Item 5.1
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 11-08998
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant has more than $27,000 in unresolved delinquent debts, accrued
between November 2007 and March 2011. He claimed to have hired a law firm to help
him address the debts, but offered no evidence concerning the agreement or results to
date. He also made various admissions concerning marijuana use between 2006 and
2010. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated. Based on a review of the
pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-86) on April 5, 2011.1
On September 28, 2012, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns under Guidelines F (Financial
Item 1.2
Item 2; Item 4.3
Item 4. 4
The Government submitted 11 Items in support of the SOR allegations. 5
Item 5; Item 8.6
2
Considerations) and H (Drug Involvement).  The action was taken under Executive2
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 effective in the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted an unsigned and undated written response, and was given
an extension of time to properly respond on November 15, 2012.  He submitted a3
signed written response to the SOR on January 24, 2013, and requested that his case
be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing.4
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on April 16, 2013. A
complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was provided to Applicant, and5
he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of his copy of the FORM
on April 25, 2013. During the 30 days provided for him to do so, he submitted no
additional evidence, made no objection to consideration of any contents of the FORM,
and did not request additional time to respond. I received the case assignment on June
10, 2013.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 36-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He worked for two
companies in the private sector from April 2004 to June 2006, and from June 2006 to
April 2011, when he obtained his current position. This is his first application for a
security clearance, and he has no prior military service. He graduated from high school
in 1995. He has never married, but he and the woman with whom he has lived since
February 2001 have three children, ages 11, 10, and 2.  6
In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted the truth of the factual allegations
concerning his debts, as set forth in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.r, with some explanations,
including unsubstantiated claims that the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.f, and 1.k had
been resolved. He denied the drug-use allegation in SOR ¶ 2.a, initially stating, “Dates
are wrong from 2006-2007 and not on multiple occasions, only a couple of times.” In his
second response to the SOR, he deleted the words from “and” to “times” that he wrote
Item 4.7
Items 6 through 8.8
Item 4; Item 8; Item 9; Item 10; Item 11.9
Item 4; Item 6; Item 7.10
3
in his first response after “2007.”  Applicant’s admissions, including those made in7
response to DOHA interrogatories,  are incorporated into the following findings of fact.8
Applicant’s admissions concerning the 18 delinquent debts, totaling $27,477, are
corroborated by entries in two credit bureau reports showing dates of last activity
ranging from November 2007 to March 2011. One involves an unpaid civil judgment for
$671 entered against him in February 2003 (SOR ¶ 1.r). Applicant stopped paying
toward two credit card accounts, totaling $8,583 in late 2007 (SOR ¶¶ 1.h, 1.n). During
January and February 2008, he stopped making payments toward three additional
consumer debts totaling $5,914 (SOR ¶¶ 1.i, 1.j, 1.k). Between October 2008 and
January 2009, he failed to pay three medical bills totaling $1,265 (SOR ¶¶ 1.e, 1.f, 1.g).
Although not alleged in the SOR, Item 9 shows that he failed to pay an additional $956
medical debt in December 2008. He defaulted on a $5,198 consumer debt in April 2009
(SOR ¶ 1.o), and on three other debts totaling $3,612 during October and November
2009 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.l). Three debts totaling $1,598 (two of which were medical
bills) became delinquent during 2010 (SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.d, 1.q). Two more debts,
incorrectly alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.m and 1.p to total $657 but shown in Item 10 to total
$1,157, became delinquent during the two months in 2011 preceding Applicant’s
submission of his SF-86.  9
Applicant claimed in general terms that his financial difficulties stemmed from
reduced work hours and commission pay after the economic downturn in 2008, and his
children’s mother’s having quit her job during 2010 and 2011 due to her pregnancy. He
did not provide details concerning how much income he lost, or what she contributed to
their household income. He submitted a personal financial statement showing his
annual gross income to be about $49,750, with a net monthly surplus of $480. It
declared that he made no payments toward medical expenses or insurance, and had
no financial assets. Applicant claimed that he was working with a debt management law
firm to resolve his delinquencies. He also said that three of his debts had been resolved.
He provided no documentation to substantiate or corroborate his claims, despite
Department Counsel’s comments in the FORM advising him of the need to do so in
order to mitigate financial concerns.  10
Applicant did not submit a budget, or any evidence of savings or other net worth
despite his claim of surplus monthly net income. He submitted no evidence of financial
counseling or other efforts to establish financial responsibility, except his claim to be
working with a law firm. He failed to resolve delinquent debts as small as $37 and $50,
despite having been informed of their potential security significance during his Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) interview more than two years ago.
Item 4 at 25.11
Item 8 at 4.12
4
In response to the question inquiring about use of illegal drugs during the last
seven years in Section 23 of his SF-86, Applicant responded, “Yes,” and reported dates
of marijuana use, “Socially,” from 06/2007 to 12/2010 (both estimated).  During his11
OPM interview, he claimed that he used marijuana once a week on weekends for
approximately six months between 2006 and 2007. He said that he did not recall the
exact dates of his use of marijuana, but had not used it since 2007 and “inadvertently
entered incorrect dates of 06/07 to 12/10” on his SF-86.  His statements concerning12
this drug use in his SOR responses are detailed above. He did not provide clarification
of his position on this issue in response to the FORM, despite Department Counsel’s
comments highlighting the potential lack of credibility to be accorded his inconsistent
and increasingly minimizing statements.
Applicant provided no evidence concerning the quality of his professional
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. He submitted
no character references describing his judgment, morality, trustworthiness, integrity, or
reliability. I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or character in person
since he elected to have his case decided without a hearing. 
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 (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used 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 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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 the national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
5
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, “[t]he 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, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns under the guideline for financial considerations are set out
in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:      
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. 
Department Counsel asserted, and the record evidence established, security
concerns under two Guideline F DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Applicant’s SOR-listed delinquent debts arose since 2003, and remain
substantially unresolved. His financial problems were not shown to have arisen from
6
incidents beyond his control, but rather resulted from his choices to incur debts for
goods and services that he could not afford. He provided no evidence of available
income, or other assets, from which to satisfy these debts or avoid incurring additional
delinquencies in the next several years. This evidence raises substantial security
concerns under DCs 19(a) and (c), thereby shifting the burden to Applicant to rebut,
extenuate, or mitigate those concerns. 
The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:
(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; 
(b) 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;
(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; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.
Applicant’s SOR-listed delinquent debts arose over the past ten years, and more
than $27,000 in such debt remains unresolved to date. These financial problems are
recent, and arose under circumstances that involved Applicant’s voluntary choices. He
demonstrated neither the capacity, nor a plan, to avoid incurring additional delinquent
debt. The ongoing nature of these debts precludes a finding of unlikely recurrence.
Applicant failed to show that his reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment have
improved, and failed to take any action to resolve these debts until very recently, even if
his unsubstantiated claims of working with a law firm are accurate. The evidence does
not establish mitigation under MC 20(a). 
Applicant offered insufficient evidence to support mitigation under MC 20(b). The
undefined economic impact of his reduced income in 2008 and the recent pregnancy of
his children’s mother may or may not have arisen from conditions beyond his control,
7
but he did not demonstrate that incurring his delinquent obligations without the means to
satisfy them was responsible activity under those circumstances.
Applicant offered no evidence of financial counseling, and did not establish clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control. He provided no
evidence to establish that his current financial situation has stabilized, or that he has
accumulated any net worth to cushion possible unanticipated setbacks in the future. MC
20(c) and 20(d) are therefore inapplicable. 
Applicant did not claim or provide proof to substantiate a basis to dispute the
legitimacy of any of the debts alleged in the SOR, all of which he admitted, and for
which the record evidence provides substantial evidence. Accordingly, he failed to
mitigate those allegations under MC 20(e).
Guideline H, Drug Involvement
AG ¶ 24 expresses the security concern pertaining to drug involvement:
Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions
about an individual's reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may
impair judgment and because it raises questions about a person's ability
or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.
(a) Drugs are defined as mood and behavior altering substances, and
include:
(1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified and
listed in the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended (e.g.,
marijuana or cannabis, depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and
hallucinogens), and
(2) inhalants and other similar substances;
(b) drug abuse is the illegal use of a drug or use of a legal drug in a
manner that deviates from approved medical direction.
AG ¶ 25 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying. The DC raised by the evidence in this case is:
(a) any drug abuse (see above definition).
Applicant admittedly used marijuana on multiple weekends, on a social basis,
during some period of time between 2006 and 2010. His descriptions of his recreational
drug abuse, during a series of official statements made with acknowledged criminal
liability for falsification, reflect decreasing durations and amounts used. However, his
statements consistently admit facts sufficient to establish security concerns under AG ¶
8
25(a), and therefore shift the burden to Applicant to prove mitigation of resulting security
concerns.
AG ¶ 26 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt
on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the future, such as: 
(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; 
(3) an appropriate period of abstinence; and,
(4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of
clearance for any violation;
(c) abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness
during which these drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended;
and
(d) satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program,
including but not limited to rehabilitation and aftercare requirements,
without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified
medical professional.
Applicant’s admitted recreational use of marijuana ended in either 2007 or 2010.
Some mitigation under AG ¶ 26(a) was accordingly established due to the passage of
time. However, his inability or unwillingness to consistently describe the nature and
extent of his drug abuse casts some doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and
good judgment.
Applicant says that he no longer engages in recreational activities where peer
pressure to use drugs might exist, and the evidence indicates that he has been
abstinent since at least December 2010. He did not submit a statement of intent to
never abuse drugs in the future with automatic revocation for any violation, or otherwise
demonstrate an intent not to abuse drugs in the future. These facts establish minimal
mitigation under AG ¶ 26(b).
The drug abuse in this case did not involve prescription drugs, so AG ¶ 26(c) has
no application to this decision. Applicant has not participated in any drug treatment
program, and was never diagnosed with drug dependence or abuse, or recommended
9
for treatment. No favorable prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional was
provided, so AG ¶ 26(d) does not apply.
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 relevant 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.   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a mature and
accountable adult, who is responsible for his voluntary choices and conduct that
underlie the security concerns expressed in the SOR. 
Applicant’s financial irresponsibility spans a decade, and continues at present. It
involves delinquent debts still totaling more than $27,000, not including the $956 he
owes toward a medical debt from 2008 that was not alleged in the SOR. He did not
demonstrate that these debts arose under circumstances that were beyond his control,
or that he initiated any budgetary changes to prevent additional financial difficulties. He
offered no evidence of financial counseling, rehabilitation, or responsible conduct in
other areas of his life. The potential for pressure, coercion, and duress remains
undiminished.
From the evidence presented, Applicant’s drug abuse was sporadic, socially
recreational, and ended several years ago. However, it still reflects his disregard for the
obligations imposed by laws, rules, and regulations. This concern is enhanced by the
various and contradictory descriptions of its duration and frequency that he made while
acknowledging his obligation to be truthful in connection with the investigation of his
eligibility for a security clearance. This dissimulation reflects Applicant’s concern that the
conduct was serious, demonstrates an absence of rehabilitation, and evidences an
ongoing potential for pressure or coercion. 
10
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with substantial doubt as to Applicant’s
present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. He did not meet his burden to
mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial considerations or drug
involvement.
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.r: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline H: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: 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.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge