1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 10-10367
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 29, 2012
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued an undated
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for
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 for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
On December 31, 2011, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and he
requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. The case was assigned to this
Administrative Judge on February 27, 2012. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on
February 29, 2012, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on March 16, 2012.
However, Applicant did not appear at the hearing. Thereafter, it was determined that
Applicant had not understood the date that the hearing was set. A second notice of
hearing was therefore issued on March 16, 2012, and the hearing did go forward on
April 3, 2012. The Government offered Exhibits 1 through 7, which were received
without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted no exhibits at the
2
time of hearing. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr) on April 16, 2012. I
granted Applicant’s request to keep the record open until April 20, 2012, to submit
additional documents. Ten character letters were timely received and identified as
Exhibit A, and additional copies of certificates of appreciation and other awards
presented to Applicant were identified as Exhibit B. All of the documents were entered
into evidence without objection. Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and the
testimony of Applicant, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including
Applicant's RSOR, the admitted documents, and the testimony of Applicant, and upon
due consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of fact: 
Applicant is 52 years old. He was married in 1982 and has been separated form
his wife since 2009. They have three children. Applicant served in the United States
Army from 1977 to 1985, and he received an Honorable Discharge. Applicant indicated
that he is not currently employed, but  he previously worked for defense contractors for
22 years. His employment status will be discussed below. Applicant is seeking a DoD
security clearance in connection with future employment in the defense sector.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists 11 allegations (1.a. through k.) regarding overdue debts under
Adjudicative Guideline F.  The allegations will be discussed below in the same order as
they were listed on the SOR:
1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,641. At the
hearing, Applicant testified that he is not certain if this debt is for him or for his father,
but he believed it was for his father since it originated form an area where his father
lived. He stated that he contacted one of the credit reporting agencies to question the
debt, but it has not yet been resolved. (Tr at 31-34.) I find that this debt is in dispute, but
not yet resolved. 
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $293. Applicant
testified that this is his debt, and he has not yet paid it or contacted the creditor.  (Tr at
34.)  I find that this debt is still unresolved.
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,173 for a State A
tax lien. Applicant testified that he did not believe this was his debt since he was not
working in State A at the time the debt originated. Applicant has not yet contacted State
A, but he has engaged the services of a consumer credit counselor (CCC) to resolve
this and his other debts. At this point, Applicant testified that has yet to finish his
payment to the CCC so they will work on his behalf. (Tr at 34-37.) Exhibit 3 shows the
judgement and lien of $2,173 owed to State A. I find that this debt is still unresolved. 
3
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $168. Applicant
testified that he is disputing this bill because he believes that the creditor billed him
unfairly. He averred that he has spoken to a representative of this creditor on the phone
on several occasions, but the issue has not been settled. (Tr at 37-39.) I find that this
debt is in dispute, but not yet resolved. 
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $589. Applicant
testified that this is his debt, and he has not yet paid it. He indicated that at one time he
had contacted this creditor, but ultimately he could not make payments on the debt. (Tr
at 34, 40-41.)  I find that this debt is still unresolved.
1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,574 with an
approximate balance of $10,328. Applicant testified that both this debt and that listed as
1.g., below, are to the same creditor, and the total amount owed for the two debts is
$6,000.  (Tr at 40-42.)  I find that this debt and 1.g. are unresolved.
1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $1,165 with an
approximate balance of $6,903. This debt has been reviewed with 1.f., above. 
1.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $38,463. Applicant
testified that this debt is for a home that he had owned, which was sold in a short sale.
Applicant indicated that he did not believe the amount stated was the correct amount
that he owed, but he did not know what the correct amount should be.  He has been in
contact with the creditor, but it has not been settled. (Tr at 42-44.)  I find that this debt is
in dispute, but not yet resolved. 
1.i. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $39. Applicant testified
that he did not know the origin of this medical debt, but he has not made an attempt to
ascertain the origin of this debt. (Tr at 44-45.) I find that this debt is still unresolved.
1.j. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $323. Applicant
testified that he still owes this debt for a parking ticket. (Tr at 45.)  I find that this debt is
still unresolved.
1.k. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $118. Applicant
testified that he still owes this debt. (Tr at 46.)  I find that this debt is still unresolved.
Applicant explained that his financial problems occurred as a result of a
motorcycle accident in which he was involved.  As a result of the accident, his arm was
very seriously injured, and he became unemployed for a period of two years. The
accident did result in a lawsuit in which Applicant ultimately received $35,000. Applicant
also stated that he was denied the opportunity to collect unemployment, although he
believed that he should have been entitled to collect it. Applicant stated that, before the
accident and subsequent unemployment, he had never had overdue debts. Applicant
also reiterated that he does not believe in using bankruptcy to help him with these
debts.(Tr at 49-55.) Finally, Applicant testified that he is not overdue on any of his more
current debts. (Tr at 64-65.) 
4
Exhibit 2 includes a Personal Financial Statement made by Applicant on April 1,
2011, which showed that at that time he was earning a net monthly income of $3,000.
Applicant testified that he had temporary employment during the last year, but that the
job “went away.” (Tr at 66-67.) What is of concern is a letter, dated April 4, 2012,
received in Exhibit A from the president of an Engineering Company.  He wrote,
“[Applicant] started with [the Engineering Company] as a temporary employee on 10
November 2010 and remains with us today.” Based on this letter, Applicant has worked
continually during the past approximately one and a half years. Several additional letters
from employees at [the Engineering Company] also confirm that Applicant has worked
there since November 2010. This directly contradicts Applicant’s testimony, in which he
represented that over the last two years he was unemployed for most of the time, with
some short periods of employment.
Mitigation
Applicant submitted ten positive character letters from people who know him in
his professional and private life, including a letter from his daughter. (Exhibit A.) He was
described as someone who is “disciplined, punctual and thorough.” Applicant also
submitted a number of documents including copies of letters of congratulations and
other positive honors he has received. (Exhibit B.) 
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 common sense 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
5
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 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 several conditions that could raise security concerns and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19 (a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶ 19 (c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant has accumulated significant delinquent debt. 
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties: Under AG ¶  20 (b), it may be mitigating where “the conditions that resulted
in the financial problem 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.” As noted
6
above, Applicant testified that his financial problems resulted solely from his injury and
the subsequent unemployment.
However, at this time, I cannot find that Applicant has acted responsibly
regarding these debts. Of the 11 debts listed on the SOR, none have been paid.
Applicant claims to be disputing several, but there is no indication that Applicant took
affirmative steps to challenge the bills he has disputed. Of the remaining debts there
have been no payments made, nor is there is any evidence that Applicant has made
any arrangements to resolve these debts. Four of these overdue debts are for amounts
of less than $300, and one is for $323 for a parking ticket, yet Applicant has not even
made an attempt to resolve these small overdue debts.  Finally, if, as it appears,
Applicant has been working regularly since November 2010, he should have been able
to make some effort to resolve the larger overdue debts as well as the smaller ones.
Similarly, I do not find that AG ¶  20 (d) is applicable, since Applicant has not
“initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” I do
not find that this mitigating condition, or any other, is a factor for consideration in this
case.
I conclude that Applicant has not reduced or resolved his overdue debt, and
therefore, he has not mitigated the financial concerns of the Government.
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. 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.  
  
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on all of the reasons cited
above as to why the disqualifying conditions apply and the mitigating conditions do not
apply, I find that the record evidence leaves me with significant questions and doubts as
to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance under the whole-person
7
concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security
concerns. 
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.k.: 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.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge