Item 4 is undated, but has a date stamp indicating that it was received by the Defense Office of Hearings and1
Appeals on December 5, 2012.
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 11-09170
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
June 26, 2013
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on March 29, 2011. (Item 4.)  On October 3, 2012, the Department of Defense
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations) concerning 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 on September
1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing, and requested a decision by an
administrative judge without a hearing.  (Item 4.) Department Counsel submitted the1
Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) to Applicant on February 14, 2013. The
FORM contained eight Items. Applicant acknowledged receipt of the FORM on
2
February 28, 2013. He was given 30 days from receipt of the FORM to file objections or
submit any additional documentation. Applicant submitted additional documents on
March 21, 2013, and April 24, 2013. Department Counsel indicated he had no objection
to these documents, and they are admitted into evidence as Applicant Exhibits A and B.
Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 53 and married. He is employed by a defense contractor and seeks
to obtain a security clearance in connection with his employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable,
untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant
admitted all the allegations in the SOR under this Paragraph, except 1.g, 1.h, and 1.m.
The admissions are findings of fact. With regard to 1.g, 1.h, and 1.m, I view his
responses as denials of those allegations. He also submitted additional information to
support his request for a security clearance.
The SOR lists 17 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $101,325. The
existence and amount of these debts is supported by credit reports dated April 13,
2011; and June 28, 2012. (Items 5, and 6.) (See also Interrogatories submitted by
Applicant. (Item 7.)) Applicant states that the cause of most of his financial issues is that
he was diagnosed with colon cancer in July 2004. Subsequent to that event Applicant
was diagnosed with lung cancer that resulted in two surgeries in 2007. He had
additional cancer surgeries in 2011 and 2012 and is currently undergoing
chemotherapy. He states:
The fight with cancer has taken up a large amount of my time for the entire
8½ year period I have been fighting it. Recovering from surgery, radiation
and chemotherapy makes it quite difficult to deal with not only normal day
to day things but also extraordinary things like my financial issues. My
Doctors advise me to put fighting cancer and recovery from the fight first
as many people that have done otherwise have lost the battle with cancer.
(Applicant Exhibit A at 3.)
As a result of his cancer, Applicant was unable to run a horse farm that he owned
and was forced to sell the property at a $500,000 loss in the 2004-2005 time frame.
(Item 7 at 6.)
3
The current status of the debts is as follows:
1.a. Applicant admits that he is indebted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
as a result of a tax lien in the amount of $39,432. According to Applicant this lien
occurred as a result of he and his wife not filing tax returns for the 2004 and 2005 tax
years. (Item 7 at 6.) Applicant stated in an interview on May 5, 2011, with an
investigator from the Office of Personnel Management, that he was “in the process of
resolving” this tax lien. In his Answer he states:
We are in the process of fixing this and when we do we expect the entire
debt to the IRS to go away and we expect to receive a refund for taxes
paid over the past several years that will be more than enough to cover
our remaining debts. We will also see a significant increase in our take
home pay that will allow [us] to quickly pay off any that might remain and
keep up with the costs of my cancer battle. (Item 3 at 4.)
In Applicant Exhibit A he continues to state that his tax accountant is preparing
tax returns for those years. However, “Due to the nature of the returns being
complicated with the horse farm business it is taking some time to reassemble the
records to get the returns properly filed.” According to Applicant, the IRS has not paid to
him any of his tax refunds since 2006. “The total not refunded to me is now well over
$36,000. . . . This amount will more [than] satisfy all my remaining debts that I admit to
owing.” (Applicant Exhibit A at 3-4.)
Applicant did not provide any estimated date as to when the tax returns would be
completed and submitted to the IRS. While he did include some tax return information in
Applicant Exhibit B, he did not provide any documentation from the IRS regarding the
current status of his past taxes, such as documentation showing that his potential tax
refunds have been applied to those taxes or any other communication from the IRS.
This tax debt is not resolved.
1.b. Applicant admits that he is indebted to a medical creditor for a past-due
debt in the amount of $51. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this
debt has been paid, or that he has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.c. Applicant admits that he is indebted to a medical creditor for a past-due
debt in the amount of $16. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this
debt has been paid, or that he has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.d. Applicant admits that he is indebted to a medical creditor for a past-due
debt in the amount of $167. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this
debt has been paid, or that he has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.e. Applicant admits that he is indebted to a medical creditor for a past-due
debt in the amount of $748. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this
debt has been paid, or that he has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
4
1.f. Applicant admits that he is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in the
amount of $133. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this debt has
been paid, or that he has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.g. It is alleged in this subparagraph that Applicant owes a mortgage
company a past-due amount of approximately $23,425 on a mortgage loan of $275,000.
Applicant states in his Answer, “The foreclosure has been completed and they took the
property to satisfy the debt.” (Item 3 at 2.) 
1.h. It is alleged in this subparagraph that Applicant owes a timeshare
company a past-due amount of approximately $1,975 on a total balance due of
$12,806. Applicant states in his Answer, “This account was foreclosed on and the
property taken (timeshare) to satisfy the debt.” (Item 3 at 2.) 
Regarding the above two debts Applicant stated, “In both cases I have been
assured that the debts are no longer valid.” (Applicant Exhibit A at 4.) There is no
information as to who “assured” Applicant that these two debts were satisfied. He later
stated, “I tried to obtain documentation that the mortgage debts for the home and the
timeshare have been satisfied; however, the companies involved have not been
cooperative and I have not yet [April 24, 2013] received any documentation from them.”
(Applicant Exhibit B at 5.) Based on all of the available information, I find that these two
debts are unresolved.
1.i. Applicant admits that he is indebted to a creditor for a past-due municipal
court debt in the amount of $75. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that
this debt has been paid, or that he has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not
resolved.
1.j. Applicant admits that he is indebted to a medical creditor for a past-due
debt in the amount of $101. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this
debt has been paid, or that he has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.k. Applicant admits that he is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in the
amount of $4,000. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this debt has
been paid, or that he has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.l. Applicant admits that he is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in the
amount of $13,000. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this debt has
been paid, or that he has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.m. It is alleged in this subparagraph that Applicant is indebted to a creditor for
a past-due debt in the amount of $15,000. Applicant states in his Answer, “I believe that
this has been paid off.” (Item 3 at 3.) No other information was provided by Applicant.
This debt is unresolved.
5
1.n. Applicant admits that he is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in the
amount of $99. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this debt has
been paid, or that he has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.o. Applicant admits that he is indebted to a medical creditor for a past-due
debt in the amount of $487. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this
debt has been paid, or that he has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.p. Applicant admits that he is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in the
amount of $2,005. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this debt has
been paid, or that he has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.q. Applicant admits that he is indebted to a medical creditor for a past-due
debt in the amount of $611. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this
debt has been paid, or that he has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
Regarding the unpaid debts, other than the tax debt, Applicant states, “A number
of the other debts that are listed as having admitted to I do owe but the amounts are in
dispute as some payments have been made. I have been advised that I need to first
finish taking care of the IRS debt before I fix the other debts, so I have not begun
working out these payments. I will do this once the IRS debt is settled.” (Applicant
Exhibit A at 4.) There is no information as to who advised Applicant to handle his debts
this way.
Applicant submitted no evidence that he has received any financial counseling.
The evidence shows that he has been employed by his company since 1982, making
approximately $136,000 a year with a monthly remainder of approximately $1,800. (Item
7 at 16; Applicant Exhibit B at 8.)
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 or other evidence tending to establish good judgment,
trustworthiness, 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
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  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 to be used as appropriate in evaluating an applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.
It appears that Applicant may have been somewhat unsure of his responsibilities with regards to the2
presentation of his case. He states, “I was never asked for proof of these claims or any explanation of these
claims. Based on that, I had no reason to think that there was any reason that they were doubted.” (Applicant
Exhibit A at 3.) Department Counsel subsequently wrote Applicant an email dated April 5, 2013. In that email
he sets forth Applicant’s responsibilities in responding to the FORM in an appropriate and detailed way. I find
that Applicant has had a full and fair opportunity to state his case and provide corroboration for his claims. 
6
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 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. In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on his or her own common
sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the ways of the world, in
making a reasoned decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that, “Any 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”2
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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any
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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Subtracting the figures in allegations 1.g, 1.h, and 1.m, which Applicant denied, the past-due debt figure is3
$60,925. Even if that figure is reduced by the amount of the tax lien in allegation 1.a, his past-due
indebtedness still totals $21,493.
7
Analysis
Paragraph 1 (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
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
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant has over $100,000 in past-due debts, all of which have
been due and owing for several years.  The evidence is sufficient to raise these3
potentially disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ Applicant=s
financial difficulties have been in existence since at least 2004. He has not resolved any
of the debts that caused the problems, which continue to date. This mitigating condition
does not have application in this case. 
AG ¶ 20(b) states that the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated 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.”  It is obvious that Applicant’s physical condition has had an
impact on his ability to resolve his taxes and pay his debts. However, Applicant has
simply not shown sufficient evidence that he has acted responsibly under the
circumstances. He has known for two years of the Government’s concerns with his
financial situation. To date he has not shown that he has paid a single debt, not even
one for $16. Regarding his taxes, the Applicant’s argument is that the Government
should trust him, because at some unknown point in the future he will file these tax
returns and all will be solved. Even allowing Applicant great leeway, which I do, he
simply has not shown that this mitigating condition has application to his case.
8
AG ¶ 20(d) states it can be mitigating where, “the individual has initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Applicant has not
submitted any evidence to show that he has made successful payment arrangements
with, or made payments to, any of the creditors listed in the SOR. He was interviewed
by an investigator connected with the Defense Department in May 2011. (Item 7 at 4-9.)
Accordingly, he has had knowledge for almost two years that his financial situation was
of security concern to the Government.
In conclusion, looking at Applicant’s entire financial situation at the present time, I
cannot find that “there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control,” as is required by AG ¶ 20(c). Paragraph 1 is found against 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 relevant circumstances. 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. The administrative judge must 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The discussion under
Guideline F, above, applies here as well. Applicant has had financial problems for
several years, which have not been resolved. I have carefully considered the fact of
Applicant’s continuing medical issues with regards to his ability to pay his debts. He
simply did not show sufficient information to support his allegations. It is Applicant’s
burden to do that and he did not meet it. Applicant’s conduct, with regards to his
finances, was not mitigated.
Under AG ¶ 2(a)(3), his conduct is recent and continuing. I cannot find that there
have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I also
cannot find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); or that there is no likelihood of continuation or recurrence (AG ¶
2(a)(9)). 
9
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
situation. Accordingly, the evidence supports denying his request for a security
clearance.
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. through 1.q.: 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.
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge