1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 11-14781
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
December 31, 2013
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on October 5, 2011. (Item 5.)  On March 14, 2013, the Department of Defense
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations) concerning Applicant. The action was taken 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) effective within the Department of Defense on September
1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on June 4; July 19; and August 7, 2013,
and requested a decision by an administrative judge without a hearing. (Item 4.)
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) to
Applicant on September 19, 2013. The FORM contained nine Items. Applicant
acknowledged receipt of the FORM on September 30, 2013. She was given 30 days
from receipt of the FORM to file objections or submit any additional documentation.
Applicant elected not to submit any additional information. The case was assigned to
It is acknowledged that most credit reports do not identify specific medical creditors.1
2
me on November 26, 2013. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility
for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 56 and unmarried. She is employed by a defense contractor and
seeks to obtain a security clearance in connection with her employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because she is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable,
untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant
admitted all the allegations in the SOR under this Paragraph. She also submitted
additional information to support her request for a security clearance.
The SOR lists 19 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $17,450. The
existence and amount of these debts is supported by credit reports dated October 14,
2011; and January 14, 2013. (Items 9, and 8. See also Interrogatories submitted by
Applicant. (Items 6 and 7.)) Applicant states that her credit issues are the result of some
health problems, and also the result of co-signing credit accounts for her children, who
subsequently were unable to pay their debts. (Item 6 at 3, 7.) Applicant indicated
confusion about the medical debts in particular, stating that she was paying her medical
bills and did not know who the various medical creditors were. (Item 6 at 8, Item 7.)  As1
will be shown below, Applicant is making payments on some of her debts.
The current status of the debts is as follows:
1.a. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a medical creditor for a past-due
debt in the amount of $30. Applicant states in interrogatories dated February 14, 2013,
“This one I am paying sent money off.” (Item 7 at 6.) In another set of interrogatories,
also dated February 14, 2013, Applicant supplied copies of money orders sent to
various creditors. (Item 6 at 12-15.) A money order to this creditor in this amount is not
included. Based on all of the available information I find that this debt is not resolved.
1.b. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a medical creditor for a past-due
debt in the amount of $187. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this
debt has been paid, or that she has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.c. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a medical creditor for a past-due
debt in the amount of $95. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this
debt has been paid, or that she has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
This appears to be incorrect. They are actually two different debts.2
3
1.d. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a medical creditor for a past-due
debt in the amount of $1,569. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this
debt has been paid, or that she has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.e. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a medical creditor for a past-due
debt in the amount of $369. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this
debt has been paid, or that she has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.f. Applicant admits that she was indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in
the amount of $53. She submitted a money order receipt in this amount showing the
debt was paid in February 2013. This debt is resolved.
1.g. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in
the amount of $1,388. She indicates that there is a payment arrangement with this
creditor. (Item 6 at 12.) She also states that this is the same debt as the one set forth in
1.i. (Item 7 at 5.)  She submitted two money order receipts to this creditor from February2
2013 totaling $30. However, Applicant did not submit any other receipts or information
showing that these payments are acceptable to the creditor. Based on all the available
information I find that this debt is not resolved.
1.h. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in
the amount of $798. She indicates that there is a payment arrangement with this
creditor and submitted two money order receipts from February 2013 in the total amount
of $30.  However, Applicant did not submit additional receipts showing that she is
continuing to make payments as arranged. Based on all the available information I find
that this debt is not resolved.
1.i. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in
the amount of $752. She indicates that there is a payment arrangement with this
creditor to pay $50 a month for 12 months. (Item 6 at 10.) She also states that this is the
same debt as the one set forth in 1.g. (See footnote 2.) Applicant also submitted one
money order receipt in the amount of $50 from February 2013. (Item 6 at 15.) However,
Applicant did not submit additional receipts showing that she is continuing to make
payments as arranged. Based on all the available information I find that this debt is not
resolved.
1.j. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in
the amount of $1,870. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this debt
has been paid, or that she has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.k. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in
the amount of $1,026. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this debt
has been paid, or that she has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
4
1.l. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in
the amount of $6,590. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this debt
has been paid, or that she has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.m. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in
the amount of $780. She indicates that there is a payment arrangement with this
creditor to pay $35 biweekly. (Item 6 at 7.) Applicant also submitted one money order
receipt in the amount of $35 from February 2013. (Item 6 at 16.) However, Applicant did
not submit additional receipts showing that she is continuing to make payments as
arranged. Based on all the available information I find that this debt is not resolved.
1.n. Applicant admits that she was indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in
the amount of $62. Applicant states in her Answer of July 19, 2013, that she had paid
this debt off. There are three money order receipts contained in Item 6 at pages 14 and
15, totaling $60, which are for “Doctor Hospital.” Based on all of the available
information I find that this debt is resolved.
1.o. Applicant admits that she was indebted for a past-due debt in the amount
of $705 for telephone service. However, Applicant has also indicated that this account is
fraudulent and that she has been in communication with the telephone company.
(Answer of July 19, 2013; Item 6 at 8, Item 7 at 4.) This debt is not found on the most
recent credit report in the record, from January 2013 (Item 8.) Based on all of the
available information I find that this debt has been disputed and resolved.
1.p. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in
the amount of $98. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this debt has
been paid, or that she has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.q. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in
the amount of $74. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this debt has
been paid, or that she has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.r. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in
the amount of $56. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this debt has
been paid, or that she has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
1.s. Applicant admits that she is indebted to a creditor for a past-due debt in
the amount of $948. No evidence was submitted by Applicant showing that this debt has
been paid, or that she has any plans to pay this debt. This debt is not resolved.
Applicant submitted no evidence that she has received any financial counseling.
The evidence shows that she has been employed by her company since 2007. (Item 5
at Section 13.) Applicant did not complete a Personal Financial Statement as requested.
(Item 7 at 9.)
Applicant provided no evidence concerning the quality of her professional
performance, the level of responsibility her duties entail, or her track record with respect
5
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. She submitted
no character references or other evidence tending to establish good judgment,
trustworthiness, or reliability. I was unable to evaluate her credibility, demeanor, or
character in person since she elected to have her case decided without a hearing. 
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  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 and
mitigating conditions, which are to be used as appropriate 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 the adjudicative process. (AG ¶ 2.) The administrative judge’s over-
arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. According to
AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious 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. In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on his or her own
common sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the ways of the
world, in making a reasoned decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that, “Any 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.
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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”
A person who seeks access to classified information enters 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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or
inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a
6
certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk
of compromise of classified information.
 Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any
determination under this order adverse to an 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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18:      
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. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant has over $17,000 in past-due debts, all of which have been
due and owing for several years. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially
disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ Applicant=s
financial difficulties have been in existence since at least 2006. She has resolved very
few of the debts that caused the problems, which continue to date. This mitigating
condition does not have application in this case. 
AG ¶ 20(b) states that the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where “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.”  Applicant states that she has had some medical issues that
have had an impact on her ability to pay her debts. However, Applicant has simply not
shown sufficient evidence that she has acted responsibly under the circumstances. She
7
was interviewed by an investigator connected with the Defense Department in October
2011. (Item 6.) Accordingly, she has had knowledge for almost two years that her
financial situation was of security concern to the Government yet five debts of less than
$100 each remain unaddressed and unresolved. Even allowing Applicant great leeway,
which I do, she simply has not shown that this mitigating condition has application to her
case.
AG ¶ 20(d) states it can be mitigating where, “the individual has initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” In addition, AG ¶
20(e) states it can be mitigating where “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 has submitted evidence to show that she has
made successful payment arrangements with, made payments to, or successfully
disputed, three of the debts listed in the SOR. Accordingly, subparagraphs 1.f, 1.n, and
1.o or found for Applicant.
However, in conclusion, looking at Applicant’s entire financial situation at the
present time, I cannot find that “there are clear indications that the problem is being
resolved or is under control,” as is required by AG ¶ 20(c). Paragraph 1 is found against
Applicant.
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 the relevant circumstances. 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. The administrative judge must 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The discussion under
Guideline F, above, applies here as well. Applicant has had financial problems for
several years, which have not been fully resolved. I have carefully considered the fact of
Applicant’s medical issues with regards to her ability to pay her debts. I have also
considered her actions earlier this year with regards to some of her debts. She simply
8
did not show sufficient information to support her request for a security clearance. If
Applicant is able to get a firmer grasp on her finances, and shows a plan to successfully
resolve her debts through evidence of continuing payments and resolution of all the
debts, she may be eligible for a security clearance in the future. She is not eligible now.
Under AG ¶ 2(a)(3), her conduct is recent and continuing. I cannot find that there
have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I also
cannot find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); or that there is no likelihood of continuation or recurrence (AG ¶
2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from her financial
situation. Accordingly, the evidence supports denying her request for a security
clearance.
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
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.I: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s: Against Applicant
9
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.
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge