1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 11-03668
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Monica L. Montgomery, Esquire
February 6, 2012
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
The Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on September 9, 2010.  On July 11, 2011, the Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the
security concerns under Guideline F 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 July 15, 2011.  She
answered the SOR in writing on July 27, 2011, and requested a hearing before an
Administrative Judge.  DOHA received the request on September 8, 2011, and it was
assigned to another Judge.  The case was reassigned to the undersigned on
September 26, 2011.  DOHA had already issued a notice of hearing on September 21,
2011, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on October 27, 2011.  The Government
2
offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 7, which were received without objection.  The
Applicant testified on her own behalf and submitted Exhibits (AppXs) A through F, which
were received without objection.  DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on
November 2, 2011.  I granted the Applicant’s request to keep the record open until
January 3, 2012, to submit additional matters.  On, January 3, 2012, she submitted
AppXs G through L, which were received without objection. The record closed on
January 3, 2012.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony,
eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Motion to Amend SOR
At the hearing, Department Counsel moved to amend the SOR by adding
Subparagraphs 1.e. through 1.l., and by deleting Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.d.  (TR
at page 8 line 1 to page 10 line 4.)  There being no objection by the Applicant’s
Counsel, the motion was granted.  (Id.)  The particulars of the new allegations will be
discussed under my Findings of Fact, below.
Findings of Fact
At the hearing, the Applicant admitted the factual allegations in all the
Subparagraphs, except for Subparagraph 1.i., which she denied.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
The Applicant’s alleged past due indebtedness occurred as the direct result of
the collapse of the real estate market in 2008, and by her daughter’s illness.  (TR at
page 24 line 21 to page 25 line 14, at page 26 line 14 to page 29 line 4, and at page 29
line 22 to page 30 line 12.)  She was a real estate agent, and her husband is in the
construction business.  As a result of the downturn in the real estate market, their family
income was drastically reduced.  (TR at page 24 line 21 to page 25 line 14, at page 26
line 14 to page 29 line 4.)  Furthermore, her daughter was ill; and as a result, she had to
be supported financially by her parents.  (TR at page 29 line 22 to page 30 line 12.)
1.e.  It is alleged that the Applicant is “indebted to a creditor identified as medical
account . . . on . . . [her] credit report dated June 24, 2011, for an account that has been
placed for collection in the approximate amount of $56.00.”  The Applicant has paid this
debt, as evidenced by a receipt and by a letter from the creditor.  (TR at page 30 line 20
to page 31 line 2, at page 36 line 20 to page 37 line 8, and AppX L.)
1.f.  It is alleged that the Applicant is “indebted to . . . [Creditor F] for an account
that has been placed in collection in the approximate amount of $13,514.00.”  The
Applicant is making monthly payments of $200 towards this debt, as evidenced by a
letter from the successor creditor of the debt.  (TR at page 31 lines 8~17, at page 38
line 7 to page 39 line 1, and AppX J.)
3
1.g.  It is alleged that the Applicant is “indebted to . . . [Creditor G] for an account
that is at least 90 days past due in the approximate amount of $80.00, and has a
balance of $460.”  The Applicant is making monthly payments of $30 towards this debt,
as evidenced by a letter from the successor creditor of the debt.  (TR at page 31 lines
18~25, at page 39 line 3 to page 40 line 3, and AppX H.)
1.h.  It is alleged that the Applicant is “indebted to . . . [Creditor H] for an account
that has been placed for collection in the approximate amount of $447.00.”  The
Applicant is making monthly payments of $10 towards this debt, as evidenced by her
banking log.  (TR at page 32 lines 2~6, at page 40 line 4 to page 41 line 3, and AppX
G.)
1.i.  It is alleged that the Applicant is “indebted to . . . [Creditor I] for an account
that has been placed for collection in the approximate amount of $2,487.00.”  The
Applicant disputes this debt as not being owed, as evidenced by formal letters to three
credit reporting services.  (TR at page 37 lines 7~18, at page 41 line 10 to page 42 line
5, and AppXs A, B and C.)  I find that the Applicant does not owe this debt.
1.j.  It is alleged that the Applicant is “indebted to . . . [Creditor J] for an account
that has been placed for collection in the approximate amount of $1,732.00.”  The
Applicant is making monthly payments of $80.84 towards this debt, as evidenced by a
letter from the creditor.  (TR at page 32 line 19 to page 33 line 2, at page 42 line 8 to
page 43 line 20, and AppX I.)
1.k. and 1.l.  It is alleged that the Applicant is “indebted to . . . [Creditor K] for an
account that has been placed for collection in the approximate amount of $481.00,” and
“for an account that has been placed in collection in the approximate amount of
$2,149.00.”  The Applicant has “PAID” these two medical debts, as evidenced by
documentation from the creditor.  (TR at page 33 line 5 to page 34 line 11, at page 43
line 22 to page 44 line 25, and AppX K.)
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,
4
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
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.
5
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.
However, the countervailing second and fourth Mitigation Conditions are clearly
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 (e.g., . . . a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency . . . ),
and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.@  Here, the Applicant’s
debts are related to the crash in the housing market, which caused a significant
reduction of family income, and to her daughter’s illness.  She has now addressed all of
the alleged past due debts.  Subparagraph 20(d) is applicable where, “the individual
initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.”  The
Applicant has paid, or is paying all of her admitted past due debts.
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 no
questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.
For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising
from her Financial Considerations.
6
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.e.~1.l. For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
_________________
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge