1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09-06745
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
December 9, 2011
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
The Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on March 16, 2009.  On April 5, 2011, the Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the
security concerns under Guidelines F and J for the Applicant.  The action was taken
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 after September 1, 2006. 
The Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on April 18, 2011.  He answered
the SOR in writing on April 29, 2011, and requested a hearing before an Administrative
Judge.  DOHA received the request soon thereafter, and I received the case
assignment on June 3, 2011.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing on June 6, 2011, and I
convened the hearing as scheduled on June 29, 2011.  The Government offered
Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 14, which were received without objection.  The Applicant
2
testified on his own behalf, as did his wife.  DOHA received the transcript of the hearing
(TR) on July 8, 2011.  I granted the Applicant’s request to keep the record open until
July 29, 2011, to submit additional matters.  He has submitted nothing. The record
closed on July 29, 2011.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, the Applicant admitted the factual allegations in all of
the Subparagraphs of the SOR, with explanations, except he denied the allegation as
set forth in Subparagraph 1.j.  He also provided additional information to support his
request for eligibility for a security clearance.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
The Applicant is a retired Senior Chief Petty Officer, who served on active duty
for 25 years.  (TR at page 25 line 17 to page 30 line 15.)  His wife is a recovering
alcoholic.  (TR at page 34 line 11 to page 35 line 1.)  In March of 2009, their home was
burgled; but as “one of . . . [their] children was involved in it,” the “insurance wouldn’t
cover any of . . . [their] loss.”  (TR at page 35 line 2 to page 36 line 7.)  This incident
began their current financial difficulties.  (Id.)
1.a.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor A in the amount of $37.
He avers that this medical debt was paid in April of 2011, which is supported by the
Government’s most recent credit report (CR) from June of 2011.  (TR at page 37 lines
2~17, and GX 14.)  This debt does not appear on the Government’s most recent CR;
and as such, I find that this debt is not outstanding.  (GX 14.)
1.b.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor B in the amount of $39.
He again avers that this medical debt was paid in April of 2011, which is also supported
by the Government’s most recent CR from June of 2011.  (TR at page 37 line 17 to
page 38 line 1, and GX 14.)  This debt does not appear on the Government’s most
recent CR; and as such, I also find that this debt is not outstanding.  (GX 14.)
1.c.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor C in the amount of $30.
He avers that this medical debt was paid in April of 2011, which is supported by the
Government’s most recent CR from June of 2011.  (TR at page 38 lines 2~14, and GX
14.)  This debt does not appear on the Government’s most recent CR; and as such, I
find that this debt is not outstanding.  (GX 14.)
1.d.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor D in the amount of
$755.  He avers that this debt was paid in February of 2011 through garnishments of
wages, which is supported by the Government’s most recent CR from June of 2011.
(TR at page 38 line 14 to page 39 line 1, and GX 14.)  This debt does not appear on the
Government’s most recent CR; and as such, I find that this debt is not outstanding.  (GX
14.)
3
1.e.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor E in the amount of
$14,856.  (GX 14 at page 2.)  He avers that he is trying to settle this substantial credit
card debt; but despite my leaving the record open for one month, he has submitted no
further evidence in this regard.  (TR at page 39 line 2 to page 40 line 6.)  As this debt
does appear on the Government’s most recent CR, I find that this debt is still
outstanding.  (GX 14.)
1.f. and 1.i.  These two alleged debts are one and the same debt to Creditor F in
the amount of $681.  (GX 14 at page 2.)  The Applicant avers that he is trying to settle
this cell phone debt; but despite my leaving the record open for one month, he has
submitted no further evidence in this regard.  (TR at page 40 line 7 to page 41 line 17,
and at page 43 lines 2~11.)  As this debt does appear on the Government’s most recent
CR, I also find that this debt is still outstanding.  (GX 14.)
1.g.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor G in the amount of
$5,434.  (GX 14 at page 2.)  He avers that this substantial debt was paid in September
of 2010; but despite my leaving the record open for one month, he has submitted no
further evidence in this regard.  (TR at page 41 line 18 to page 42 line 5.)  As this debt
does appear on the Government’s most recent CR, I find that this debt is still
outstanding.  (GX 14.)
1.h.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor H in the amount of
$2,289.  (GX 14 at page 2.)  He avers that he is trying to address this foreclosure debt
from a second mortgage; but despite my leaving the record open for one month, he has
submitted no further evidence in this regard.  (TR at page 42 lines 6~25, at page 55 line
17 to page 56 line 4.)  As this debt does appear on the Government’s most recent CR, I
find that this debt is still outstanding.  (GX 14.)
1.i.  This debt has already been discussed, above.
1.j.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor J in the amount of $92.
He disputes this debt as not being his debt, which is supported by the Government’s
most recent CR from June of 2011.  (TR at page 43 line 12 to page 44 line 5, and GX
14.)  This debt does not appear on the Government’s most recent CR; and as such, I
find that this debt is not outstanding.  (GX 14.)
1.k.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to Creditor K in the amount of $31.
He avers that this medical debt was paid in April of 2011, which is supported by the
Government’s most recent CR from June of 2011.  (TR at page 44 lines 6~12 and GX
14.)  This debt does not appear on the Government’s most recent CR; and as such, I
find that this debt is not outstanding.  (GX 14.)
4
Guideline J - Criminal Conduct
The Applicant’s wife had a drinking problem, and is now a recovering alcoholic.
(TR at page 50 line 17 to page 52 line 14.)  Her consumption of alcohol is directly
related to all three allegations of Criminal Conduct, which will be discussed at length,
below.  (Id.)  In this regard, the following colloquy occurred between the undersigned
and the Applicant’s wife:
JUDGE: During . . . these three incidents, you basically called the police
and he was the one arrested, not you?
WITNESS: Yes.
JUDGE: And you were the one under the influence of alcohol?
WITNESS: Yes. . . . I learned from my mother to talk a good game when I
was mad.  My mother was a very violent person.  (TR at page 50 line 17 to
page 51 line 2.)
2.a.  In September of 1988, the Applicant was arrested for, and subsequently
charged with, Injury to Spouse.  The Applicant’s wife declined prosecution, as she avers
that she orchestrated his arrest.  (TR at page 45 line 19 to page 47 line 9, at page 53
lines 13~19, and at page 59 line 13 to page 60 line 7.)  She stated the following in this
regard: “I thought that was the normal way of life of being married and - - and I believe I
got really drunk and I am pretty sure because, as normal, I probably started hitting him
and he restrained me and - - and I called the police.  I didn’t like it and I called the
police.”  (TR at page 46 lines 10~15.)  The Applicant had not consumed alcohol prior to
this incident.  (TR at page 45 line 19 to page 47 line 9, at page 53 lines 13~19, and at
page 59 line 13 to page 60 line 7.)  I find no Criminal Conduct on the Applicant’s part.
2.b.  In December of 2005, the Applicant was arrested for, and subsequently
charged with, Inflicting Corporal Injury on Spouse/Cohabitant, and Battery to
Spouse/Cohabitant.  The Applicant’s wife again declined prosecution, as she avers that
she also orchestrated this arrest.  (TR at page 47 line 10 to page 48 line 10, at page 53
line 20 to page 55 line 9, and at page 57 line 19 to page 58 line 17.)  She stated the
following in this regard:
December of 2005, I believe that was another period where I was drinking.
I would have bouts where I would just drink a lot.  And I had a lot of issues
- - a lot of anger issues and everything that I hadn’t dealt with, and so I
would drink to - - and my kids were in high school and not wanting me - - I
wasn’t feeling as needed anymore - - and I just - - I would hit the bottle
hard and start fights with him and it would - - it would turn - - you know, if
he didn’t do what I wanted him to do, I would normally called (sic) the
police.  (TR at page 47 line 18 to page 48 line 3.)
5
I find no Criminal Conduct on the Applicant’s part.
2.c.  In October of 2007, the Applicant was arrested for, and subsequently
charged with, Battery to Spouse/Cohabitant, and Wilful Cruelty to Child.  (GXs 2~4.)
These charges arose out of another domestic dispute with his wife, with one of their
children being present.  (TR at page 48 line 11 to page 50 line 6, at page 60 line 18 to
page 61 line 4, and at page 65 line 10 to page 66 line 5.)  The Applicant’s wife again
declined prosecution as to the spousal battery, but he pled guilty to the misdemeanor of
an amended charge of Vandalism Under $400.  (GX 4.)  The Applicant testified as
follows:
No, I did not hit nobody (sic).  No, I did not abuse anybody.  And - - and
like I said, I’ve never been - - I went to court.  I pled guilty to toy vandalism
because I did do that.  I did pick up some toys and instead of taking ‘em
over to the box and drop ‘em in the box, I threw ‘em across the room.  And
I’ve always admitted to something when I’ve done it.  (TR at page 65 line
23 to page 66 line 5.)
As a result of this misdemeanor conviction, the Applicant was sentenced to
probation, with the imposition of any other sentence suspended for three years.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG).  In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law.  Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process.  The administrative judge’s over-arching
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.  Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
6
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
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 protect or
safeguard classified information.  Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
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.”  See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).
Analysis
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in Paragraph 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 several conditions that could raise security concerns.  Under
Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially
disqualifying.  Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations@ may raise security concerns.  The Applicant has significant past due debts.
I can find no countervailing Mitigation Condition that is applicable here.  The
Mitigating Condition found in Subparagraph 20(b) is applicable where “the conditions
that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control, . . . and
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.@  Here, the Applicant suffered
7
uninsured financial loss as a result of his home being burgled, but he has failed to
submit any evidence showing he has addressed the very substantial debts alleged in
Subparagraphs 1.e.~1.h., which total in excess of $23,000.
Guideline J - Criminal Conduct
Paragraph 30 of the adjudicative guidelines sets out the security concern relating
to Criminal Conduct:
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person=s judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness.  By its very nature, it calls into question a person=s ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations.
The adjudicative guidelines set out certain conditions that could raise security
concerns.  Subparagraph 31(a) provides that “a single serious crime or multiple lesser
offenses” may raise security concerns.  The Applicant was convicted of a misdemeanor
in 2007.  However, this is clearly countered by the mitigating condition in Subparagraph
32(a) as “so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not
cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.”  The
Applicant’s misdemeanor conviction was more than three years ago.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances.  Under Paragraph 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.
The Administrative Judge should also consider the nine adjudicative process
factors listed at AG Paragraph 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.
I considered all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and
mitigating conditions surrounding this case.  The record evidence leaves me with
questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.
8
He has yet to demonstrate that he has addressed over $23,000 in past due debts.  For
this reason, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from
his Financial Considerations.
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.~1.d. For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.e.~1.h. Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.i. and 1.k. For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline j: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a.~2.c. For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
_________________
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge