DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 11-09195
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
April 3, 2013
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on May 4, 2011.  On September 21, 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.
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on October 9, 2012, and requested an
Administrative Determination by an administrative judge.  Department Counsel issued a
File of Relevant Material (FORM) on December 5, 2012.  Applicant failed to respond to
the FORM.  Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, dated October 9, 2012, Applicant admitted the factual
allegations in all the Paragraphs of the SOR, without explanations.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
As gleaned from his e-QIP, and noted by Department Counsel in the FORM,
Applicant has been gainfully employed since April of 2004.  (Item 3 at pages 16~21.)
He has offered no explanation as to how he accumulated his admitted past due
indebtedness.
1.a.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor A as the result of a judgment in the amount
of about $2,057.  (Item 6 at page 1, and Item 8.)  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant
avers that he is “paying them $50.00 a month that atomacally [sic] comes out of my
checking account.”  He has also submitted a document that shows the creditor has
agreed to this arrangement.  (Item 4 at page 20.)  However, Applicant has failed to
show he is making the agreed to payments.  I find that this judgement is still outstanding
in the amount alleged in the SOR.
1.b.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor B in the amount of about $1,147.  (Item 6 at
page 1.)  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant avers that he will address this debt after
he addresses two other debts.  I find that this debt is still outstanding.
1.c.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor C in the amount of about $832.  (Item 6 at
page 1.)  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant also avers that he will address this debt
after he addresses two other debts.  I find that this debt is still outstanding.
1.d. and 1.e.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor D on two debts in an amount
totaling about $1,399.  (Item 6 at page 1.)  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant again
avers that he will address this debt after he addresses two other debts.  I find that these
debts are still outstanding.
1.f.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor F in the amount of about $342.  (Item 6 at
page 1.)  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant again avers that he will address this debt
after he addresses two other debts.  I find that this debt is still outstanding.
1.g.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor G in the amount of about $343.  (Item 6 at
page 1.)  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant again avers that he will address this debt
after he addresses two other debts.  I find that this debt is still outstanding.
1.h.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor H in the amount of about $305.  (Item 6 at
page 2.)  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant avers that he has agreed to make monthly
payments $50, which will be automatically deducted from his “checking account . . . till
[sic] the full settlement price ($200) is paid off.”  He has also submitted a document that
shows the creditor has agreed to this arrangement.  (Item 4 at page 21.)  However,
Applicant has failed to show he is making the agreed to payments.  I find that this debt
is still outstanding.
3
1.i.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor I in the amount of about $9,304.  (Item 6 at
page 2.)  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant again avers that he will address this debt
after he addresses two other debts.  I find that this debt is still outstanding.
1.j.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor J in the amount of about $7,998.  (Item 6 at
page 2.)  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant again avers that he will address this debt
after he addresses two other debts.  I find that this debt is still outstanding.
1.k.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor K in the amount of about $2,000.  (Item 6 at
page 2.)  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant again avers that he will address this debt
after he addresses two other debts.  I find that this debt is still outstanding.
1.l.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor L in the amount of about $398.  (Item 7 at
page 8.)  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant again avers that he will address this debt
after he addresses two other debts.  I find that this debt is still outstanding.
1.m.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor M in the amount of about $323.  (Item 7 at
page 10.)  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant again avers that he will address this debt
after he addresses two other debts.  I find that this debt is still outstanding.
1.n.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor N as the result of a judgment in the amount
of about $3,056.  (Item 9.)  In his answer to the SOR, Applicant again avers that he will
address this judgment after he addresses two other debts.  I find that this judgment is
still outstanding.
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 AG ¶ 2(a) describing 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.
4
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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .”  The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance
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 adverse 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.  Applicant had significant past-due debts that
he has failed to demonstrate he has addressed.  I can find no countervailing Mitigating
Condition that is applicable here.  He has been gainfully employed since 2004, but has
yet to address his debts.
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 Applicant’s
5
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.
For this reason, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising
from his 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
Subparagraphs 1.a.~1.n. 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 eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge