1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 11-07863
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Barry Sax, Esquire
August 29, 2013
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on December 22, 2010.  On November 14, 2012, the Department of Defense
(DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under
Guidelines B and 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 acknowledged receipt of the SOR on November 29, 2012.  He
answered the SOR in writing on January 16, 2013, and requested a hearing before an
Administrative Judge.  DOHA received the request on January 25, 2013, and I received
the case assignment on March 29, 2013.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing on April 2,
2013, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on May 15, 2013.  The Government
offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 7, which were received without objection.  Applicant
2
testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits (AppXs) A through C, which were
received without objection.  DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on May
28, 2013.  I granted Applicant’s request to keep the record open until June 12, 2013, to
submit additional matters.  On June 12, 2013, he submitted Post Hearing Exhibits
(PHXs) A through H, which were received without objection. The record closed on June
13, 2013.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for
access to classified information is denied.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Request for Administrative Notice
Department Counsel submitted a formal request that I take administrative notice
of certain facts relating to Lebanon.  The request was granted.  The request, and the
attached documents, were not admitted into evidence, but were included in the record.
The facts administratively noticed are set out in the Findings of Fact, below. 
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in
Subparagraphs 1.a., 1.c., 1.e., 2.a.~2.h., and 2.k.~2.m. of the SOR, with explanations.
He denied the factual allegations in Subparagraphs 1.b., 1.d., 1.f., 2.i. and 2.j. of the
SOR.  He also provided additional information to support his request for eligibility for a
security clearance.
Guideline B - Foreign Influence
Applicant is a native-born American.  (TR at page 34 line 12 to page 37 line 22.)
He was educated in the United States; and except for vacations and overseas job
requirements, has lived his whole life here.  (Id.)
1.a.  Applicant met his wife in Lebanon.  It was love at first sight.  (TR at page 37
line 23 to page 39 line 9, and at page 42 line 18 to page 43 line 7.)  She is a dual
national of the United States and of Lebanon.  (GX 1 at pages 20~21.)  They “have
been happily married for 15 years . . . [and] have four children . . . [who] are growing up
Americans.”  (TR at page 43 lines 9~18.)
1.b.  Applicant’s mother-in-law and father-in-law reside in the United States and
are in the process of becoming U.S. citizens.  (TR at page 43 line 19 to page 44 line
15.)  His father-in-law is a retired tour guide.  (TR at page 49 lines 2~12.)
1.c. and 1.d.  Applicant has two brothers-in-law and one sister-in-law.  The
younger of the two brothers-in-law “has a Green Card,” and is on the path to U.S.
citizenship.  (TR at page 44 line 16 to page 46 line 3.)  His other brother-in-law, who is a
citizen of and resides in Lebanon, is an “Architectural Engineer with a Master’s Degree.”
(TR at page 46 line 3 to page 48 line 6.)  His sister-in-law, who is also a citizen of and
3
resides in Lebanon, “is a Pharmacist. . . . She has her own little Pharmacy in the
neighborhood where they grew up.”  (TR at page 48 lines 7~16.)  His Lebanese in-laws
“have no political affiliations”: and do not know Applicant has a security clearance, nor
what he does for a living.  (TR at page 48 line 19 to page 49 line 1, and at page 57 line
1 to page 58 line 21.)
1.e. and 1.f.  Applicant has a $2,000 bank account in Lebanon, which he is “in
the process of trying to close, “a little emergency fund” for when he travels there.  (TR at
page 50 line 2 to page 51 line 14.)  He has traveled to Lebanon three times in the last
ten years, in 2006, from 2008~2009, and in 2011.  (TR at page 51 line 19 to page 52
line 13.)
I also take administrative notice of the following facts.  Lebanon became an
independent country in 1943, however Syria has long influenced its foreign and internal
policy.  Hizballah, a Lebanese based radical group, takes its ideological inspiration from
Iran, and remains a significant threat to the stability of Lebanon.  In addition to
Hizballah, several terrorist organizations remain active in Lebanon.  U.S. citizens have
been the target of numerous terrorist attacks in Lebanon in the past, and the threat of
anti-Western terrorism continues to exist there.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Applicant, who owned several real estate properties, got caught up in the radical
decline of the housing market in 2008.  (TR at page 62 line 13 to page 71 line 10.)  To
keep up with his mortgage payments, as his rentals were not covering his costs, he
“basically robbed Peter to pay Paul as long as . . . [he] could.”  (TR at page 70 lines
12~20.)
2.m.  In 2011, Applicant filed for the protection of a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, but
“then . . . [he] realized that it wasn’t the right thing to do.  So, . . . [he] did not complete
the process.”  (TR at page 72 line 12 to page 73 line 1, and AppX B at page 2.)  As a
result, his significant past-due indebtedness was not discharged and remains of
concern to the Government.
2.a.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor A for a past-due debt in the amount of
about $20,919.  (PHX F at pages 48~49.)  Applicant avers that he expects this admitted
debt “to be resolved in the near term,” but he has not yet done so.  (PHX H at page 2,
and TR at page 73 line 2 to page 76 line 8.)  I find that this debt is still outstanding.
2.b.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor B for a past-due debt in the amount of
about $28,369.  (PHX F at page 37.)  Applicant also avers that he expects this admitted
debt “to be resolved in the near term,” but he has not yet done so.  (PHX H at page 2,
and TR at page 76 lines 9~18.)  I find that this debt is still outstanding.
2.c.  Applicant is allegedly indebted to Creditor C for a past-due debt in the
amount of about $43.  This debt has been paid, as evidenced by Applicant’s most
4
recent June 2013 credit report.  (PHX F at page 31, and TR at page 77 line 7 to page 78
line 25.)  I find that this debt has been paid.
2.d.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor D for a past-due debt in the amount of
about $282.  (GX 4 at page 14.)  Applicant avers that he expects this admitted debt “to
be resolved in the near term,” but he has not yet done so.  (PHX H at page 2, and TR at
page 79 lines 1~15.)  I find that this debt is still outstanding.
2.e.  Applicant is allegedly indebted to Creditor E for a past-due debt in the
amount of about $75.  This debt was “reported in error” as past due, as evidenced by a
letter from the creditor.  (AppX B at page 4, and TR at page 79 line 16 to page 80 line
13.)  I find that this debt has been resolved in Applicant’s favor.
2.f.  Applicant is allegedly indebted to Creditor F for a past-due real estate debt in
the amount of about $70,737.  This debt has been cancelled by the creditor, as
evidenced by a Form 1099-C from the creditor.  (AppX B at page 5, C at page 1, and
TR at page 80 line 16 to page 83 line 2.)  I find that Applicant no longer owes this debt.
2.g.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor G for a past-due debt in the amount of
about $5,393.  (GX 7 at page 2.)  Applicant avers that he expects this admitted debt “to
be resolved in the near term,” but he has not yet done so.  (PHX H at page 2, and TR at
page 83 lines 6~12.)  I find that this debt is still outstanding.
2.h.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor H for a past-due debt in the amount of
about $11,071.  (GX 7 at page 2.)  Applicant avers that he expects this admitted debt “to
be resolved in the near term,” but he has not yet done so.  (PHX H at page 2, and TR at
page 83 lines 6~12.)  I find that this debt is still outstanding.
2.i.  Applicant is indebted to Creditor I for a past-due debt in the amount of about
$211,000.  (PHX F at page 46.)  Applicant avers that “a final resolution of . . . [this
mortgage debt] is imminent” but he has offered nothing further.  (PHX H at page 2, and
TR at page 83 line 12 to page 85 line 20.)  I find that this debt is still outstanding.
2.j.  Applicant is allegedly indebted to Creditor J for a past-due real estate debt in
the amount of about $600,000.  This debt has been cancelled by the creditor, as
evidenced by a Form 1099-C from the creditor.  (GX 3 at pages 337~339, and TR at
page 85 line 1 to page 89 line 1.)  I find that Applicant no longer owes this debt.
2.k.  Applicant is allegedly indebted to Creditor K for a past-due real estate debt
in the amount of about $475,000.  The creditor has reacquired this real estate, as
evidenced by a Form 1099-A from the creditor.  (AppX B at page 9, and TR at page 89
lines 2~11.)  I find that Applicant no longer owes this debt.
2.l.  Applicant is allegedly indebted to Creditor L for a past-due real estate debt in
the amount of about $733,000.  This debt has been cancelled by the creditor, as
5
evidenced by a Form 1099-C from the creditor.  (AppX B at page 8, and TR at page 89
line 12 to page 73 line 1.)  I find that Applicant no longer owes this debt.
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 the adjudicative process.  The administrative judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision.  According to AG
Paragraph 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.
Paragraph 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 Paragraph E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR.  Under Directive Paragraph 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
6
applicant concerned.”  See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).
Analysis
Guideline B - Foreign Influence
Paragraph 6 of the adjudicative guidelines sets out the security concern relating
to Foreign Influence:
Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the individual
has divided loyalties or foreign interests, may be manipulated or induced
to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a way that
is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by a
foreign interest.
Here, Paragraph 7(a) is applicable: “contacts with a foreign family member . . .
who is a citizen of or resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened
risk of foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion.”
Applicant’s wife is a dual national with Lebanon, and his in-laws are citizens of Lebanon.
This is countered, however, by the first mitigating condition, as “the nature of the
relationships with foreign persons, the country in which these persons are located . . .
are such that it is unlikely the individual will be placed in a position of having to choose
between the interests of a foreign individual . . . and the interests of the U.S.”
Applicant’s wife of 15 years is well settled with her family in the United States.
Applicant’s father-in-law, mother-in-law and a brother-in-law live in the United States.
They are also on the road for U.S. citizenship.  His brother-in-law and sister-in-law, who
do reside in Lebanon, have no connection with the Lebanese government, nor do they
know exactly what Applicant does for a living.
Furthermore, I find the disqualifying condition found in Paragraph 7(e) is not
applicable under the facts of this case.  I do not find that a $2,000 bank account in
Lebanon, which Applicant is trying to close, to be a “substantial . . . financial, or property
interest” in Lebanon.
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
7
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 has significant past-due debts,
which he has not yet resolved.
I can find no countervailing Mitigating Condition that is applicable here.  Although
Applicant’s past-due indebtedness can be attributed to the crash of the housing market
in 2008, he still has about $277,000 in past due debt that he must address.
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.  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 should also 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.”
Applicant has the unqualified support of those who know him in the work place.
(PHXs A~D.)  I have considered all of the evidence, including the potentially
disqualifying and mitigating conditions surrounding this case.  Overall, the record
evidence leaves me with questions or 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 alleged 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 B: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
8
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.I: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 2.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.k: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.l: For Applicant
Subparagraph 2.m: Against Applicant
9
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge