The Government submitted twelve items in support of its case.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 )       ISCR Case No. 11-02457
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Pamela Benson, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On March 28, 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant listing security concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines
(AG), implemented in September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested an administrative
determination in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant
Material (FORM), dated July 30, 2013.  Applicant received the FORM on August 6,1
2013. He did not submit additional information. I received the case assignment on
September 24, 2013. Based on a review of the case file, I find Applicant has not
mitigated the security concerns raised. Security clearance is denied.
The basis for the denial was delinquent credit issues and criminal history.       2
2
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations under Guideline F,
¶¶ 1.a through 1.t. with explanations.  (Item 4) 
Applicant is 58 years old. He is an aircraft mechanic employed by a defense
contractor.  He served in various branches of the U.S. military from 1978 until 1992,
receiving an honorable discharge. Applicant attended a technical college from January
2001 until April 2003. Applicant held a security clearance in 2003, but was denied a
security clearance in 2009.  Applicant married his second wife in May 2010. (Item 5)2
Applicant has been employed with his current employer since February 2011. On April
28, 2011, he completed a  security clearance application. (Item 5) 
 The SOR lists 18 delinquent debts totaling about $21,409.00; and two
allegations of bankruptcy filings: a Chapter 7 (2003) and Chapter 13 (2006). (Item 1)
Applicant lived and worked abroad from June 2009 until June 2010. (Item 6)
Applicant was unemployed from June 2010 to February 2011, from December 2007 to
April 2008, and from July 2005 to August 2005. (Item 4)
Applicant claims that his periods of unemployment led him to file for Chapter 7
Bankruptcy and also Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. In 2011, Applicant was questioned about
other credit issues on his credit report. He explained that child support issues and
inability to pay state taxes caused his financial problems. (Item 6) He  filed the Chapter
13 Bankruptcy in May 2006 because of more issues stemming from unemployment and
child support.  He made payments of $600 per month according to the wage earner
plan for about 18 months before the Chapter 13 case was dismissed. He could not
afford the payments. (Items 7 and 8) 
Applicant completed a DOHA interrogatory in 2013. A 2013 credit report
revealed 27 delinquent accounts with a combined total of $62,812.00 of delinquent
debt.  (Items 7 and 9) Applicant stated that he obtained a loan of $46,070 to satisfy the
delinquent debts. He also disclosed that he hired a tax attorney to satisfy the tax issues.
Applicant submitted documentation from a company that offers credit restorative
services, with a credit listing form showing his 26 delinquent accounts totaling $46,070.
The documents were dated February 18, 2013. Applicant was to begin making monthly
payments of $509.84 in March 2013. Applicant also attached documentation from
another service that he owed approximately $14,500 in back taxes. He planned to enter
a debt resolution plan with the company in February 2013. However, he first had to
make a $499 payment for an investigation fee. No offer in compromise or any
repayment agreement with the IRS has been provided. (Item 6)
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      3
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      4
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
3
Applicant states that he can live within his means, but just “barely.”  He had a
monthly net income of $3,206 with a monthly net remainder of $1,326. He claims that
his financial problems will ease because he has just completed his child support
payments. (Item 6) 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An 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 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.
The United States Government must present evidence to establish controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a3
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  4 5
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather
than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
 
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      6
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      7
 Id.      8
4
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
applicant concerned.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance6
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt7
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a8
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an 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.” It also states that “an individual who is
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.
Applicant’s admissions and credit reports establish his delinquent debts. He also
admits to two bankruptcy filings. He has a federal tax lien against him in the amount of
$13,134. AG ¶ 19(g) (failure to file annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns as
required or fraudulent filing of the same),  applies. The 2004 tax lien remains unpaid.
His admissions and credit reports confirm these debts. Consequently, Financial
Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness
to satisfy debts), and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations)
apply. With such conditions raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against
him and mitigate security concerns.  
The nature, frequency, and relative recency of Applicant’s financial difficulties
since 2003 make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago.” Applicant still has
a significant amount of delinquent debt despite two filings for Bankruptcy. The
obligations remain current. Consequently, Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition
(FC MC) AG ¶ 20(a) (the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or
5
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) does not apply.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (the
conditions that resulted in the behavior 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)
does not apply. Applicant did not provide information to prove that the delinquencies
were beyond his control and that he acted responsibly. 
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply. Applicant has failed to provide any
documentation, such as receipts or current statements from creditors, to show that he
has resolved any of his delinquent debts. Applicant produced documentation that he
began to address the delinquent debts after the 2013 interrogatories. He submitted a
plan but no record of any payments, which does not establish mitigation in the case. He
did not present evidence that he received financial counseling. Although, his 2006
bankruptcy required online counseling. FC MC AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has received or
is receiving counseling for the problem) partially applies. I find that  there are not clear
indications that his financial problems are being resolved and are under control. He has
not met his burden of proof.
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 an applicant’s
conduct and all the 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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
Applicant is 58 years old. He has worked for his current employer since 2011. Applicant
6
held a security clearance in 2004, but was denied his clearance in 2009.  He served in
the military. 
However, Applicant has delinquent debt of  approximately $46,070 plus unpaid
back taxes of $14,500, resulting in total delinquent debt of approximately $60,000. His
debts are higher than that reflected in the SOR. This is the case despite two bankruptcy
filings. Since Applicant’s 2011 interview with investigators, there is little evidence to
show that he has acted responsibly in resolving his delinquent debts, aside from his
actions in February 2013 with two companies to start to resolve his delinquent debts
and tax issues. He has not shown significant progress and has not demonstrated that
he has taken steps to avoid additional delinquent debt. His pattern of financial
irresponsibility and his failure to take immediate action to resolve his debts or tax issues
shows that he does not use good judgment and is not reliable.  Applicant has not
mitigated his case. He did not show that he does not owe the liens nor present
sufficient documentation that he has addressed or resolved the delinquent debts.
Applicant failed to mitigate financial considerations security concern. The clearly
consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they
must, on the side of denials. A denial of his security clearance does not necessarily
indicate anything adverse about an applicant’s character or loyalty. It means that the
individual has presented insufficient mitigation to meet the strict standards controlling
access to classified information. Clearance is denied.
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-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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge
7