Item 5.1
Item 1.2
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-11661
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant accrued about $19,000 in delinquent debts over the past 11 years. She
made minimal progress toward their resolution, and offered insufficient evidence of an
effective plan to resolve these debts or of changes to prevent continued financial
irresponsibility. 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 October 10,
2011.  On March 20, 2013, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of1
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations).  The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding2
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Item 3.3
Item 4.4
The Government submitted 11 Items in support of the SOR allegations. 5
Items 4 and 5.6
Items 6 and 7.7
2
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines
effective in the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant received the SOR on March 28, 2013.  She submitted a written3
response on April 3, 2013, and requested that her case be decided by an administrative
judge on the written record without a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted the4
Government’s written case on May 8, 2013. A complete copy of the File of Relevant
Material (FORM)  was provided to Applicant, and she was afforded an opportunity to file5
objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of
her receipt of the FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of her copy of the FORM
on May 21, 2013, and returned it to DOHA. She provided no further response to the
FORM within the 30-day period, did not request additional time to respond, and
expressed no objection to my consideration of the evidence submitted by Department
Counsel. I received the case assignment on July 25, 2013.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 43 years old and the unmarried mother of four children ages 21, 19,
14, and 13. She has worked for a defense contractor since May 2008, and held her
present position since October 2011. She earned a certificate of completion from a
technical school in 1990, then earned an associate’s degree in 2010 and her bachelor
of science degree in business in 2012 from an online university. She reported no
periods of unemployment dating back to at least 2001 She has no prior military or
Federal Government service. This is her first application for a DoD security clearance,
although she might have held a Confidential clearance in 2008 and 2009 while working
on contracts for the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Communications
Commission.  6
In her response to the SOR, Applicant admitted the truth of 14 of the 20 factual
allegations set forth in the SOR. The total due on Applicant’s 14 admitted delinquent
debts alleged in the SOR, and supported by entries in the record credit bureau reports,
is $17,984. Applicant’s admissions, including those made in response to DOHA
interrogatories,  are incorporated into the following findings of fact. 7
Item 4 at 5, 7.8
Item 4 at 5, 8.9
Items 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, and 10.10
Item 4; Item 5; Item 7.11
Item 5 at 35-39.12
Item 7 at 4-10.13
3
Applicant denied the $588 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.c, claiming that it belonged to
her sister. However, she submitted a dispute result from the credit bureau that reported
the debt, which indicated that it had been investigated and would remain on her report.8
She claimed that she had paid the $25 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d on April 1, 2013, but
the receipt for a $27 charge on a credit card that she submitted as documentation was
issued by a different creditor and account information does not match.  She claimed to9
have settled the $223 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.p by making an agreed payment of $122
to the creditor on June 12, 2012. She did not document this claim, but the debt does not
appear on later credit reports contained in Items 4 and 8.
Applicant’s claims that the $975 debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.o, as well as
the $746/$745 debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.i and 1.r, are duplicates could not be
confirmed or disproved by the record evidence. Her claim that the $382 debt alleged in
SOR ¶ 1.q is a duplicate listing of the $377 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.n is erroneous,
since the Item 8 credit report identifies the former as a medical collection account and
the latter as an electric bill. Even assuming the truth of her claims that two small debts
were paid and that two other debts were alleged twice, record evidence proves 16 SOR-
listed delinquent debts totaling $18,984. Their balances range from $94 to $7,312, and
they were incurred at various times from 2002 to 2011.10
Although not alleged in the SOR, Applicant submitted a voluntary petition for
Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief in April 1999, and a final decree discharging her then-
existing debts was issued in October 1999. She attributes her financial difficulties to
having moved into her ex-boyfriend’s house shortly before he lost his job, and their
subsequent breakup in 2009, both of which left her supporting the family on a single
income. Several of her delinquent debts predate 2006, however, and she did not specify
what steps, if any, she took to responsibly minimize expenses.   11
Applicant said in her October 2011 SF 86 responses to financial questions that
she planned to pay off all of her debts by March 2012 in order to purchase a home, and
should be able to do so.  During her interview with an investigator from the Office of12
Personnel Management in November 2011, she said that she was working with a lender
to have all her debts paid off in early 2012 so that she could purchase a home.  She13
later said, in her January 2013 response to DOHA interrogatories, that she would pay
off a number of still-delinquent SOR-listed debts by February 2013 with money from her
Item 6 at 2-15.14
Item 4.15
Item 4 at 12.16
4
income tax refund, and planned to resolve all of her debt within the next two years.  In14
her response to the SOR, she said that she had resolved five other debts in 2012 that
were not listed on the SOR, but provided no evidence of financial counseling and no
budget or other plan to pay her delinquencies or stop incurring new ones.15
Applicant provided a letter from her supervisor describing her as, “conscientious,
hard-working, and driven by process and quality.” Her supervisor further described her
good initiative, dependability, pleasant kindness, and good communication skills.  I was16
unable to evaluate her credibility, demeanor, or character in person since she elected to
have her 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
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
5
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 over the past 11 years, and
remain largely unresolved. Her financial problems were not shown to have arisen from
incidents beyond her control, and she chose not to repay most of those debts and
continued incurring new ones despite steady employment throughout the time in
question. She provided insufficient evidence of available income, or other assets, from
which to satisfy these debts or to avoid incurring additional delinquencies. 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. 
6
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 multiple SOR-listed delinquent debts arose over the past 11 years,
total about $19,000, and continue to date. They arose after the Chapter 7 bankruptcy
discharge of earlier debts in late 1999. They are frequent, recent, and arose under
circumstances that involved Applicant’s voluntary choices. She showed no capacity to
avoid additional delinquent debt. The ongoing nature of these debts, and the recency of
some, preclude a finding of unlikely recurrence. Applicant failed to demonstrate that her
reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment have improved, and failed to resolve most of
these debts (many of which were under $650) even after their security implications
became apparent. The evidence does not establish mitigation under MC 20(a). 
Applicant offered insufficient evidence to support mitigation under MC 20(b). She
blamed her ex-boyfriend’s unemployment and their breakup for creating financial
problems, but offered no evidence to corroborate that claim. Furthermore, many of the
SOR-listed delinquencies are for debts incurred well before or after those dates. Finally,
her minimal effort toward resolution of these debts while maintaining full-time
employment is not responsible action under the circumstances. 
Applicant offered no evidence of financial counseling, and did not establish clear
indications that her financial issues are being resolved or are under control. She
provided insufficient evidence to establish a good-faith effort to repay her overdue
7
creditors or otherwise resolve her debts, particularly in the absence of evidence of the
means to do so. MC 20(c) and 20(d) are therefore not supported on this record. 
Applicant’s attempt to dispute one debt with the credit bureau was not
successful, and she offered no corroborating evidence of her assertion that it was her
sister’s debt. Accordingly, she failed to demonstrate mitigation under MC 20(e).
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 has worked to
overcome many challenges in life, continued her education, and made an excellent
impression on her supervisor. Her efforts have demonstrated significant potential to
establish a record of personal and financial responsibility. She has expressed good
intentions to do so.
However, Applicant is an accountable adult who is responsible for her voluntary
choices and conduct that underlie the security concerns expressed in the SOR. Her
financial irresponsibility spans many years, and continues at present. It involves
delinquent debts still totaling about $19,000, toward which she had made minimal
documented payments by the close of the record. She has not demonstrated the ability
or willingness to fulfill her legal obligations to her creditors. She did not show that these
debts arose under circumstances that were beyond her control, or that she initiated
necessary changes to prevent additional financial difficulties. She offered insufficient
evidence of financial counseling, rehabilitation, or responsible conduct in other areas of
her life. The potential for pressure, coercion, and duress remains undiminished. 
8
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with substantial doubt as to Applicant’s
present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. She did not meet her burden to
mitigate the security concerns arising from her financial considerations.
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.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.e through 1.n: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.o and 1.p: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.s and 1.t: 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