DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 10-02989
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
June 17, 2011
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on October 15, 2009.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On February 23, 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 March 4, 2011, and he requested an
administrative hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.  This case was assigned
to the undersigned on March 21, 2011.  A notice of hearing was issued on March 29,
2011, and the hearing was scheduled for April 19, 2011.  At the hearing the
Government presented seven exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 7
that were admitted without objection.  The Applicant presented two exhibits, referred to
as Applicant’s Exhibits A and B that were admitted without objection.  He also testified
on his own behalf.  The Applicant requested that the record remain open to submit
2
additional documentation.  The record remained open until close of business on April
26, 2011.  The Applicant submitted two Post-Hearing Exhibits, referred to as Applicant’s
Post-Hearing Exhibits A and B that were admitted without objection.  The official
transcript (Tr.) was received on May 2, 2011.  Based upon a review of the, pleadings,
exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 37 years old and single.  He has a Bachelor’s Degree in
Electronics and Technical Management.  He is being recruited for a position with a
defense contractor as an Intelligence Analyst 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 admits each of the delinquent debts set forth in the SOR, totaling
$45,000.  Credit Reports of the Applicant dated November 18, 2009; November 8, 2010;
February 3, 2011; and April 13, 2011, reflect that the Applicant was indebted to the
creditors set forth in the SOR.  (Government Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 7.)
The Applicant graduated from high school in 1993.  That same year, he joined
the United States Marines, and served for four years, until he was honorably discharged
in 1997.  (Applicant’s Exhibit A.)  The Applicant then entered the civilian work force.  He
worked two jobs while attending college on the G.I. bill.  The Applicant then worked in
the commercial construction business.  For the past four years, he has experienced
periods of unemployment or underemployment that caused his financial problems.  In
June 2007, he was laid off as a result of the drastic downturn in the economy and its
devastating impact on the construction business, and was unemployed until January
2008.  He then worked for about eight or nine months, and was laid off again.  He did
not work again until May or June 2009.  He worked for three months, and was laid off
again.  He worked from January 2010 until April 2010, and was laid off again.  (Tr. p.
37.) During this period, the Applicant became homeless and was forced to use credit
cards for food, gas, car repairs and basic necessities.  As a result, he accumulated the
delinquent debt set forth in the SOR.  
The following delinquent debts remain outstanding; A delinquent debt owed to a
creditor in the amount of $5,112.00 remains owing.  (Tr. pp. 37-38.)  A delinquent debt
owed to a creditor in the amount of $50.00 remains owing.  (Tr. p. 38.)  A delinquent
debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $6,845.00 remains owing.  (Tr. p. 39-40.)  A
3
delinquent debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $4,679.00 remains owing.  (Tr. p.
40.)  A delinquent debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $7,356.00 remains owing.
(Tr. p. 41.)  A delinquent debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $8,711.00 remains
owing.  (Tr. p. 41)  A delinquent debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $2,375.00
remains owing.  (Tr. pp. 41-42.)  A delinquent debt owed to a creditor in the amount of
$9,488.00 remains owing.  (Tr. p. 42.)  A delinquent debt owed to a creditor in the
amount of $752.00 remains owing.  (Tr. p. 43.)  A delinquent debt owed to a creditor in
the amount of $514.00 remains owing.  (See Applicant’s Answer to SOR.)  A delinquent
debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $1,411.00 remains owing.  (Tr. p. 48).  A
delinquent debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $72.00 remains owing.  (Tr. p. 48.)  
The Applicant testified that a delinquent debt owed to a creditor in the amount of
$118.00 has been paid.  (Tr. p. 38).  He also states that he settled a $15,000 debt owed
to a creditor for $13,000.  (Tr. pp. 45-47).  A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of
$1,360.00 has been paid.  (Tr p. 48-49.)  He does not have the receipts because he
moved so frequently.  He currently lives in a room he rents.   
 
Since April 2010, the Applicant has been unemployed and has not had the
money to pay his delinquent debts.  (Tr. p. 40.)  He has recently been recruited by a
defense contractor for employment that will pay approximately $130,000 to $160.000
annually.  (Tr. p. 51.) He promises and credibly states that he plans to pay all of his
debts within the first six months of his employment.  (Tr. p. 51.)       
Excerpts from the Applicant’s Marine Corps service records reflect a number of
awards and commendations including a Meritorious Promotion, dated March 2, 1996; a
Certificate of Good Conduct, dated October 19, 1993; and several Meritorious Masts,
one dated January 1, 1997; two on September 1, 1995; and a Certificate of Course
Completion for corporals course, dated August 6, 1996.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing
Exhibit A.)
A letter of recommendation from the Applicant’s previous supervisor dated July
31, 2009, attests to the Applicant’s focus, organization and analytical skills and
efficiency.  He was said to be enthusiastic, with great technical knowledge and a high
energy level.  He was inspiring and infectious.  As soon as the Applicant was hired, he
earned immediate respect from his colleagues.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit B.) 
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:
4
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.(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; 
5
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.”
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.
6
The evidence shows that circumstances largely beyond the Applicant’s control,
namely, the economic downturn that drastically effected the construction business and
forced him out of work, caused his financial difficulties.  This was completely
unforeseeable and an isolated situation.  The Applicant now has the opportunity to
become employed and pay off his delinquent debts.  Even during his periods of
unemployment and under-employment, the Applicant acted responsibly and with
integrity under the circumstances.  He did not spend lavishly or extravagantly.  He used
his credit cards strictly for necessities.  Under the circumstances, he has done as much
as is humanly possible to resolve his financial problems.        
In this case, the Applicant can be said to have made a good faith effort to resolve
his past due indebtedness.  Until his job lay off, he had a good financial record,
demonstrating that he had always paid his bills on time.  He is sincere, honest and
credible.  He understands the importance of paying his bills on time and living within his
means.  He also knows that he must remain fiscally responsible in the future.  Although
his bills remain outstanding, once he is employed and earning a salary, he plans to pay
them off within six months.  He has assumed responsibility for his debts and
understands that he must resolve them as soon as possible.  In the event that he does
not pay his delinquent debts in a timely fashion, his security clearance will be in
jeopardy.  At this time, given these circumstances, the Applicant has demonstrated that
he can properly handle his financial affairs and that he is fiscally responsible.
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
obligation apply.  However, Mitigating Conditions 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; 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.  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 recommendation, dedicated military career and 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.
7
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.
Subpara.  1.f.: For the Applicant.
               Subpara.  1.g.: For the Applicant.
Subpara   1.h.:         For the Applicant.
Subpara.  1.i.: For the Applicant.
Subpara.  1.j.: For the Applicant.
               Subpara.  1.k.: For the Applicant.
Subpara.  1.l.: For the Applicant.
Subpara.  1.m.: For the Applicant.
               Subpara.  1.n.: For the Applicant.
  Subpara.  1.o.: For the Applicant.
  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