1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 11-01551
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
March 9, 2012
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
The Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on September 19, 2009.  On June 10, 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 June 27, 2011.  He
answered the SOR (Answer) in writing on July 11, 2011, and requested a hearing
before an Administrative Judge.  DOHA received the request on August 4, 2011, and I
received the case assignment on November 2, 2011.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing
on November 23, 2011.  On January 11, 2012, the case was rescheduled and I
convened the hearing as rescheduled on January 12, 2012.  The Government offered
2
Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 5, which were received without objection.  The Applicant
testified on his own behalf, as did his wife and a son.  DOHA received the transcript of
the hearing (TR) on January 20, 2012.  I granted the Applicant’s request to keep the
record open until Sunday, February 12, 2012, to submit additional matters.  On
February 3, 2012, he submitted Exhibit (AppX) A, which was received without objection.
The record closed on Monday, February 13, 2012.  Based upon a review of the
pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is
granted.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, the Applicant admitted the factual allegations in
Subparagraphs 1.a.~1.c. of the SOR, with explanations.  He also provided additional
information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
In 2006, the Applicant’s wife, a nurse, was involved in a traffic accident, which left
her relegated to a wheel chair.  (TR at page 25 lines 20~24, at page 29 line 13 to page
31 line 10, and at page 39 lines 14~23.)  As a result, her “$10,000 a month” income was
lost.  (Id.)  By 2008, they had exhausted their “emergency savings,” and their financial
difficulties began.  (TR at page 29 line 13 to page 31 line 10.)  This was compounded in
2009, when the Applicant was unemployed for three months.  (TR at page 47 lines
15~22.)  He has now addressed all of his alleged past due debts, and has a positive
monthly cash flow in excess of $2,000.  (AppX A at page 2.)
1.a.  It is alleged that the Applicant has a state tax lien against his income in the
amount of about $9,183.  This lien has been paid, as evidenced by a document from the
state showing a “revised balance” of “0.00,” and by the Government’s most recent
January 2012 credit report, which shows the lien was released in May of 2011.  (TR at
page 35 line 9 to page 38 line 4, Answer at page 1, and GX 5 at page 1.)
1.b.  It is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to a bank in the past due amount
of about $1,782.  The Applicant is now current with this debt, as evidenced by a letter
from the bank.  (TR at page 44 line 15 to page 45 line 8, and AppX A at page 3.)
1.c.  Finally, it is alleged that the Applicant is indebted to the same bank on a
home mortgage in the past due amount of about $14,000.  The Applicant is now paying
$500 towards this arrearage.  (TR at page 39 line 24 to page 42 line 23, and page 48
lines 17~23.)  Furthermore, this mortgage has been “modified under a Federal
Government plan.”  (GX 5 at page 3.)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG).  In addition to brief
3
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.
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).
4
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, and
that are applicable in this case.  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., loss of employment, . . . unexpected medical emergency), and
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.@  Here, the Applicant’s debts
are related to his and his wife’s significant reduction of income.  He has now addressed
the three 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 is paying down his mortgage arrearage, and has paid the other
two 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
5
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 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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a.~1.c. 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