DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 11-14160
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
November 4, 2013
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on June 27, 2011.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On May 8, 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.
The Applicant responded to the SOR on May 20, 2013, and she requested a
hearing before a DOHA Administrative Judge.  This case was assigned to the
undersigned Administrative Judge on June 25, 2013.  A notice of hearing was issued on
June 26, 2013, scheduling the hearing for July 23, 2013.  The Government presented
six exhibits, referred to Government Exhibits 1 through 6, which were admitted without
objection.  The Applicant called one witness and presented eight exhibits, referred to as
Applicant’s Exhibit A through H, which were admitted without objection.  She also
testified on her own behalf.  The official transcript (Tr.) was received on August 1, 2013.
2
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 25 years old, unmarried and has no children.  She has a
Bachelor’s Degree in Geography and Environmental Studies.  She is employed with a
defense contractor as a Survey Specialist and is seeking to obtain 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 E - Personal Conduct).  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because she has engaged in conduct
involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty or unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations that can raise questions about an individuals reliability,
trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.
The Applicant denied the single allegation set forth in the SOR under this
guideline.  In 2007 the Applicant began dating her girlfriend.  About three months into
the relationship, she learned that her girlfriend was an illegal drug user.  (Tr. p. 71.)
About a year after they started dating, Applicant learned that her girlfriend was also an
illegal drug dealer.  (Tr. p. 72.)  Applicant continued to maintain an off and on, sporadic
relationship with her girlfriend until Applicant obtained employment with her current
employer in January 2011.  Applicant explained that since she loved her girlfriend she
would accompany her when she would engage in small time marijuana drug deals.
Applicant stated that her girlfriend sold the marijuana to her fellow peers while the
Applicant often waited in the car.  (Trp. 73.)  Sometimes the Applicant did not know that
they were engaged in a drug sale.  During the last year they dated, the Applicant’s
mother became a frequent user of marijuana, and she would buy marijuana from the
Applicant’s girlfriend.  To illustrate the transaction, Applicant’s mother would give the
money to buy the drugs to the Applicant and Applicant would then give the money to her
girlfriend.  Applicant’s girlfriend would then give the marijuana to the Applicant, and the
Applicant would then give it to her mother.  
Applicant stated that when she began her current employment, she initiated a
break up with her girlfriend due to irreconcilable differences, and because she did not
want to be associated with that lifestyle anymore.  Applicant stated that in the last two
and a half years, she has had infrequent contact with her girlfriend and limited texting.
Applicant was invited to dinner with her girlfriend and last saw her during that dinner on
May 30, 2013,  just two months before the hearing.  (Tr. p. 76.)
           

4
because of financial issues, and has no knowledge of illegal drug involvement.  She
testified that their company has a no tolerance policy to illegal drug use and she
considers the Applicant to be an asset to the company.  (Tr. pp. 24-30.)
Employee performance evaluations of the Applicant for the periods from
December 2010 through October 2012 reflect that she either “meets requirements” or
“exceeds requirements” in every category that include job knowledge, productivity,
accuracy, problem solving ability, technological skills, dependability, flexibility,
attendance and punctuality, teamwork, interpersonal skills, self-management,
communication skills and leadership abilities.  (Applicant’s Exhibit H.)
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 E (Personal Conduct)
15.  The Concern.  Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified
information.  Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers
during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security
clearance process.
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
16.(c) Credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not
sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which,
when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with
rules and regulations, and other characteristics indicating that the person may not
properly safeguard protected information; and
16.(g) association with persons involved in criminal activity.
Conditions that could mitigate a security concern:
None.
5
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; 
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligation; and 
19.(d) deceptive or illegal financial practices such as embezzlement, employee
theft, check fraud, income tax evasion, expense account fraud, filing deceptive loan
statements, and other intentional financial breaches of trust.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
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 behavior
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
6
 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.”
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 poor personal conduct and 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.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been engaged in poor personal conduct (Guideline E) and has been
financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  This 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 her
security clearance eligibility.
7
The evidence shows that beginning in 2007, the Applicant began a close and
loving relationship with her girlfriend, an illegal drug user and illegal drug dealer.
Applicant continued to date her girlfriend and accompany her on drug deals during their
off and on relationship because she loved her, until their last break up in 2010.
Applicant continues to associate with her girlfriend as is evidenced by her most recent
dinner date in May 2013, just two months before the hearing.  Furthermore, Applicant’s
mother has been using and purchasing illegal drugs.  Applicant currently lives with her
mother.  This conduct shows poor judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness and
raises a serious security concern.      
Under Guideline E, (Personal Conduct), Disqualifying Condition 16.(c) credible
adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an
adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as
a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and
regulations, and other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly
safeguard protected information, and 16.(g) association with persons involved in
criminal activity apply.  None of the mitigating conditions are applicable.  Accordingly, I
find against the Applicant under Guideline E (Personal Conduct).  
          
In addition, the Applicant has not resolved her delinquent indebtedness.  She
obtained a student loan under false pretenses as she did not borrow or use the entire
amount of money for her student expenses.  She gave most of the money to her family
to be used for their family business.  In fact, only $10,000 of the $46,000 was used for
college expenses.  Over the course of several years, Applicant has continually exhibited
a passive approach toward her finances when it comes to what her family wants or
needs and puts their interests first.  This has left her in the situation she is in now.  She
remains excessively indebted.  She has been naive, uninformed and ignorant of the
importance of paying her bills on time.  Furthermore, she does not seem to realized the
magnitude of her actions which only comes with sufficient maturity that she has not
exhibited.  There is insufficient evidence of financial rehabilitation at this time.  The
Applicant has failed to demonstrate that she can properly handle her financial affairs or
that she is fiscally responsible. 
Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Applicant has not met her
burden of proving that she is worthy of a security clearance.  She does not have a
concrete understanding of her financial responsibilities and has not addressed the
delinquent debts in the SOR.  Thus, it cannot be said that she has made a good-faith
effort to resolve her past-due indebtedness.  She has not shown that she is or has been
reasonably, responsibly or prudently addressing her financial situation.  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. 
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligations; and 19.(d) deceptive or illegal financial practices such as embezzlement,
8
employee theft, check fraud, income tax evasion, expense account fraud, filing
deceptive loan statements, and other intentional financial breaches of trust apply.  None
of the mitigating conditions are applicable.  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
the Applicant’s poor decision making and financial indebtedness and the effects that it
can have on her ability to safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded
that the Applicant has failed to 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 Paragraphs 1 and
2 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.: Against the Applicant.
    
Paragraph 2: Against the Applicant.
        Subpara.  2.a.: Against the Applicant.
   
9
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