record evidence established security concerns under two Guideline F DCs,
as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
6
Applicant’s financial problems began in 2007, and have worsened during the past
four years during which he has been employed in his current position. His personal
financial statement reflects a deficit of almost $1,000 per month without income from his
wife, who does not work outside their home. He demonstrated no ability to satisfy these
debts or avoid incurring additional delinquencies. This evidence raises substantial
security concerns under DCs 19(a) and (c), thereby shifting the burden to Applicant to
rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those concerns. 
The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:
(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; 
(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;
(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; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.
Applicant’s multiple delinquent debts arose over the past four years, and
continue to date. They are both frequent and recent, and arose under circumstances
that have not materially changed. Applicant failed to demonstrate that his reliability,
trustworthiness, and judgment have improved, since he only addressed one of these
debts in part when their security implications became apparent. The evidence does not
establish mitigation under MC 20(a). 
Applicant has been continuously employed since well before these debts became
delinquent, and he offered no evidence to support mitigation under MC 20(b). None of
the debts were shown to have arisen from conditions beyond his control. He offered no
evidence of financial counseling, and his recent effort to partially repay one of his
delinquent debts was insufficient to establish clear indications that the problem is being
resolved or is under control. His one documented partial debt repayment is also
7
insufficient to establish a good-faith effort to repay his many overdue creditors. MC
20(c) and 20(d) are therefore inapplicable. 
The record evidence supports Applicant’s contention that the debt alleged in
SOR ¶ 1.n is a duplicate listing of the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.k. This mitigates security
concerns with respect to the former debt under MC 20(e). He failed to provide any proof
to substantiate a basis to dispute the legitimacy of the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.r, for
which the record credit reports provide substantial evidence. Accordingly, he failed to
mitigate that allegation under MC 20(e). Other than the remaining balance on the debt
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a, he admitted owing all the other debts alleged in the SOR. 
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 relevant 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.   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is an accountable
adult, who is responsible for his voluntary choices and conduct that underlie the security
concerns expressed in the SOR. His financial irresponsibility spans the past four years,
and continues at present. It involves substantial delinquent debts totaling more than
$122,000, toward which he had paid $588 at the close of the record. He has yet to
sufficiently demonstrate a willingness to fulfill his legal obligations to the remaining
creditors. He did not demonstrate that these debts arose under unusual circumstances,
or that he initiated any changes to prevent additional financial difficulties. He offered no
evidence of financial counseling, rehabilitation, or responsible conduct in other areas of
his life. The potential for pressure, coercion, and duress remains undiminished. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with substantial doubt as to Applicant’s
present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. He did not meet his burden to
mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial considerations.
8
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 through 1.m: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.o through 1.s: 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.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge