1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-09127
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Marc Laverdiere, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A, Administrative Judge:
On May 16, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG), implemented in September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. DOHA assigned
the case to me on July 25, 2011. A notice of hearing was issued on August 5, 2011,
2011, and the case was heard on September 8, 2011. Department Counsel offered
three exhibits (GE) 1-3, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified and
submitted three exhibits (AE) A-C at the hearing, which were admitted without
objection. I held the record open until September 22, 2011 for Applicant to submit
additional documents. Applicant timely submitted three documents, which were marked
as AE D - AE F, and admitted into the record without objection. DOHA received the
hearing transcript on September 16, 2011. Based on a review of the pleadings,
2
submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant failed to meet her burden regarding the
security concerns raised. Security clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted 18 delinquent debts and denied
the remaining five debts, with explanation, under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations). 
Applicant is 39 years old. She obtained her General Education Diploma (GED) in
January 1991.  Applicant is divorced with two children. She has been employed with her
current employer since June 2007. (GE 1)
Applicant’s financial difficulties began in 1999 when her marriage ended in
divorce. Her household income was reduced from two salaries to one. Her initial
separation from her husband in 1997 caused her reduced circumstances. She was not
employed on a consistent basis and did not have health insurance. In addition, she has
an autistic child with medical issues. Applicant remarried in 2001, but the marriage
failed due to her abusive husband. This event complicated her financial situation. She
was unemployed from November 2003 until April 2004. (GE 1)
In 2007, Applicant had old debts and began falling behind in current accounts.
She lived with her family to keep expenses minimal. (Tr. 28) When she obtained her
current position in June 2007, she decided to rent an apartment for herself and her
children. However, she could not keep up with the rent. She was helping her older
daughter to attend college. In addition, she had extra expenses for her special needs
child (after school care). She was evicted in March 2010. (Tr. 34)
Applicant obtained the services of a law firm in April 2011 to assist her with a
debt consolidation repayment plan for 20 delinquent debts. (AE A) The company is
obtaining settlements on the account. She has a three-year automated debt repayment
plan. She pays $200 monthly for the company to settle her debts. The total debt is
$10,617.(AE B) She plans to address the remaining debts that are not in the plan.
Applicant’s net monthly income is approximately $4,012. The court ordered $300
a month for child support, but her ex-husband is sporadic with his payments. After
monthly expenses, she has a net remainder of $600. (GE 2) She follows a budget. Her
annual salary has risen from $49,000 to $65,000 since 2007. 
The SOR lists 23 delinquent accounts, including four judgments, and numerous
medical bills totaling in excess of $18,000. Applicant admitted some debts, but disputes
a judgment from an eviction. She stated she paid the rent, but the judgment was not
removed from her credit report. She also stated that she has paid other debts that are
not listed on the SOR. (Tr. 79)
Applicant denies/disputes the judgments listed in SOR ¶ 1a. ¶ 1.b. ¶ 1.c, and ¶
1.d because they are paid.  She has not presented any documentation that indicated
3
she formally disputed these debts or that she paid them. They are the result of rental
evictions. (Tr. 32) At the hearing, Applicant stated that she paid the judgments with
money orders. She does not have copies of them. (Tr. 35) She offered to contact the
rental company, but did not submit any documentation from the company. 
Applicant admits the debts in SOR ¶ 1.e through 1.m. These debts are included
in her debt consolidation and settlement plan. (GE 3) SOR ¶ l.v. and 1.u are duplicates.
Applicant obtained financial counseling and developed a debt consolidation plan
in 2011. She has a monthly payment of $200 for approximately 36 months. To date,
one account has been settled. (AE F) ) Applicant did not submit any documentation to
support her assertion that she is paying the monthly $200 payment.
At the hearing, Applicant was candid about her past, She has dealt with personal
adversity and struggled to rebuild her life. She provides financial support for her two
children. At one point, due to her personal difficulties with alcohol, her children could
not live with her. In 2010, she completed a recovery program that allows her children to
live with her. (Tr. 20) She believes she has a strong bond with her family. She also
acknowledged that she has struggled with depression after her father’s death. (Tr. 46)
Applicant noted that during the period of depression and alcohol, she had difficulty
making decisions and paying her bills. (Tr. 49)
At the hearing, Applicant emphasized that since 2007, she has been working
with the government and has gained the confidence of her employer. She has been
entrusted with classified personnel. (Tr. 19) She believes she has established her
trustworthiness during the previous four years. She loves her job and needs to remain
employed. She noted that she has been promoted . She believes she held a public trust
clearance in 2004. (Tr. 91)
Applicant’s team manager describes her as an invaluable member of the team,
who supports a variety of defense contractors. She is a professional who displays
integrity and competence. (AE F) Applicant is talented, organized, efficient and has
excellent communication skills. She works independently and multi-tasks to complete
projects in a timely manner. (AE F) Applicant is recommended for a security clearance. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An administrative judge must consider all
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      1
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      2
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      3
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      4
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
 Id.      6
4
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.
The United States Government must present evidence to establish controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a1
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  2 3
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of 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
applicant concerned.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance4
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt5
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a6
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
5
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an 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. It also states that “an individual who is
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.”
Applicant has delinquent debts, including four judgments, that are unresolved in
an amount of approximately $18,000. Consequently, Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts),
and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply. With such
conditions raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against her and mitigate
security concerns.  
Applicant’s debts are recent and ongoing. She has a judgment that has not been
resolved. Consequently, Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FCMC) AG ¶
20(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) does not apply.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (the
conditions that resulted in the behavior 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)
partially applies. As noted, Applicant’s separation and divorce, her unemployment, the
special needs of her son, and many medical bills resulted in unpaid debts. The
unemployment may have exacerbated Applicant’s ability to meet her obligations during
this period. However, she did not address her accounts until receiving the SOR in 2011.
There is no evidence that she acted reasonably under the circumstances. She allowed
the delinquent debts to remain unpaid. There is no record of any attempts to resolve
debt until after she received the SOR. She acknowledged that her personal difficulties
did not allow her to focus on paying her debts. She receives partial credit under this
mitigating condition.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply. Applicant has not provided
evidence of any consistent payment plans. She asserts that she has a settlement
arrangement for two accounts. She submitted documentation for one account. She  has
not submitted proof that she has made any payments. She claims she does not owe
several accounts, but she did not present any documentation to confirm this assertion.
6
Applicant received financial counseling. FC MC AG ¶ 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) partially applies.
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 an applicant’s
conduct and all the 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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
Applicant is 39 years old.  She is divorced with two children. She is a single parent who
attempted to provide for her family. Her children had medical needs. She had some
unemployment and personal difficulties which exacerbated her ability to pay her debts.
Her separation and divorce compounded her financial problems. She has had financial
difficulties for almost nine years. 
Applicant was candid and forthright at the hearing. She has recently sought
counseling and started a repayment plan with a law firm, who will help settle her debts.
She was not clear about payments on her judgments. It was not until she completed her
security clearance and received the SOR that she began to seriously address her
delinquent accounts. In the last seven months, she has taken constructive steps to
alleviate the difficulties. She has a plan of action for the majority of the debts. However,
Applicant failed to submit sufficient information or evidence to mitigate the security
concerns raised in her case. She did not produce evidence that she has made any of
the $200 monthly payments. She has not yet addressed the other accounts not listed in
the plan which amount to approximately $8,000. She is still unclear on the judgments.
She is on the right track, but all doubts must be resolved in favor of the Government. At
this time, Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns.  Clearance is denied. 
7
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
Subparagraphs 1.a- 1w: 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge