DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 11-07011
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Chris Morin, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
February 6, 2013
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
The Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on January 18, 2011.  On August 9, 2012, the Department of
Defense (DOD) 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 after
September 1, 2006.
 
The Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on August 31, 2012.  She
answered the SOR in writing on September 15, 2012, and requested an Administrative
Determination by an Administrative Judge.  Department Counsel issued a File of
Relevant Material (FORM) on October 10, 2012.  The Applicant received the FORM on
October 15, 2012, but submitted no response.  Based upon a review of the pleadings,
and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, dated June 25, 2011, the Applicant admitted the
factual allegations in Paragraphs 1.b., through 1.k. of the SOR, with explanations.  She
denied the factual allegations in Paragraph 1.a. of the SOR.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
The Applicant was unemployed from August of 2006 until October of 2008, and
again from April 2009 to February of 2010.  (Item 6 at page 4.)  These periods of
unemployment have caused the Applicant’s current financial difficulties.
1.a. The Applicant has satisfied an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax lien for tax
year 1997, filed against her in January of 2002, in the amount of about $14,519.  This is
evidenced by documentation from the IRS.  (Item 4 at pages 5~12.)  This allegation is
found for the Applicant.
1.b.  The Applicant filed for the protection of a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in October
of 2008.  (Item 6 at page 5.)  This bankruptcy was dismissed as the Applicant failed to
make her required monthly payments.  (Id, and Item 9 at page 1.)  This allegation is
found against the Applicant.
1.c.~1.k.  It is alleged that the Applicant is past due in her debts to nine different
creditors in an amount totaling about $16,756.  (Item 9, and Item 7 at page 5).  The
Applicant admits these allegations, and they are also supported by credit reports.  (Id.)
The Applicant has submitted documentation showing that she has engaged the services
of a credit counseling service (CCS), but nothing more.  (Item 4 at pages 3~4.)  There is
no evidence that the CCS is addressing the Applicant’s admitted past due debts.  I find
that these debts are still owed; and as such, these allegations are found against the
Applicant.
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 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.
3
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 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.  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.  The Applicant has  significant past-due debts,
which she has not yet resolved.
4
I can find no countervailing Mitigating Condition that is applicable here.  Although
the Applicant’s past-due indebtedness can be attributed to her extended periods of
unemployment; other than hiring a CCS, she has done little to address her significant
past-due indebtedness.
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
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
questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.
The Applicant still has nearly $17,000 in past due indebtedness that she is only
beginning to address.  If she resolves her debts, she may be eligible for access to
classified information in the future.  For these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not
mitigated the security concerns arising from her 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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.b.~1.k. Against Applicant
5
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.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge