1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------------- )       ISCR Case No. 11-06644
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
March 4, 2013
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On August 2, 2012, in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) Directive
5220.6, the DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns
under Guideline F for Applicant. (Item 1.) 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) effective within the Department of Defense after September 1, 2006. 
 
On September 11, 2012, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and he
requested that his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. (Item 4.)
On November 6, 2012, Department Counsel issued the Department's written case. A
complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant. In the
FORM, Department Counsel offered 10 documentary exhibits. (Items 1-10.) Applicant
was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation. A response was due on January 9, 2013. Applicant submitted
additional evidence, which has been identified and entered into evidence without
2
objection as Items A through F. The case was assigned to this Administrative Judge on
February 1, 2013.
Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, 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, and the FORM, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make
the following findings of fact: 
Applicant is 28 years old.  He is employed by a defense contractor, and he seeks
a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense sector.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists five allegations (1.a. through 1.e.) regarding financial difficulties,
specifically overdue debts, under Adjudicative Guideline F. The debts 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 for a student loan in the amount of
$692. Applicant denied this SOR allegation in his RSOR. (Item 4.) This debt has been
established to be due and owing in Items 6, 9, and 10. 
In Applicant’s post hearing documents, he avers that he is current on this debt.
(Item A.) Item F, a letter from this creditor, establishes that Applicant’s is paying
approximately $180 a month toward this debt of $26,785, and the amount past due is
$0. I find that this debt is being resolved as per the agreement, and it is not overdue.  
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a past due account in the amount
of $897, charged off with an approximate balance of $993. Applicant denied this SOR
allegation in his RSOR. (Item 4.)  This debt has been established to be due and owing
in Items 5 through 10. 
In Item A, Applicant avers that this debt has been paid in full. Item F, a letter from
this creditor, establishes that Applicant has paid the disputed amount of $929.69 that
had been charged off, and the account was paid in full in September 2012. I find that
this debt has been resolved. 
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a student loan in the amount of
$150.  Applicant denied this SOR allegation in his RSOR. (Item 4.)  This debt has been
established to be due and owing in Items 6, 7, 9, and 10. I find that this debt is to the
same creditor as 1.a., above, and as stated above, this debt is being resolved as per
the agreement, and it is not overdue.  
3
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged off auto loan account in
the amount of $6,000, with a balance of $6,530.  Applicant admitted this SOR allegation
in his RSOR. (Item 4.) This debt has been established to be due and owing in Items 5
through 10. 
In Item A, Applicant avers that this debt has been paid in full. Item B, a letter from
this creditor, establishes that Applicant has paid $196.55 a month toward this debt of
$26,785, since November 2007, with larger payments made in 2011 through January
2013, and this debt has been paid in full. I find that this debt has been resolved as per
the agreement with the creditor. 
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a past due account in the amount
of $787, charged off with an approximate balance of $3,436. Applicant denied this SOR
allegation in his RSOR. (Item 4.) This debt has been established to be due and owing in
Items 7 through 10.
In Item A, Applicant avers that this debt has been paid in full. Item E consists of a
receipt from the creditor of this debt, showing that Applicant made payment of $1,500
on January 7, 2013, toward this debt, and it did not show that any additional amount
was due.  I find that this debt has been resolved as per the agreement with the creditor. 
Applicant also averred that the debt listed as 1.a., above, was incurred by his
mother for student loans, and he co-signed the loan for his mother when he was still a
teenager. (Item A.)  He has assisted his mother for years in paying off this loan, which
as reviewed above, is now current. 
Applicant explained that the debt listed as 1.d., above, was incurred by his ex-
fiancee, and that while he co-signed the loan, it was their agreement that she would
make the payments toward the loan. Unbeknownst to him, after they separated, she
stopped making payments and filed for bankruptcy. (Item A.) As reviewed above, he
has now resolved this debt.
Finally, Applicant wrote that he has been receiving financial counseling to help
him resolve his overdue debts. (Item A.) Item D establishes that Applicant has been
receiving financial counseling from a law firm and making monthly payments, initially of
$89.95 and currently in the amount of $24.95 to help him with his debts. 
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
4
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.
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
5
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 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.” Since a
significant amount of Applicant’s overdue debt was the result of his co-signing for loans
for his mother and fiancee, and since these individuals failed to meet their financial
obligations, this mitigation condition is potentially applicable. Applicant has now resolved
all of his overdue debts, with the exception of the student loans for his mother, which
are now current. Therefore, I find that Applicant has acted responsibly, and this
mitigating condition is applicable in this case. 
Additionally, since Applicant has sought financial counseling, AG ¶  20(c)  applies
to this case. Finally,  I find that AG ¶  20(d) is applicable, since Applicant has  “initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Because of
these significant mitigating conditions, I find Guideline F for Applicant.
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.      
6
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on all of the mitigating
conditions, particularly Applicant’s good-faith attempt to resolve the past-due debts
listed on the SOR and his engaging the services of a law firm to help him with his
financial difficulties, 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  under the whole-person concept. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. - 1.e.: 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