1
                                                           
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
)       ISCR Case No. 11-09374
Applicant for Security Clearance  )
Appearances
For Government: Stephanie Hess, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen, A., Administrative Judge:
On October 16, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging 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 a hearing before an
administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on December 6, 2013. A notice of
hearing was issued on December 13, 2013, scheduling the hearing for January 7, 2014.
Government Exhibits (GX) 1-4 were admitted into evidence, without objection. Applicant
testified, and submitted Applicant Exhibits (AX) A-C, which were admitted without
objection.  I kept the record open for additional submissions which the Applicant timely
provided. The submission was entered into the record without objection as AX D. The
transcript (Tr.) was received on January 9, 2014. The record closed on January 13,
2014.  Based on a review of the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for access
to classified information is granted.
2
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations under
Guideline F (Financial Considerations), with the exception of ¶¶ 1.c and 1.d.
Applicant is a 46-year-old defense contractor. He served in the U.S. Navy from
October 1986 until October 1988.  Applicant received his undergraduate degree in
1993. Since 2007, Applicant has served in the Army National Guard.  He has been with
his current employer since February 2011. (GX 1) He has held a security clearance
since 2011.
Applicant married in 1993. He and his wife have one daughter, who is 17 years
of age. Applicant and his wife divorced in 2000. Applicant pays child support for his 17-
year-old daughter. Applicant pays $520 a month. The Child Support Agency (CSA)
considers him current with his obligation.  
When Applicant was married, his wife was the primary wage earner. Applicant
worked as much as he could, but he was in school. He had many temporary or part
time jobs that paid little money. From 2001 until 2005, (after the divorce) Applicant
returned to work full time. His salary did not support the amount of child support that he
was ordered to pay. He incurred some arrears, which he is now repaying. The arrears
will be paid by September 2014. (Tr. 28)
The SOR alleges four delinquent debts, including collection accounts and a
charged-off account totaling approximately $27,900.
Applicant received counseling and consulted a bankruptcy attorney. He decided
against filing for bankruptcy. He wanted to pay or settle his legitimate debts. (Tr. 29) In
2005, he also contacted a credit restoration company. He was not pleased with their
efforts so he stopped using them. 
The account alleged in SOR 1.a for approximately $3,500 is awaiting resolution.
When Applicant learned about the debt, he contacted the original creditor and learned
that it had been sold to a collection company. He has called several times and no one
has returned his call. He called as recently as last month. He stands ready to establish
a payment plan.
The  account in the amount of $12,093 alleged in SOR 1.b is paid. (AX A)
Applicant contacted the original creditors and established a payment plan for the
account. In 2011, Applicant paid  $2,000, and in December he completed his payments.
(Tr. 17) 
The  past-due account alleged in SOR 1.c for approximately $3,968 is paid.
Applicant provided information that the account has a zero balance. (AX B) He has no
other accounts with this bank.
3
The past-due account alleged in SOR 1.d  is the same account alleged in 1.c. A
credit report shows that the account is paid and closed. (GX 4) The Government did not
dispute that this is the same account. (Tr. 24)
. 
Applicant’s annual income is about $60,000. He also receives his National Guard
pay. He remarried in 2007, and his wife’s income contributes to the finances. (Tr. 30)
He uses a budget. He estimates that after expenses, he has approximately $662 net
monthly remainder. (GX 3) Applicant submitted documentation that he is current on his
car note. (AX C) Applicant has no new debt. He saves money each month. Applicant
submitted a post-hearing submission, which embodies his family budget. (AX D)
Applicant stressed that he has been proactive since the financial issues
occurred. He obtained a credit report and is working with his wife to maintain a healthy
financial situation. He paid other accounts that were on an original debt list from the
government. He has been addressing his debts for at least one and a half years prior to
the hearing. He disclosed his delinquent debts and his method of repayment in his
March 2011 security clearance application. (GX 1) He presented a 2014 credit report
that he uses to monitor his debts. (AX B)
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 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
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      1
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      2
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      3
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      4
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
 Id.      6
4
Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a1
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  2 3
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.
 
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 clearance4
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt5
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 a6
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
AG ¶ 18 expresses the security concern pertaining to financial considerations:
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 over-
extended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.
Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes
5
including espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known
sources of income is also a security concern. It may indicate proceeds
from financially profitable criminal acts.
AG ¶ 19 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Applicant acknowledges that he has delinquent debts. His credit reports confirm
the debts. Consequently, the evidence is sufficient to raise the disqualifying conditions
in ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c). 
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. The following
are potentially relevant:
(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; and
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
Applicant’s financial problems began when his marriage dissolved. His wife was
the primary wage earner. He was in school, and had worked part time or in seasonal
work, which did not provide a large income. He did not obtain a steady, reliable, well-
paying position until 2011. He was proactive in resolving his debts.  He did not ignore
his creditors. He also had child support to pay, which he did not ignore. However, due
to the amount of the child support, he did not have sufficient money for all his bills.
Applicant has acted responsibly. In sum, Applicant made good-faith efforts to resolve
and address the financial issues. He is still waiting to hear from one creditor. He stands
ready to make payment arrangements. He has improved his credit score. Applicant
received financial counseling and uses a budget.  He has earned  credit under  AG ¶¶
20(a), (b), (c) and (d).
6
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 a 46-year-old professional with a long history of employment in the defense
arena. He honorably served in the military and has had a security clearance. He serves
in the National Guard.
Applicant has paid several debts that are not alleged on the SOR. He also paid
three SOR debts. He produced documentation that proves his assertion. Applicant
incurred the delinquent debt as a result of separation, divorce, and low paying jobs. He
had not been working when he was married. His ex-wife was the primary earner. Until
2011, he did not have steady, reliable, well-paying employment. He was not able to pay
his debts, but he honored his child support obligations. Applicant has met his burden to
mitigate the financial considerations security concerns.  
Applicant was candid at the hearing. He acted reasonably under the
circumstances. I have no doubts or reservations about Applicant’s current reliability,
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. Clearance is granted. 
7
 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: FOR  APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance is granted 
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge