1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 11-13306
       )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns.
Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On April 24, 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial
Considerations. DOD acted 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)
implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006.
Applicant answered the SOR on May 21, 2013, admitting SOR subparagraph 1.a
and denying SOR subparagraph 1.b. He requested a decision on the written record
instead of a hearing. On July 9, 2013, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant
2
Material (FORM). Applicant received it on July 15, 2013, and did not file a response.
The case was assigned to me on September 24, 2013.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 54-year-old married man with two adult children. He graduated
from college in 1996. Since 2000, he has been working for a defense contractor as a
mechanical engineer. (Item 4 at 6) 
In 2006, Applicant purchased a home. (Item 9 at 1) He financed the purchase
with a $285,000 mortgage. (Item 9) In December 2011, the bank that financed the
purchase foreclosed upon the mortgage. (Item 6) According to Applicant, he first fell
behind on the mortgage payments in 2008 when he mistakenly thought his wife was
making the payments while he was on extended business travel. (Item 8 at 10) Per
Applicant, they did not realize their mistake until they had missed two mortgage
payments.
After realizing that the mortgage payments were late, Applicant contends that he
contacted the bank and arranged a payment plan. Under the plan, the mortgage
delinquency was rolled into the remaining mortgage, requiring him to make subsequent
mortgage payments that were slightly higher. (Item 8 at 10)
Applicant contends that he forgot to make a mortgage payment in 2010 before
going on vacation. (Item 8 at 12) He contends that he continued to make monthly
payments, but remained one month behind, with the understanding that the bank would
prorate the delinquent mortgage payment in a similar fashion as it prorated the missed
mortgage payments in 2008. (Item 8 at 14) Per Applicant, the bank chose to initiate
foreclosure proceedings in September 2011 despite the fact that he was less than a
month behind on his mortgage payments. (Item 8 at 13) Applicant contends the home
was sold in a foreclosure sale. (Item 8 at 10) Applicant denies that he owes any
deficiency related to the mortgage foreclosure and asserts that attempts to contact the
bank since the foreclosure have been unsuccessful. (Item 2 at 1)
Applicant’s monthly mortgage payment was $2,000 per month. (Item 9 at 1) As of
August 1, 2011, the month before the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings, Applicant
was more than $20,000 behind on his mortgage payments. (Item 5 at 4) The
outstanding principal balance totals $267,914.
The remaining SOR debt is a cable television bill totalling $67. (Item 1 at 1)
Applicant admits this debt and promises to pay it as soon as he receives a copy of the
bill. (Item 2) Applicant provided no proof that he ever paid this bill.
Applicant maintains a budget. He has approximately $3,300 in monthly
discretionary income. (GE 8 at 3)
3
Policies
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 together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a 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. 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. 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
applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant has the ultimate burden
of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security decision. 
Analysis
Guideline F: Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “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”
(AG ¶ 18). Moreover, “an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having
to engage in illegal acts to generate funds” (Id.). 
Applicant’s financial delinquencies trigger the application of AG ¶¶ 19(a),
“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations.” The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially
applicable:
(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; and
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
4
Applicant fell behind on his mortgage as a result of carelessness, not
circumstances beyond his control. He provided no documentary evidence supporting his
contention that the bank sold his foreclosed home with no remaining deficiency. In
addition, Applicant’s assertion that he was only a month behind on his mortgage
payments when the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings contradicts the documentary
record evidence indicating that he was approximately $20,000 behind on his mortgage
when the bank initiated foreclosure proceedings. Applicant’s lack of credibility
undermines both his contention that no deficiency remains from the foreclosure process
as well as the probative value of his promise to pay the delinquent utility listed in
subparagraph 1.a. I conclude that none of the mitigating conditions apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows: 
(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.
Upon considering the whole-person concept in my analysis of the disqualifying
and mitigating conditions, I conclude that they do not warrant a favorable conclusion.
Applicant has failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concern.
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
Subparagraphs1.a-1.b: Against Applicant
5
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.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge