DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 10-00398
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
June 12, 2012
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions with the signature
page for the Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on
December 11, 2007.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On November 3, 2011, the Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as
amended), issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed
reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the
Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a
security clearance for the Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative
Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked.
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on December 11, 2011, and requested a
hearing before an Administrative Judge. The case was assigned to the undersigned
Administrative Judge on February 13, 2012.  A notice of hearing was issued on March
13, 2012, scheduling the hearing for April 19, 2012.  The Government offered nine
exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 9, which were received without
objection.  The Applicant offered ten exhibits, referred to as Applicant’s Exhibits A
through J, which were admitted into evidence without objection.  He also testified on his
2
own behalf.  The transcript of the hearing (Tr.) was received on May 3, 2012.  Based
upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted.
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 49 years old and in his third marriage.  He has completed some
college.  He served in the United States Marine Corps from 1980 until 1993 when he
was honorably discharged.  He is employed with a defense contractor as a Field
Service Representative and is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with
this employment.
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is financially overextended and at risk of
having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant admitted allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), and 1(h) of the SOR.  He
denied allegations 1(d), 1(f), and 1(g) with some explanations.  (See Applicant’s Answer
to SOR.)  Credit Reports of the Applicant dated January 17, 2008; October 9, 2009;
March 23, 2011; August 30, 2011; and April 12, 2012, reflect that the Applicant was at
one time indebted to each of the creditors set forth in the SOR totaling in excess of
$14,000.  (Government Exhibits 2, 3,  5,  6, and 9.)
The Applicant explained that he has experienced financial problems for various
reasons since 2001.  He testified that he has been married three times.  His first wife
passed away and he has had sole custody of their daughter until she went to college.
He experienced no financial problems during his first marriage.  In 2001, during his
second marriage, his financial difficulties began.  His second wife had medical bills that
were financially unmanageable.  They divorced in 2001, and the Applicant assumed the
debt from the marriage.  At that time he was also trying to maintain two residences, but
was unable to afford the expense.  He also discovered that delinquent debts were
appearing on his credit report that he was not aware of.  In 2005, he married his current
wife.  At that point, he began cleaning up his credit.  She is from the Philippines, and he
sponsored her and her children to immigrate to the United States.  He and his wife also
have a child together. The Applicant admits that he has frequently moved residences
and did not provide forwarding addresses to his creditors.  He now realizes the
importance of informing them of his whereabouts so that he is aware of his credit report
at all times.    
In 2009, the Applicant started working for his current employer.  His job
transferred him to a permanent assignment overseas in 2010.  Due to unexpected car
3
repairs he has was not able to pay off his debts as fast he had anticipated.  Recently he
has resolved each of the outstanding debts listed in the SOR.  He does not anticipate
incurring any new debt.  
1(a).  A delinquent debt owed to a creditor for a medical bill in the amount of
$484.00 was paid in full on April 13, 2012.  (Applicant’s Exhibit A.)
1(b).  A delinquent debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $250.00 has been
paid in full.  (Applicant’s Exhibit B.)
1(c).  A delinquent credit card debt in the amount of $12,723.00 has been paid.
(Applicant’s Exhibit C.)  
1(d).  A delinquent debt owed to creditor in the amount of $757.00 has been paid
in full.  (Applicant’s Exhibit D.)
1(e).  A delinquent debt owed to a creditor for in the amount of $600.00 has been
paid in full.  (Applicant’s Exhibit E.)
1(f).  A delinquent debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $170.00 has been
paid in full.  (Applicant’s Exhibit F.)
1(g).  A delinquent credit card debt in the amount of $65.00 has been paid in full.
(Applicant’s Exhibit G.)  
1(h).  A delinquent debt owed to creditor in the amount of $37.00 has been paid
in full.  (Tr. pp. 48 - 49.)
The Applicant is the sole supporter of the household that includes his wife and
three daughters.  He earns about $60,000 annually.  (Applicant’s Exhibit I.)  He currently
rents a residence for himself in a foreign country, and also one for his family that lives in
the United States.  His personal financial statement indicates that at the end of the
month he has $286.50 left.  (Applicant’s Exhibit J.)  He also receives $727.00 from the
military for being 40% disabled. 
     
The Applicant’s performance appraisal for 2011 reflects an overall rating of “High
Performer.”  (Applicant’s Exhibit H.)   
4
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligation. 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
20.(b) 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;
20.(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or
there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and
20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19,  in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding
circumstances;
     b.  The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
5
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct, which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination under this order
. . . shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a
determination as to the loyalty of the Applicant concerned.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility, which demonstrates
poor judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation,
6
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The Applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  This evidence indicates poor
judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of
the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or
connection with his security clearance eligibility.
The evidence shows that the Applicant’s financial difficulties began during his
second marriage in 2001.  Following their divorce, he assumed the debts from the
marriage, but did not really know the extent of the debts.  He moved around a lot and
did not provide forwarding addresses to his creditors.  Recently, he has focused on
cleaning up his credit and paying his delinquent debts.  He has paid off each of the
delinquent debts set forth in the SOR.      
Under the particular circumstance of this case, he has made a good-faith effort to
resolve his past due indebtedness.  He has set up a financial budget that he is
following, and does not plan on incurring any new debt.  He has acted reasonably,
responsibly and prudently.  He understands the importance of paying his bills on time
and living within his means.  He also knows the responsibilities that come along with
holding a security clearance and that he must remain fiscally responsible at all times in
the future.  There is clear evidence of financial rehabilitation.  The Applicant has
demonstrated that he can properly handle his financial affairs and that he is fiscally
responsible.  Considering all of the evidence, the Applicant has introduced persuasive
evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the
Government's case. 
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligation, apply.  However, Mitigating Conditions 20.(b) 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; 20.(c) the
person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and 20.(d) the
individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts also apply.  Accordingly, I find for the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations).    
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth above, when viewed under all of the guidelines as a
whole, support a whole person assessment of good judgement, trustworthiness,
7
reliability, candor, and a  willingness to comply with rules and regulations, and/or other
characteristics indicating that the person may properly safeguard classified information.
  
I have considered all of the evidence presented, including the Applicant’s receipts
for proof of payments, and his favorable performance evaluation.  They mitigate the
negative effects of his financial indebtedness and the effects that it can have on his
ability to safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant
has overcome the Government's case opposing his request for a security clearance.
Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding for the Applicant as to the factual and
conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.   
     FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: For the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.a.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.b.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.c.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.d.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.e.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.f.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.h.: For the Applicant.
  DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge