1 
 
 
                                                            DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
                                                            )  ISCR Case No. 10-01997 
                                                                      ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
ANTHONY, Joan Caton, Administrative Judge: 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings and exhibits in this case, I conclude that 
Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns under Guideline B, Foreign Influence, and 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations. His eligibility for a security clearance is denied. 
 
                                               Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing 
(e-QIP) on November 2, 2009. On March 1, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security 
concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, and Guideline B, Foreign 
Influence. DOHA acted 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’s answer to the SOR was signed and notarized on April 1, 2011. He 
requested a decision on the record in lieu of a hearing. The government compiled its 
File of Relevant Material (FORM) on May 19, 2011. The FORM contained documents 
 
2 
 
 
                                           
identified as Items 1 through 9. Additionally, in the FORM, the Government requested 
that I take administrative notice of certain facts about Afghanistan and provided, as 
reference materials, official U.S. documents.1 I marked the Government’s administrative 
notice documents as Hearing Exhibit (H.E.) I.  
 
On May 25, 2011, DOHA forwarded a copy of the FORM to Applicant, with 
instructions to submit any additional information and objections within 30 days of 
receipt. Applicant received the file on June 18, 2011. His response was due on July 18, 
2011. Applicant timely submitted a four-page document in response to the FORM. 
Department Counsel did not object to the admission of Applicant’s document. On 
August 3, 2011, when the case was assigned to me for a decision, I marked Applicant’s 
document as Item A and entered it in the record.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 The SOR contains nine allegations that raise security concerns under Guideline 
F, Financial Considerations (SOR ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.i.) and three allegations that raise 
security concerns under Guideline B, Foreign Influence (SOR ¶¶ 2.a. through 2.c.) In his 
Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all Guideline F and Guideline B allegations and 
provided additional information. Applicant’s admissions are entered as findings of fact.  
(Item 1; Item 3.) 
 
 The facts in this case are established by the record provided in the FORM by the 
Government and by written information provided by Applicant in response to the FORM. 
The record evidence includes Applicant’s answers to the SOR; his November 2009 e-
QIP; his responses to DOHA interrogatories; his personal subject interview with an 
authorized investigator from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM); and his credit 
reports of November 26, 2009, February 7, 2011, and May 19, 2011.2 (See Items 3 
through 9; Item A.) 
 
 Applicant, who is 36 years old, was born in Afghanistan and immigrated to the 
United States with his parents when he was five years old. He became a naturalized 
U.S. citizen in 1999. Applicant’s parents, his brother, and his two sisters are also 
naturalized U.S. citizens and reside in the United States. Since 2005, Applicant has 
claimed his parents’ home as his residence. He has also helped his father with 
mortgage payments on the parental home. (Item 4; Item 5; Item 6 at 3.) 
 
1 The Government provided six official U.S. documents and a four-page factual summary containing facts 
about Afghanistan. 
  
2Applicant was interviewed by an OPM investigator on December 16, 2009. In response to DOHA 
interrogatories, Applicant reviewed the investigator’s report, noted that his financial statement had 
changed and that his wife had been interviewed by officials regarding her request for a visa to travel to 
the United States. He made no further additions or deletions, and on November 24, 2010, Applicant 
signed a statement that the investigator’s report, with the changes he had made, accurately reflected his 
interview. (Item 7.) 
 
 
3 
 
 
 Since December 2009, Applicant has been employed by a federal contractor and 
assigned overseas in a war zone as an Arab language linguist. He seeks a security 
clearance for the first time. (Item 4; Item A.) 
 
 Applicant was married for the first time in 2002. His first wife was born in 
Afghanistan and was a citizen of Sweden. Applicant and his wife divorced in 2005. In 
November 2008, Applicant traveled to Afghanistan and married his second wife, a 
citizen and resident of Afghanistan. He then returned to the United States, and his wife 
remained in Afghanistan with her mother and brother. For about two and one-half years, 
Applicant and his wife did not see one another; they spoke weekly by telephone, 
however. (Item 4; Item 6.) 
 
 Applicant told an OPM investigator that his wife did not know that he had applied 
for a security clearance, and she also did not know that he was working overseas in a 
war zone as a translator. He expressed concern for his wife’s safety if it were known 
that he was serving as a linguist and translator. (Item 6 at 5.) 
 
 The SOR alleges at ¶ 2.a. that Applicant’s wife is a citizen and resident of 
Afghanistan. In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegation and asserted 
that his wife had received a U.S. visa and planned to travel to the United States in April 
2011. In response to the FORM, Applicant reported that his wife had arrived in the 
United States and was living with his parents in the family home. He provided copies of 
his wife’s state identity card, her U.S. permanent resident card, her Social Security card, 
and his vision-only health insurance card, issued to him by his employer, which showed 
his wife as his dependent. (Item 1; Item 3; Item A.)  
 
 The SOR also alleges at ¶¶ 2.b. and 2.c. that Applicant’s mother-in-law and 
brother-in-law are citizens and residents of Afghanistan. Applicant stated that his 
contacts with his wife’s mother and brother were limited. He last spoke with his mother-
in-law two years ago. He speaks with his brother-in-law, who is older than his wife, on 
the telephone twice a year to convey good wishes at holiday time. However, he 
acknowledged that because his wife’s father was deceased, she was particularly close 
to her older brother and relied upon him as if he were her father. (Item 1; Item 3; Item 
6.)  
 
 The SOR alleges that Applicant owes approximately $28,204 in delinquent debt 
to nine creditors. In his response to the FORM, Applicant acknowledged that he had a 
history of financial delinquency. He told the OPM investigator that in about 2003, he had 
a serious medical problem which required treatment at two hospitals. His medical bills 
totaled $300,000. His health insurance carrier paid all but approximately $18,000 to 
$19,000 of the medical debt. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant identified the debts 
alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.d. ($631), 1.e. ($22,885), 1.f. ($1,588), and 1.g. ($179) as owed to 
one of the hospitals where he was treated for his serious medical problem. He stated 
that he had hired a credit advisor to help in the resolution of these debts in 2009, but the 
credit advisor misled him and, as a result, he was attempting to resolve the debts 
himself.  However, Applicant acknowledged that he had not yet satisfied the debts but 
 
4 
 
 
 5.) 
                                           
intended to do so when he returned to the United States in April 2011. (Item 3; Item 6; 
Item A.) 
 
 The SOR alleges at ¶ 1.a. that Applicant owes a $615 debt, in collection status, 
to a communication company for cable service. Applicant claimed he had entered into a 
payment plan with the creditor and had agreed to pay $66.50 a month to satisfy the 
debt. While he did not provide documentation from the creditor corroborating a payment 
plan, he provided an annotated page from his credit report of October 2, 2010, and a 
copy of his December 2010 bank statement showing a payment authorization for 
$66.50. (Item 1; Item 3 at 3; Item 6.) 
 
 The SOR alleges at ¶ 1.b. that Applicant owed a $1,623 delinquent debt in 
collection status. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant identified the debt as a student 
loan. He stated that he asked the creditor to reduce the size of the debt “because most 
of the charges are fees.” He also stated that the credit advisor he hired in 2009 to 
resolve the debt had misled him. The debt remains unresolved. (Item 1; Item 3.)         
 
 The SOR alleges at ¶ 1.c. that Applicant owes a $502 debt, in charged-off status, 
to a creditor. Applicant’s credit report states that the account was opened in September 
2007 and became past due in October 2009. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant stated 
he had settled the debt in November 2010 by making a payment of $251.08. He 
provided an annotated page from his credit report of October 2, 2010, indicating 
payment, and a copy of his bank statement showing he had authorized payment to the 
creditor on November 26, 2010. (Item 1; Item 3; Item 6.) 
 
 The SOR alleges at ¶1.h. that Applicant owes a $116 delinquent debt, in 
collection status, to a medical creditor. Applicant’s credit report showed that the 
delinquent account was opened in March 2007 and became delinquent in June 2007. In 
his answer to the SOR, Applicant provided an annotated page from his credit report of 
October 2, 2010, indicating a total payment of $121.75 on the debt, and a copy of his 
bank statement showing that he had authorized payment to the creditor on November 
24, 2010. (Item 1; Item 3; Item 6.) 
 
 The SOR alleges at ¶ 1.i. that Applicant owes a $65 delinquent debt to a medical 
creditor. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant reported that he had no information 
showing that he had paid or otherwise satisfied the debt. (Item 1; Item 3.) 
 
 Applicant provided a personal financial statement, dated November 24, 2010. He 
stated that his gross monthly salary was $11,115.44, and his total net monthly income 
was $9,954.94.3 He listed fixed monthly living expenses of $350. He did not list any 
debt payments. He listed a monthly net remainder of $8,254.94 and $14,330 in savings 
and miscellaneous assets. (Item 5 at
 
3 Applicant’s bank statement for the period from November 23, 2010, to December 21, 2010, shows a 
beginning balance of $14,402 and an ending balance of $22,367. During the month, he wrote one check 
for $600 and made seven ATM and debit card withdrawals totaling $526. (Item 3 at 3.)  
 
5 
 
 
                                           
 Applicant provided a letter of appreciation, dated October 24, 2010, from the 
military officer for whom he worked overseas. The military officer praised Applicant’s 
work ethic, commitment to the mission, and leadership as follows: 
 
The personal stake [Applicant] took in the mission made him an integral 
part of the . . . Section. He endured long and often disruptive hours with 
patience, enthusiasm, and unwavering dedication. Furthermore, 
[Applicant] displayed a great amount of initiative, often spending his own 
time with [a local group trained by the military] to further support mentoring 
efforts. His outstanding work ethic was a key factor in the successful 
completion of . . .  [the] Section’s mission. 
 
Coming to work as an interpreter without any prior exposure to military life, 
[Applicant] seamlessly adapted to the unique living and working conditions 
required of civilian service with [a military unit]. He quickly overcame the 
steep learning curve associated with military terms and concepts, which 
greatly increased the quality of his translations. Aside from the experience 
he gained helping to facilitate tactical aspects of the mission such as 
patrols and searches, he displayed a high degree of proficiency while 
even adding his own useful insight into the mentoring of [the local group] 
in subjects such as personnel administration, information assurance, and 
logistical and operational planning. 
 
Though far from being a requirement of his job, [Applicant] additionally 
displayed a fine quality of leadership, serving as an example for both other 
interpreters and [the local group]. When in contact with other interpreters, 
he was crucial in setting the example of professionalism and dedication. 
Amongst [the local group], he made it a personal endeavor to encourage 
them to adopt higher standards of professionalism, enthusiasm, and 
integrity. [Applicant’s] personal sense of integrity and commitment were 
very much appreciated by . . . [the] Section, being of great importance in 
the effort to mentor the often morally austere [local group].    
 
(Item A at 1-2.) 
  
 I take administrative notice of the following facts about Afghanistan. The facts in 
the following summary were provided by Department Counsel to Applicant and to me. 
The facts were derived from official U.S. Government documents provided as 
attachments to the FORM and are identified in the record as H.E. I.4 
 
4 The following official U.S. Government documents were used to provide the factual summary on 
Afghanistan quoted in this decision: U.S. Department of State, Background Note: Afghanistan, December 
6, 2010 (13 pages); U.S. Department of State, 2010 Human Rights Report: Afghanistan, April 8, 2011 (25 
pages); U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Country Specific Information: Afghanistan, 
November 12, 2010 (8 pages); Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community for the 
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Director of National Intelligence, February 2, 2010 (48 pages); 
U.S. Department of State, Country Reports on Terrorism 2009, Chapter 5 – Terrorist Safe Havens and 
 
6 
 
 
                                                                                                                                            
Afghanistan has been an independent nation since August 19, 1919, after 
the British relinquished control. Following a Soviet-supported coup in 
1978, a Marxist government emerged. In December 1979, Soviet forces 
invaded and occupied Afghanistan. Afghan freedom fighters, known as 
mujaheddin, opposed the communist regime. The resistance movement 
eventually led to an agreement known as the Geneva Accords, signed by 
Pakistan, Afghanistan, the United States, and the Soviet Union, which 
ensured that Soviet forces would withdraw by February 1989. 
 
The mujaheddin were not a party to the negotiations for the Accords and 
refused to accept them. As a result, a civil war continued after the Soviet 
withdrawal. In the mid-1990s, the Taliban rose to power largely due to the 
anarchy and the division of the country among warlords that arose after 
the Soviet withdrawal. The Taliban sought to impose an extreme 
interpretation of Islam on the entire country and committed massive 
human rights violations. The Taliban also provided sanctuary to Osama 
Bin-Laden since the mid-1990s, to al-Qa’ida generally, and to other 
terrorist organizations. 
 
After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, U.S. demands that 
Afghanistan expel Bin-Laden and his followers were rejected by the 
Taliban. U.S. forces and a coalition partnership commenced military 
operations in October 2001 that forced the Taliban out of power by 
November 2001.  
 
After a few years of control by an interim government, the first democratic 
election took place in October 2004, and a second round of elections took 
place in 2009. Despite this and other progress made since the Taliban 
was deposed, Afghanistan still faces many daunting challenges, 
principally defeating terrorists and insurgents, recovering from over three 
decades of civil strife; and rebuilding a shattered physical, economic and 
political infrastructure. 
 
Human rights problems included extrajudicial killings; torture and other 
abuse; poor prison conditions; widespread official impunity, ineffective 
government investigations of abuses by local security forces; arbitrary 
arrest and detention; prolonged pretrial detention; judicial corruption; 
violations of privacy rights; restrictions on freedom of the press, limits of 
freedom of assembly; restrictions of freedom of religion, including religious 
conversions; limits on freedom of movement; official corruption; violence 
and societal discrimination against women; sexual abuse of children; 
abuses against minorities; trafficking in persons; abuse of worker rights; 
and child labor. 
 
Tactics and Tools for Disrupting or Eliminating Safe Havens, August 5, 2010 (15 pages); and U.S. 
Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Travel Warning: Afghanistan, August 13, 2010 (2 
pages).  Footnotes in the quoted text were omitted. 
 
7 
 
 
There were numerous reports that the government – or its agents – 
committed arbitrary or unlawful killings. Additionally, the Taliban-led   
insurgency has become increasingly dangerous and destabilizing. The 
Taliban’s expansion of influence into northern Afghanistan since late 2007 
has made the insurgency a countrywide threat. The insurgency has also 
increased in geographic scope and frequency of attacks and has shown 
greater aggressiveness and lethality. This lack of security in many areas, 
coupled with a generally low governmental capacity and competency, has 
hampered efforts to improve governance and extend development. The 
Taliban has been successful in suppressing voter turnout in elections in 
key parts of the country. 
 
Despite the loss of some key leaders, insurgents have adjusted their 
tactics to maintain momentum following the arrival of additional US troops. 
  
Afghan leaders also continue to face the eroding effects of official 
corruption and the drug trade. Criminal networks and narcotics cultivation 
constitute a source of funding for the insurgency in Afghanistan. Streams 
of Taliban from across the border in Pakistan, along with funds gained 
from narcotics trafficking and kidnapping, have allowed the insurgency to 
strengthen its military and technical capabilities. 
 
In addition to the Taliban, al-Qa’ida and other insurgent groups and anti-
Coalition organizations continue to operate in Afghanistan resulting in 
numerous attacks and deaths.  Insurgents have targeted NGOs, Afghan 
journalists, government workers, and UN workers. Even the Afghan 
capital, Kabul, is considered at high risk for militant attacks, including 
rocket attacks, vehicle-borne IEDS, and suicide bombings. 
 
Instability along the Pakistan-Afghan frontier continued to provide al-
Qa’ida with leadership mobility and the ability to conduct training and 
operational planning, targeting Western Europe and U.S. interests in 
particular.  
 
Overall, the State Department has declared that the security threat to all 
American citizens in Afghanistan remains critical, and travel in all areas of 
Afghanistan remains unsafe, due to military combat operations, 
landmines, banditry, armed rivalry between political and tribal groups, and 
the possibility of terrorist attacks. 
  
                          Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the 
Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security, and 
it has emphasized that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the 
Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the 
 
8 
 
 
authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine 
whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. 
at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant 
an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.”  Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.    
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an   
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 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, the administrative judge applies these guidelines 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. 
 
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.  
 
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 in seeking to obtain 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. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk 
the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to 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. 
  
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of 
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the 
 
9 
 
 
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information).   
 
                                                         Analysis 
 
Guideline B, Foreign Influence 
 
 Under Guideline B, Foreign Influence, “[f]oreign contacts and interests may be a 
security concern if the individual has divided loyalties or foreign financial interests, may 
be manipulated or induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government 
in a way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by any 
foreign interest.”  AG ¶ 6. 
 
 Additionally, adjudications under Guideline B “can and should consider the 
identity of the foreign country in which the foreign contact or financial interest is located, 
including, but not limited to, such considerations as whether the foreign country is 
known to target U.S. citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with 
the risk of terrorism.”  AG ¶ 6. 
 
 In Afghanistan, the Afghan-Taliban dominated insurgency has become 
increasingly dangerous and destabilizing, despite International Security Assistance 
Force and Operation Enduring Freedom military operations. In addition to the Taliban, 
al-Qa’ida, other insurgent groups, and anti-Coalition organizations continue to operate 
in Afghanistan resulting in numerous attacks and deaths. The State Department has 
declared that the security threat to all American citizens in Afghanistan remains critical, 
and travel in all areas of Afghanistan remains unsafe, due to military combat operations, 
landmines, banditry, armed rivalry between political and tribal groups, and the possibility 
of terrorist attacks. 
  
Applicant’s wife is a citizen of Afghanistan, now residing in the United States with 
Applicant’s parents. His mother-in-law and brother-in-law are citizens and residents of 
Afghanistan. These facts are sufficient to raise Guideline B security concerns. 
  
I have considered all of the disqualifying conditions under the Foreign Influence 
guideline.  The facts in this case raise security concerns under disqualifying conditions 
AG ¶¶ 7(a) and 7(b). AG ¶ 7(a) reads: “contact with a foreign family member, business 
or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a 
foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, 
inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.”  AG ¶ 7(b) reads: “connections to a 
foreign person, group, government, or country that create a potential conflict of interest 
between the individual’s obligation to protect sensitive information or technology and the 
individual’s desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that 
information.”  
 
Applicant’s wife’s family members are citizens of Afghanistan who reside in 
Afghanistan, a country destabilized by war and terrorist activity. In the past, Applicant 
 
10 
 
 
contacted these relatives once or twice a year by telephone. However, now that his wife 
is residing in the United States, she will likely have contacts with her mother and brother 
in Afghanistan. Additionally, it is not clear from the record whether Applicant’s wife, now 
that she is residing in the United States, knows of the nature of his work as a linguist 
and translator. Contacts with Applicant’s mother-in-law and brother-in-law in 
Afghanistan, either by Applicant or by his wife, could create for Applicant a conflict of 
interest and a heightened risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, 
pressure, or coercion.    
 
 Several mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 8 might be applicable to Applicant’s 
case.  If “the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in which these 
persons are located, or the positions or activities of those persons in that country are 
such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of having to choose 
between the interests of a foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the 
interests of the U.S.,” then AG ¶ 8(a) might apply.  If “there is no conflict of interest, 
either because the individual’s sense of loyalty or obligation to the foreign person, 
group, government, or country is so minimal, or the individual has such deep and 
longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S., that the individual can be expected 
to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest,” then AG ¶ 8(b) might 
apply.  If “contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual and infrequent that 
there is little likelihood that it could create a risk for foreign influence or exploitation,” 
then AG ¶ 8(c) might apply. 
 
 Applicant is a newly-married man. His wife is a citizen of Afghanistan. After their 
marriage in November 2008, Applicant’s wife remained in Afghanistan with her mother 
and brother. During that time, Applicant spoke by telephone with his wife every week, 
and he was concerned for her safety if terrorists or others learned of his work as a 
linguist and translator. 
 
Applicant’s wife is close to her brother, who is a citizen and resident of 
Afghanistan. In the past, Applicant’s contacts with his in-laws in Afghanistan consisted 
of one of two telephone calls a year. However, now that his wife is living in the United 
States, it is reasonable to conclude that his relationships and contacts with his in-laws in 
Afghanistan will become more frequent and less casual. The record does not establish 
that under these circumstances Applicant would be able to put his loyalty to the United 
States above his relationships with his family members in Afghanistan.  
 
Applicant has distinguished himself as a contract linguist, and his supervisor 
provided credible documentation establishing his honorable and dedicated service in 
carrying out the interests of the United States in the face of hardship and danger.  
However, I am not able to conclude that Applicant’s family contacts and relationships 
with citizens and residents in Afghanistan, even when weighed against his 
demonstrated honorable civilian service to the United States, show that he can be 
expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest. I conclude that 
AG ¶¶ 8(a), 8(b), and 8(c) do not fully apply in mitigation to Applicant’s case. 
 
 
11 
 
 
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 two disqualifying conditions that could raise security 
concerns in this case. 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. Applicant has a history of financial 
delinquency. He has accumulated delinquent debt which has not been paid or which 
has been paid only recently. This evidence is sufficient to raise potentially disqualifying 
conditions under Guideline F. 
 
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security 
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Several Guideline F mitigating conditions 
could apply to the security concerns raised by Applicant’s financial delinquencies. 
Unresolved financial delinquency might be mitigated if “it 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.” 
(AG ¶ 20(a)). Additionally, unresolved financial delinquency might be mitigated if “the 
conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s 
control,” such as “loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical 
emergency, or a death, divorce, or separation, and the individual acted responsibly 
under the circumstances.” (AG ¶ 20(b)). Still other mitigating circumstances that might 
be applicable include evidence “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” (AG ¶ 20(c) or “the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” (AG ¶ 20 (d)).  Finally, security concerns 
related to financial delinquencies might be mitigated if “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.” (AG ¶ 20 (e)). 
 
The record in this case established that Applicant paid, or was paying as the 
result of a payment plan, three of the nine delinquent debts alleged on the SOR. 
Applicant’s payments on the three debts total $439. Accordingly, I conclude that AG ¶ 
20 d) applies in part to the facts of Applicant’s case, and SOR ¶¶ 1.a., 1.c., and 1.h. are 
concluded for Applicant.  
 
12 
 
 
However, Applicant has a history of financial delinquencies that began several 
years ago and continues to the present. The six remaining unresolved delinquent debts 
alleged on the SOR total over $27,000, despite Applicant’s monthly disposable income 
of over $8,000. Applicant’s financial statement of November 2010 does not reflect any 
planned payments on his delinquent debts, suggesting that he does not have a plan in 
place for managing his financial responsibilities and avoiding financial delinquencies in 
the future. I conclude that AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply in mitigation. 
 
Applicant suffered a serious medical condition in 2003 that required treatment 
costing approximately $300,000. His health insurance paid for all but $18,000 to 
$19,000 of the medical charges. However, eight years have elapsed, and Applicant has 
no plan in place to satisfy the remaining medical debt from 2003, identified in SOR 
allegations 1.d., 1.e., 1.f., and 1.g. While it is reasonable to conclude that his serious 
medical condition requiring $300,000 in treatments was beyond Applicant’s control, it is 
not clear from the written record that Applicant’s failure to address the remaining 
$18,000 to $19,000 in medical debt for eight years shows that he acted responsibly 
under the circumstances. I conclude that AG ¶ 20(b) applies only in part to the facts of 
Applicant’s case. 
 
In 2009, Applicant retained a credit advisor to assist him with his debt payment. 
He claimed, however, that the credit advisor misled him. The record does not reflect that 
Applicant has sought or received any additional credit counseling. I conclude that AG ¶ 
20(d) does not apply to the facts of this case.   
 
Applicant did not provide documentation to establish that he had a reasonable 
basis to dispute any of his past-due debts. Accordingly, I conclude that AG ¶ 20(e) does 
not apply in mitigation. 
   
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an 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. 
 
 
13 
 
 
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 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant, who is serving overseas 
as a contract Arab linguist, elected to have a decision without a hearing. Because he did 
not appear in person, I was unable to question and observe him in order to assess his 
credibility. However, in his response to the FORM, Applicant provided an assessment of 
his character and job performance that enabled me to see him as he is seen by those 
with whom he serves and works. The assessment spoke to Applicant’s strong work 
ethic, leadership among his peers, and commitment to the goals and interests of the 
United States. His command considers him to be a valued employee.  
  
A careful review of Applicant’s family relationships, however, raises security 
concerns about his vulnerability to conflict of interest, foreign exploitation, inducement, 
and coercion. Applicant failed to provide information to mitigate those concerns. 
 
Additionally, despite a net monthly remainder of over $8,000, Applicant is 
responsible for over $27,000 in unresolved delinquent debt. His financial statement 
indicates that he has the resources to pay or settle these delinquencies, and yet he has 
not done so. This raises concerns about his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. 
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. I conclude that Applicant 
failed to mitigate security concerns arising under the foreign influence and financial 
considerations adjudicative guidelines.  
 
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 APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a.:   For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 1.b.:   Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 1.c.:   For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.d. -1.g.:  Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 1.h.:   For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 1.i.:   Against Applicant 
 
14 
 
 
  Paragraph 2: Guideline B:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a. - 2.c.:             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. 
 
                                                
____________________________ 
Joan Caton Anthony 
Administrative Judge