DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------------------   )       ISCR Case No. 10-04647
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
August 30, 2011
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
dated February 25, 2010.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On February 24, 2011, the Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 (as
amended), and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2,
1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed the
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 access
to classified information for the Applicant and recommended referral to an
Administrative Judge to determine Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance.
 The Applicant responded to the SOR on March 21, 2011, and he requested a
hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.  This case was assigned to this
Administrative Judge on April 18, 2011.  A notice of hearing was issued on April 26,
2011, scheduling the hearing for May 18, 2011.  The Government presented seven
exhibits, referred to Government Exhibits 1 through 7, which were admitted without
objection.  The Applicant presented no documentary exhibits.  He testified on his own
2
behalf.  The record remained open to allow the Applicant the opportunity to submit
documentary evidence.  The Applicant submitted seven documentary exhibits referred
to as Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibits A through G, which were admitted without
objection.  The official transcript (Tr.) was received on June 1, 2011.  Based upon a
review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for a security
clearance is granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact are based on the Applicant’s Answer to the SOR,
the testimony and the exhibits.  The Applicant is 35 years and has a Bachelor’s Degree
in IT Security and is currently working on his Master’s Degree.  He is employed by a
defense contractor as a Product Development Technician, and is seeking to obtain a
security clearance in connection with his 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).  After a complete and
thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same,
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 a 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 under this
guideline that total approximately $20,000.00.  (See, Applicant’s Answer to SOR.)
Credit Reports of the Applicant dated May 14, 2004; March 4, 2010; and May 17, 2011,
collectively reflect that at one time each of the delinquent debts set forth in the SOR
were at one time owing.  (Government Exhibits 5, 6 and 7.)
The Applicant comes from a family with a long history of military service,
including his grandfather, uncle, and father who served in the United States Air Force,
and cousins who attended the Air Force Academy.  The Applicant served for four years
on active duty in the Air Force from January 1995 to January 1999.  (Government
Exhibit 1.)  During his military career he received a number of medals and
commendations.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit A.)  He was never court-martialed or
in any trouble of any kind.  
After being honorably discharged from the Air Force in 1999 he became
employed in the defense industry, working seven days a week, and getting lots of
overtime.  He and his fiancé had a child and, in 2003, he bought a house.  He also had
a child from a previous relationship that he has full custody of and is the sole supporter.
In 2008, due to the bad economy, his overtime was significantly reduced.  In 2009 his
3
girlfriend left the relationship, and he found it difficult to pay all of the household bills on
one income. 
In 2010, when the Applicant met with the agent concerning his clearance
background investigation, he first learned the extent of his indebtedness.  (Tr. pp. 46
and 59.)  At that point, he started working to resolve it.  He had intended to be able to
pay off all of his delinquent debt before the hearing, but in April 2010, he unexpectedly
received a summons from his fiancé obtaining a court order for child support.  Although
the Applicant was already paying her $500.00 monthly on an informal basis, and
providing school clothes and other necessities, she wanted more.  An order was
subsequently entered by the court for child support in the amount of $922.00 monthly.
This child support is currently garnished from his paycheck for the support of one child.
His payments are scheduled to be reduced to $799.00 monthly soon.  (Government
Exhibit 4.)
Despite this, he has paid off all of his creditors listed in the SOR, by addressing
them one by one, except four that remain owing.  1(a). A debt he owed to a creditor in
the amount of $2,586.00 has been negotiated down to $972.00, and he plans to pay if
off as soon as possible.  (Tr. p  48.)  1(b). A debt to a creditor in the amount of
$7,291.38 is arranged to be settled for $2,906.00.  The Applicant is scheduled to start
paying $50.00 monthly toward the debt until it is resolved.  (Tr. p. 49.)  1(c).  A debt
owed to a creditor in the amount of $4,020.00 is arranged to be settled for $1,608.00,
and the Applicant plans to set up a payment plan and pay the debt.  (Tr. p. 51.)  1(d).
The Applicant believes that a debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $6,416.00 may
be the same debt listed in allegation 1(b).  His credit report is not definite on this point.
(Tr. p. (52-53.)  
The following debts have been paid.  (See Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit C.)
1(e). A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $464.00 has been paid.  (Tr. pp. 53-54.)
1(f). A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $76.00 has been paid.  (Tr. p. 54.)  1(g).
A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $222.00 has been paid.  (Tr. p. 55.)  1(h). A
debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $203.00 has been paid.  (Tr. p. 57.)  1(i). A
debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $148.00 has been paid.  (Tr. p. 57.)  1(j). A
debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $30.00 has been paid.  (Tr. p. 58.)
Not listed in the SOR is his mortgage that he modified in order to keep his house.
His loan payments were reduced from $2,200.00 monthly to $1,391.00, and he is now
trying to lock in the interest rate.  (Tr. pp. 60-61.)
The Applicant is presently living within his means, and has accumulated no new
debt.  He is focused on resolving his debts.  At the present time, he has no discretionary
monies.  He is hoping to have his child support reduced since the court calculated his
support obligation based upon an annual salary of $6,500 monthly and he has never
earned that much.  (Tr. p. 65 and Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit B.)  The Applicant
plans to use any future discretionary monies to pay off his debts as soon as possible.
(Tr. p. 69.)
4
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E - Personal Conduct).  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance determination because he intentionally
falsified material aspects of his personal background during the security clearance
process.
The Applicant denies each of the allegations set forth in the SOR under this
guideline.  (See, Applicant’s Answer to SOR.)  The Applicant completed a security
clearance application dated February 25, 2010.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  Question 26
states: “For the following, answer for the last seven years, unless otherwise specified in
the question.  Disclose all financial obligations including those for which you are a
cosigner or guarantor.”  Question 26.(g) of the application asked the Applicant, “Have
you had bills or debts turner over to a collection agency?”  The Applicant answered,
“NO.”  (Government Exhibit 1.)  The Applicant failed to disclose those debts set forth in
1(b) and 1(d) through 1(j) of the SOR.  
Question 26.(h) of the application asked the Applicant, “Have you had any
account or credit card suspended, charged off or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed?”
The Applicant answered, “NO.”  (Government Exhibit 1.)  The Applicant failed to
disclose those debts set forth in 1(a) and 1(c) of the SOR.  
Question 26.(m) of the same application asked the Applicant, “Have you been
over 180 days delinquent on any debt?”  The Applicant answered, “NO.”  (Government
Exhibit 1.)  The Applicant failed to disclose those debts set forth in 1(a) through 1(j) of
the SOR.  
Question 26.(n) of the same application asked the Applicant, “Are you currently
over 90 days delinquent on any debt?”  The Applicant answered, “NO.”  (Government
Exhibit 1.)  The Applicant failed to disclose those debts set forth in 1(a) through 1(j) of
the SOR.  
The Applicant explained that he did not obtain a copy of his credit report and did
not know the extent of his indebtedness when he answered the questions on his
security clearance concerning his finances.  He stated that his fiancé had obviously
been covering up some of their debt, and he was not aware of it.  He states that he did
not intent to deceive the Government by failing to disclose his debts.  He was not as
careful as he should have been, which was a mistake, and he has learned from this
experience.  (Tr. pp. 74-75.)  Applicant’s testimony was credible.  
The Applicant testified that his friends and coworkers consider him a truthful and
honest individual.  He spends a lot of time with his son who is now a teenager. He is
also in his Church and Bible study.  
A letter from the Applicant’s previous fiancé indicates that the Applicant has
always been a responsible father and provider for his two children.  (Applicant’s Post-
Hearing Exhibit D.)  
5
A number of letters from his supervisor, coworkers, former manager, father,
stepmother, and best friend all attest to the Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness,
integrity, excellent work ethic and attitude.  He is said to show great leadership skills
and consistent quality in work performance.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit D.)
The Applicant received a number of letters from his Commander in the Air Force
for his outstanding efforts.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit D.)
The Applicant has received “spotlight awards” from his current employer for his
superior work performance.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit E.)
The Applicant has consistently kept his company security officer updated on his
financial situation.  (Applicant’s Post-Hearing Exhibit F.)
POLICIES
When evaluating an Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance, the
Administrative Judge must consider the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the
Adjudicative Guidelines (AG).  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 common sense 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
clearance 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
6
grants access to classified information.  Decisions include, by necessity, consideration
of the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently failed 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
sensitive information.
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; 
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,
20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
Guideline E (Personal Conduct)
15.  The Concern.  Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified
information.  Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers
7
during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security
clearance process.
Condition that could raise a security concern:
None.
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;
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 behavioral
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
8
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, a security clearance is granted to only to those defense
contractor employees 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 such access may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility or
dishonesty, 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
eligibility for 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 a security clearance and access to classified information.
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 that the Applicant’s excessive indebtedness was caused in
part by a reduction in overtime that he had grown accustomed to depending on.  In
addition, his relationship breakup with his fiancé, and the unexpected court order
requiring him to pay a large child support obligation, caused even further financial
difficulties.  Since learning of the extent of his indebtedness, he has adjusted his
lifestyle and budgeted himself on a reduced income in order to resolve his debts.  He
has modified his mortgage on his home to make it affordable.  He has paid off many of
his smaller debts, and is planning to pay the larger ones soon.  He is current on his child
support obligations and is trying to get them reduced measurable with his current
income.  He plans to use any discretionary monies toward resolving his remaining bills.
Under the circumstances, he has done everything humanly possible to show that he is
responsible, trustworthy and reliable.  At this point, he is working to rebuild his credit.
There is sufficient evidence of financial rehabilitation at this time.  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 the financial
problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business
9
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation), and the
individual acted responsibly under the circumstance, 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.  The
Applicant has indeed made a good faith effort to repay his overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve his debts.  Accordingly, I find for the Applicant under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations).  
Under Guideline E, the Applicant clearly did not deliberately conceal material
information from the Government on his security clearance application concerning his
delinquent debts.  Admittedly, he was careless in answering the questions, but he was
not deceitful.  At the time he answered the questions, he was not aware of the extent of
his indebtedness.  He knew he had some debt, but he did not know the extent of it.  He
and his fiancé had separated and did not communicate well about their finances.  He
now realizes the importance associated with the security clearance application; and
indicates that it in the future when he completes it, he will first obtain a copy of his credit
report as a source of reference and be as accurate as possible.  Accordingly, I find for
the Applicant under Guideline E (Personal Conduct.)  
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 under all of the guidelines viewed as a whole, support a
whole-person assessment of good judgement, trustworthiness, reliability, candor, a
willingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that
the person may properly safeguard classified information.  
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance.  For all these reasons, I conclude
Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his Financial Considerations and
Personal Conduct.  Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding for the Applicant as to
the factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the
Government's Statement of Reasons.       
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.
10
   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.
Paragraph 2: For the Applicant.
   Subpara.  2.a.: For the Applicant.
                                   Subpara.  2.b.: For the Applicant.
   Subpara.  2.c.: For the Applicant.
   Subpara.  2.d.: For the Applicant.
DECISION
In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interests to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant.  
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge