1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 11-04139
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 29, 2012
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On December 6, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a 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 January 18, 2012, 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 first notice of hearing on
February 29, 2011, for the hearing to be held on March 16, 2012. At the request of
Department Counsel the hearing was continued to March 29, 2012, and a second notice
of hearing was issued on March 14, 2012.  Thereafter at Department Counsel’s request
the hearing was continued a second time.  On March 16, 2012, a third notice of hearing
was issued, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on April 3, 2012. The
2
Government offered Exhibits 1 through 6, which were received without objection.
Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits A though D at the time of
hearing, which were also received without objection. DOHA received the transcript of
the hearing (Tr) on April 12, 2012. I granted Applicant’s request to keep the record open
until April 20, 2012, to submit additional documents. Additional documents were timely
received and identified as Exhibits E through H, and they have been 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 granted.
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 29 years old. He is not married, and he has one daughter. Applicant
served in the United States Army from 2001 to 2005, and he received an Honorable
Discharge. Applicant is employed by a defense contractor, and he is seeking a DoD
security clearance in connection with future employment in the defense sector.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists four allegations (1.a. through d.) regarding overdue debts under
Adjudicative Guideline F.  In his RSOR, Applicant admitted all of the debts. 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 $493. At the hearing,
Applicant testified that this debt is still unpaid.  (Tr at 30-31.) Among the post hearing
documents, Applicant submitted a letter form the creditor of this debt showing that
Applicant made a payment of $250, and that the debt is settled in full. (Exhibit E.)   I find
that this debt is now resolved. 
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $6,910. Applicant
testified that he has not yet paid this debt, but the creditor has agreed to a plan where
Applicant will pay $4,500 down by April 13, 2012, and then 10 additional monthly
payments of $170.  Applicant testified that this is a payment plan for both debts to the
same creditor, 1.b. and 1.c., below. (Tr at 31-35.) 
However, the post hearing documents show that there are two separate payment
plans for the two debts. Exhibit F includes two letters from the credit collection agency
for the two debts listed as 1.b. and 1.c. The letter regarding this debt shows a payment
schedule of $1,507.65 to be paid by April 13, 2012, and 11 additional monthly payments
of $51.26. Exhibit G shows that Applicant made a payment of $1,507.65 on April 13,
2012. I find that Applicant is now in the process of, and has taken a significant step
towards, resolving this debt. 
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR to the same creditor as 1.b., above, in
the amount of $13,785. (Tr at 35-36.) The letter for this debt shows a required first
3
payment of $2,992.56 is required by April 13, 2012, with 11 additional payments of
$104.07. (Exhibit F.) Exhibit G shows that Applicant also made a payment of $2,992.56
on April 13, 2012. I find that Applicant is now in the process of, and has taken a
significant step towards, resolving this debt. 
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $6,818. Applicant
testified that he has not made any payment on this debt, but he is in the process of
engaging the services of a debt counseling company to resolve this debt.  (Tr at 38-39.)
I find that this debt has not yet been resolved. 
Applicant explained that his financial problems occurred as a result of being
unemployed for approximately seven months. He averred that with the exception of the
four debts listed on the SOR, he is not overdue on any other debts. (Tr at 43.) 
Mitigation
Applicant submitted two positive character letters. One was from an individual
who represented herself as the CEO of a foundation, and she is also a parent to friends
of the Applicant. Department Counsel objected to this letter since it was not signed nor
is there a sender address on the email. I have allowed this letter into evidence, but have
considered the basis for Department Counsel’s objection while reviewing the letter. The
writer of this letter described Applicant as “very trustworthy, honest and caring in
personal and professional capacity.” (Exhibit H.) I also considered Applicant’s DD Form
214 that indicated Applicant received a number of medals and awards during his time in
the United States Army. (Exhibit 2.) 
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
4
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 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. 
5
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
above, Applicant testified that his financial problems resulted solely from his
unemployment.
At this time, I find that Applicant has acted responsibly regarding these debts. Of
the 4 debts listed on the SOR, Applicant has completely resolved one and has made
significant progress in resolving two others. He has also engaged the services of a debt
counseling company to help him settle the final debt. 
Similarly, I find that AG ¶  20 (d) is applicable, since Applicant has “initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” I find that this
mitigating condition is a factor for consideration in this case.
I conclude that Applicant has significantly reduced his overdue debt, and
therefore, he has 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 mitigating conditions apply, I find that the record evidence leaves
me with no significant questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for
a security clearance under the whole-person concept. For all these reasons, I conclude
Applicant has mitigated the security concerns. 
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.a. - 1.d.: 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.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge