The Government submitted ten items in support of its case.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 11-08091
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace Le’i Garcia Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On August 7, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DoD Directive
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2,
1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), implemented in
September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested an administrative
determination in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant
Material (FORM), dated December 12, 2012.  Applicant received the FORM on1
December 20, 2012. He did not submit additional information. On February 19, 2013,
the Director, DOHA, forwarded the case for assignment to an administrative judge. I
received the case assignment on February 20, 2013. Based on a review of the case
2
file, I find Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised. Security clearance is
denied.
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations under Guideline F, ¶
1.a through ¶ 1s.  (Item 3)  
Applicant is 51 years old. He graduated from high school in 1980. He is married
and has four children. (Item 5) Applicant has been employed with his current employer
since November 1997. (Item 4) He completed  security clearance applications on April
6, 2011 and February 21, 2001. (Items 4, 5)
 The SOR lists 19 delinquent debts that total approximately $45,000. The credit
reports confirm them. (Items 8, 9 and 10) Applicant listed the delinquent accounts on
his security clearance application and in his answers to DOHA interrogatories. Applicant
noted that the accounts listed on the SOR were credit accounts that were opened many
years ago. They became delinquent about six years ago when his ankle was broken,
and he needed surgery. As a result, he was out of work for approximately four months.
Applicant did not provide any documentation that any of the debts have been paid or
resolved. He presented letters, dated May 15, 2012, to various creditors with copies of
checks made in minimal amounts of $10. (Item 6)
Applicant accepted full responsibility for his delinquent debts, attributing them to
health problems that he and his wife have had over the years, some of which have
required surgery, resulting in missed work and reduced income, as well as his recent
mother-in-law’s passing in which Applicant and his wife assisted in paying for her
funeral expenses. He stated that he tried hard to keep up with the bills but the everyday
cost of living; including: house, car, insurance, utilities, gas and food, were difficult to
pay and still support his wife and four children. In 2009-2010, he attempted to work with
a credit agency but he could not maintain the monthly payments. Applicant states that
he does not use credit cards, with the exception of one bank card. He notes that his car
loan is paid in full and that he made payment agreements with several creditors. He has
every intention of paying his delinquent debts. He also intends to avoid new debt.
However, during his May 2011 interview, he noted that he did not have the financial
means to pay the delinquent accounts.  He stated that he is a person of integrity and
would not in any way fail to protect a national trust. He has held a security clearance
since 1999. 
Applicant has a monthly net income, including his wife’s income, of
approximately $4,148. After listing total monthly expenses of $2,960, he has a net
monthly remainder of approximately $1,430. He listed bank savings of $80. (Item 6)
Applicant listed a  monthly payment of $757 for his mortgage account, which totals
$84,733. (Item 6)
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
3
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An 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.
The United States Government must present evidence to establish controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a2
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of 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
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
4
applicant concerned.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a7
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an 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.” It also states that “an individual who is
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.
Applicant has delinquent debts amounting to $45,000. His admissions and credit
reports confirm these debts. Consequently, Financial Considerations Disqualifying
Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC
AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply. With such conditions
raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against him and mitigate security
concerns.  
Applicant’s debts are recent and ongoing. He intends to pay his bills but he has
not presented documentation concerning a consistent payment plan or course of action
that confirms that his debts are being paid or resolved. In 2010, he could not maintain
monthly payments with a credit agency. He did not establish a monthly track record of
payments to his SOR creditors. Consequently, Financial Considerations Mitigating
Condition (FCMC) AG ¶ 20(a) (the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent,
or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) does not
apply.
5
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (the
conditions that resulted in the behavior 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)
does not apply. Applicant listed a short period of unemployment, but he has not
provided sufficient nexus to the delinquent debts. He did not present specific
information to prove that the delinquencies were beyond his control. This mitigating
condition does not apply.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply. Applicant did not produce any
evidence that he is addressing the SOR debts through negotiation, or consistent and
regular payments, despite Applicant’s sizeable monthly net remainder. He did not
present evidence that he received financial counseling which obviates the applicability
of FC MC AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has received or is receiving counseling for the
problem). I do not find that  there are clear indications that his financial problem is being
resolved or is under control.
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 an 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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
Applicant is 51 years old.  He has  worked for his current employer since 1997.  He has
delinquent debts that are still unresolved. He did not produce sufficient documentation
or evidence that he has resolved multiple SOR debts, or is in the process of resolving
them. He has not completed financial counseling. Although he tried to work with a credit
agency, he could not maintain the monthly payments.
6
Applicant stated that he takes full responsibility for his delinquent debts. He
intends to pay his bills. He notes that his health issues and helping with his mother-in-
law’s funeral have hindered his efforts. He states that he is honest and has never had
any reprimands at work.  Finally, he stated that he is a person of integrity and would not
in any way fail to protect a national trust.
Applicant submitted insufficient information or evidence to mitigate the security
concerns raised in his case. Clearance is denied. 
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.s: 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge