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. 11-08959
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Pamela Benson, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On October 15, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant 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 February 28, 2013.  Applicant received the FORM on March1
18, 2013. He did not submit additional information. I received the case assignment on
May 24, 2013. Based on a review of the case file, I find Applicant has not mitigated the
security concerns raised. Security clearance is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations under Guideline F, ¶
1.a through ¶ 1.h.  (Item 4) He denied the overall implication of the financial
considerations guideline. 
Applicant is 47 years old. He is an employee of a defense contractor. He
graduated from high school in 1984, and attended college for about a year. He served
in the United States Marine Corps from February 1991 until February 2006. He married
his second wife in 2008. He has five children, including two step-children. (Item 5)
Applicant has been employed with his current employer since July 2009. He completed
a  security clearance application on July 27, 2009. (Item 5) Applicant has held a security
clearance since 2009.
 The SOR lists eight delinquent debts including a 2010 federal tax lien, a
judgment, and collection accounts. The total amount is approximately $41,994. The
credit reports at Items 7-9 confirm them.  Applicant listed the delinquent accounts on his
security clearance application and in his answers to 2012 DOHA interrogatories.
Applicant did not note any current payment plan for the eight accounts listed on the
SOR. He provided no documentation that he is paying on them. In his answer to the
SOR, he also did not provide any information about his federal tax issue. (Item 6)
Although not listed as an SOR allegation, in his 2009 security clearance
application, Applicant listed a child support arrearage and delinquent debts. He paid
several accounts. Applicant began a payment plan for a tax owed to the IRS. It is not
clear from the record if he utilized a payment plan to address the $3,430 that he owed
for federal taxes. 
In 2011, Applicant self-reported that he had received a federal tax lien for
overdue back taxes. He noted that he was setting up a payment plan to resolve the tax
lien. The tax lien was about $20,000. Applicant explained that the tax lien was the result
of his 2002 divorce. During his OPM interview, he stated that he was divorced in 2003
and that he was required to pay for all marital debt, continue mortgage payments, and
pay child support in the amount of $748 every two weeks. Applicant stated that his wife
was awarded the car and that she was to receive any proceeds from his tax returns.
During the course of the interview, Applicant stated that he learned in 2010 that his wife
never filed his tax returns and he owed $17,000 to the IRS. Later in the interview,
Applicant noted that he was made aware of the tax debt in 2005. According to
Applicant, he started a repayment plan with the IRS of $75 per week, but was forced to
stop payments when he lost his job in August 2008. (Item 6) From August 2008 until
January 2011, Applicant made no payments to the IRS. In May 2010, the federal tax
Lien was filed against Applicant for approximately $17,000. Applicant entered into
another repayment plan with the IRS paying $25 a week beginning in January 2011. He
states that it is his intention to repay this debt. (Item 10) 
During the 2011 OPM interview, Applicant acknowledged the other accounts that
were listed on the SOR. He stated that he intended to make contact with the creditors
 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
to resolve the unpaid debts. He also explained that his work was reduced and he
decided to accept a company buyout of approximately $22,000 in August 2008. He was
unemployed from August 2008 until May 2009.
Applicant has a monthly net income of approximately $2,825.45. He listed his
spouse’s income as $1,400. After deducting total monthly expenses of $2,690, he has a
net monthly remainder of approximately $725. 
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
 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
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
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, including a federal tax lien, totaling
approximately $41,000. 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.  
The nature, frequency, and relative recency of Applicant’s financial difficulties
since 2008 make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago.” Consequently,
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) 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) applies in part.
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 was unemployed from late 2008 until 2009. He accepted a
$22,000 buyout from the company. He did not show a nexus between this
unemployment and his inability to pay any of his debts. He also blamed his 2003
divorce for the problems, but he did not present sufficient information to prove that the
delinquencies were beyond his control and that he acted responsibly.  He has a
$20,000 federal tax lien. 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 produced no evidence
that he has addressed the eight SOR debts and the federal tax lien. 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)
“and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under
control.” I find that  there are no clear indications that his financial problems are being
resolved and are 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 47 years old.  He has worked for his current employer since 2009.  He
served in the military from 1991 until 2006. He has held a security clearance since
2009. He denied that he would be affected or influenced to betray the United States
based on his financial issues.
6
However, Applicant has a history of delinquent debts and tax issues. He
acknowledged the financial issues but produced no documentation or evidence that he
has resolved multiple SOR debts, including a tax lien. He has not completed financial
counseling. He has not mitigated the financial considerations security concern.
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.h: 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