DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 11-09287
           )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Chris Morin, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
August 20, 2013
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
The Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on April 14, 2011.  (Government Exhibit 5.)  On January 25, 2013,
the Department of Defense (DoD), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department
of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as amended), issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed reasons why DOHA could
not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether
clearance should be denied or revoked.
Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on February 22, 2013, and elected to
have the case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing.  Department Counsel
submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) to Applicant on April 30,
2013.  Applicant received the FORM on May 12, 2013.  Applicant was instructed to
submit information in rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt.
Applicant failed to submit a response to the FORM.  This case was assigned to the
undersigned on July 24, 2013.  Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits,
eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
2
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 47 years old, and married but separated from her husband.  She
has two children, one from a previous relationship.  She has an Associates Degree and
is employed with a defense contractor as a Security Officer.  She is seeking a security
clearance in connection with this employment.
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she is financially overextended and at risk
of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant admitted each of the allegations set forth in the SOR under this
guideline.  Credit Reports of the Applicant dated April 28, 2011; August 11, 2012; and
August 17, 2012, reflect that the Applicant is indebted to fifty separate creditors in an
amount totaling in excess of  $80,000.  (Government Exhibits 6, 7 and 8.)  
Applicant joined the United States Army in May 1985, and served until she was
honorably discharged in April 1986.  She also worked for ten years as a Deputy Sheriff,
for which she receives a small retirement check for the rest of her life.  She retired early
from that job in order to raise her now six year old daughter.   
Applicant has a history of financial difficulties.  She attributes her separation from
her husband in 2007, and the loss of her job in 2008, for her delinquent indebtedness.
Although she has received some child support from her husband she indicates that
limited resources have prevented her from being able to pay her bills.  Unstable work
and low paying jobs meant she was not able to keep up with her bills. The record
indicates that Applicant has been employed full-time from about October 1995 to
December 2008 at various jobs.  She was unemployed from December 2008 to January
2010 due to accumulating excessive absences occasioned by her own as well as her
daughter’s illnesses.  She then worked part-time from about January to February 2010.
She has been employed full time with her current employer since March 2010.
Applicant admits that she has a great deal of debt for which she is responsible. She
indicates that she is taking steps to resolve it.  
In February 2009 Applicant filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in order to resolve her
debts.  In this petition, she listed liabilities of $43,957.  (Government Exhibit 9.)  When
she became unemployed, she was unable to pay the required $450 monthly payment to
the trustee and the petition for bankruptcy was dismissed.  In December 2012 Applicant
again filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.  (Government Exhibit 4.)  This time she
listed liabilities of $71,000.  In January 2013 the bankruptcy trustee directed Applicant’s
employer to begin deducting $98 per week from her paycheck for a monthly payment of
$392.  The record indicates that prior to the trustee’s wage assignment, Applicant had a
net monthly remainder of $425.  After the subtraction of the monthly wage assignment,
3
her net monthly remainder is $33.  Applicant indicates that she does not buy expensive
things that she does not need.  She states that she is the type of person who wants to
repay the people she owes.  
There is no evidence in the record that demonstrates that her financial problems
are being resolved or are under control.  In the absence of additional documentary
evidence submitted in response to this FORM to show that Applicant has been able to
begin to regain some financial stability by establishing a meaningful track record of
resolving her delinquent debts, this concern must be decided against her in evaluation
of her suitability to have access to classified information.
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligation. 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
20.(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.
4
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19,  in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding
circumstances;
     b.  The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct, which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence, which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as
emphasized by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination
under this order . . . 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.”
5
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility, which demonstrates
poor judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation,
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The Applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
The Government has met its initial burden of proving that the Applicant has been
financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  The evidence indicates poor judgment,
unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of the scope
and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or connection with his
security clearance eligibility.
Applicant’s history of financial indebtedness has not been mitigated.  In fact the
evidence shows that from the time she first filed for bankruptcy protection under
Chapter 13 in 2009, and then again most recently when she filed in 2012, her financial
situation has worsened considerably.  Although the evidence shows that some
circumstances largely beyond her control started her financial problems, namely a
separation from her husband in 2007, and the loss of her job in 2008, her wages are
being garnished to pay the bankruptcy trustee at $98 weekly or $392 monthly which is
not a lot of money considering the size of her debt.  Admittedly, Applicant has started
the process of resolving her debts but with $50,000 or more in delinquent debt, she has
a long way to go to demonstrate that she is fiscally responsible.  She has simply done
too little, too late.         
   Applicant must show that she can and will resolve her debts.  In this case, there
is no evidence that she can do so.  She has not shown an ability to pay all of her
delinquent debts or live within her means.  At this time, there is insufficient evidence of
financial rehabilitation.  Applicant has not demonstrated that she can properly handle
her financial affairs. 
Applicant has not met her burden of proving that she is worthy of a security
clearance.  Assuming that she continues to work to resolve her debts, and then shows
that she has not acquired any new debt that she is unable to pay, she may be eligible
for a security clearance in the future.  However, not at this time.  Considering all of the
evidence, the Applicant has not introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation
or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the Government's case. 
6
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligations, apply.  Mitigating Condition 20.(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, applies, but is not
controlling.  There are simply too many delinquent debts that are not being addressed.
Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).    
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth above, when viewed under all of the guidelines as a
whole, support a whole-person assessment of poor judgement, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, a lack of candor, an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations,
and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard
classified information.
  
I have considered all of the evidence presented.  It does not mitigate the negative
effects of her financial indebtedness and the effects it can have on his ability to
safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has not
overcome the Government's case opposing her request for a security clearance.
Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the factual and
conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.   
     FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1:       Against the Applicant.
    
Subpara.  1.a.   through Subpara. 1.z:       Against the Applicant.
Subpara.   1aa.  through Subpara. 1.zz:    Against the Applicant.     
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
the Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge
7