1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 11-06460
)
)
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 October 13, 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 November 12, 2011, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and she
requested that her case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Thereafter,
Department Counsel requested that this case be converted a hearing before an
Administrative Judge. I received the case assignment on February 16, 2012. DOHA
issued a notice of hearing on the date it was received, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on March 6, 2012. The Government offered Exhibits 1 through 8, which were
received without objection.  Applicant testified on her own behalf and submitted Exhibits
A through Q at the time of hearing, which were also admitted without objection. DOHA
2
received the transcript of the hearing (Tr) on March 14, 2012. I  granted Applicant’s
request to keep the record open until April 6, 2012, to submit additional documents, and
the additional documents that were received, have been identified and entered into
evidence without objection as Exhibits R through DD. 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 30 years old. She is unmarried, but she has a partner and three
children. Applicant received a Bachelors of Science Degree in 2005. She is employed
by a defense contractor, and she seeks a DoD security clearance in connection with her
employment in the defense sector.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists 12 allegations (1.a. through 1.l.) regarding overdue debts under
Adjudicative Guideline F. The allegations will be reviewed below in the same order as
they were listed on the SOR:
1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a judgement filed against Applicant
in the amount of $23,278. Applicant testified that judgement for the repossession of a
vehicle has been settled. She paid $5,000 in February 2012 to settle this debt in full. (Tr
at 44-50.) Exhibit F establishes that the creditor would accept $5,000 in settlement, and
Exhibit S shows that the creditor has accepted the payment for the amount agreed
upon.  I find that this debt has been resolved.
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $119. Applicant
testified that she paid this debt in full and also the debt listed as 1.d., below, which are
both to the same creditor, on November 14, 2011. (Tr at 51.) Exhibit G establishes that
she paid $224.33 to pay this debt and the debt listed as 1.d., in full. I find that this debt
has been resolved.
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $274. Applicant
testified that this debt had not yet been paid. (Tr at 52.) In her post hearing documents,
Applicant indicated that she had not yet been able to settle this debt, but she has
scheduled to pay it off in April 2012. (Exhibit R.) Based on Applicant’s history of
resolving her debts, it appears that Applicant will settle this debt in April, but it has not
yet been resolved.
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $56. As referenced in
1.b., above, I find that this debt has been resolved. 
3
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $809.  Applicant
testified that she had not yet made payment toward this medical debt. (Tr at 56-57.) In
Exhibit R, Applicant averred that she had paid $692 to settle this debt. I find, and
Exhibits T and U confirm, that this debt has been settled in full for $692.
1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $135. Applicant
testified that she had paid $123.73 to settle this debt. (Tr at 56-67.) Exhibit K
establishes that this debt was paid on November 11, 2011.
 
1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $7,884.  Applicant
testified that this debt has been cancelled by the creditor, although she did not know
why. (Tr at 58-61.) Exhibit L consists of a 1099-C from the creditor indicating that the
debt was cancelled. I find that this debt has been resolved. 
1.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $11,575. Applicant
testified that she had discussed a negotiated settlement with the creditor of this debt,
but at the time of the hearing, no payment had been made on this debt. (Tr at 62-64.)
Exhibits V and W confirm that Applicant has contacted the creditor, and confirmed the
payment plan first proposed by the creditor. In Exhibit R, Applicant indicated that she
had not yet been able to settle this debt, but she plans to save enough money to make
one payment in September 2012 to settle this debt in full. I find that this debt has not yet
been resolved, but Applicant is making a good faith effort to save enough money to
settle this debt by September 2012.
1.i. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $887. Applicant
testified that she had discussed a negotiated settlement with the creditor of this debt,
but at the time of the hearing, no payment had been made on this debt. (Tr at 64-68.)
Exhibit X confirms that the creditor has proposed a settlement plan with Applicant of one
payment of $206.66 due on March 26, 2012, and four payments of $103.33, due on
April 6 and 20 and May 4 and 18, 2012, after which the debt would be paid in full. I find
that this debt has not yet been resolved, but Applicant is making a good faith effort to
settle this debt by May 18, 2012.
1.j. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $20,451. Applicant
testified that this debt for some appliances, which she had purchased for approximately
$10,000, and the rest was added as interest and penalties. She had discussed a
negotiated settlement with the creditor of this debt, but at the time of the hearing, she
had only made one payment of $75 to show good faith. (Tr at 68-72.) The creditor had
told her that if she would make a down payment of $2,300, she could then make
monthly payments of $475, or she could have the option of making one payment of
$10,225. (Exhibits V and W.) In Exhibit R, Applicant avers that her plan is to save her
money until she has accumulated enough to make the one lump payment of $10,225.
Applicant anticipates that she will be able to make the single payment in June 2013. I
find that this debt has not yet been resolved, but Applicant has a good faith plan to
settle this debt by June, 2013.
4
1.k. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $99. Applicant
testified that she paid this debt in full. (Tr at 72-73.)  Exhibit P establishes that this debt
was paid in full on November 11, 2011. 
1.l. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $171. Applicant
testified that she paid this debt in full.  (Tr at 73.) Exhibit Q establishes that this debt
was paid in full on November 11, 2011. 
Applicant testified that after she purchased a home for $465,000, gave birth to
her second child, and added the appliances that are the subject of the debt listed as 1.j.,
above, she was laid off from her employment. She had a difficult time finding
employment, so she worked as an unpaid intern to get experience, until she finally was
hired at another company. Applicant lost her job in June 2007, and did not receive a
new paying job until October 2009. (Tr at 74-81.) 
Mitigation
Applicant submitted a Personal Financial Statement, which shows that her net
monthly income is $4,553, and her total monthly expenses and payments are $1,610
and $1,835, respectively. She is left with a net monthly remainder of $1,088. (Exhibit
AA.) Applicant took a course,  consisting of two four hour sessions,  to help her manage
her finances better. Exhibit E includes an action plan for what she learned in the course
and a certificate, indicating that she completed the course on February 28, 2012.
Applicant also submitted three very positive character letters from her current
manager, her long-time friend, and the man with whom she lives who is the father of her
children. All of them were extremely laudatory of her. (Exhibit C.) Finally, Applicant
submitted her Performance Review from her current employer from April 1, 2010, to
March 31, 2011. Her Overall Performance Rating was “High Meets,” and she was
praised for her “attention to detain and ability to gain support form other groups.”
 
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.
5
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 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
6
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
above, Applicant testified that her financial problems resulted from her long period of
unemployment, shortly after she had purchased a home, had a baby and purchased
some items to improve her home. I find that Applicant has acted responsibly, since she
has paid eight of the debts listed on the SOR, and made some arrangement or payment
plans with the other creditors to resolve the additional debts. Therefore, I find that this
mitigating condition is a factor for consideration in this case. 
AG ¶  20(c) is mitigating since Applicant has “received counseling for the problem
and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved [and] is under
control.” Finally, AG ¶  20(d) is also applicable since Applicant has “initiated a good-faith
effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.”
I conclude that Applicant has significantly reduced or resolved her overdue debts,
with a plan to resolve the remaining outstanding debt, and she has shown that she can
maintain future financial stability. Therefore, she 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
7
as to why the Mitigating Conditions apply, together with the positive character letters and
the Performance Evaluation Applicant received, I find that the record evidence leaves me
with no significant questions or 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. 
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 through 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.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge