1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 12-00475
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline E. Heintzelman, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
April 10, 2014
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On September 26, 2013, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F
for Applicant. (Item 1.) 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 after
September 1, 2006. 
 
On November 4, 2013, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and he
requested that his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. (Item 4.)
On November 19, 2013, Department Counsel issued the Department's written case. A
complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant. In the
FORM, Department Counsel offered 10 documentary exhibits. (Items 1-10.) Applicant
was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation,
extenuation, or mitigation. A response was due on February 13, 2014. Applicant
submitted a two page letter that he wrote, a one page character letter, and a bill from an
2
auto repair creditor, which have been entered into evidence without objection as Items
A through C. The case was assigned to this Administrative Judge on March 12, 2014.
Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including
Applicant's RSOR, the admitted additional documents, and the FORM, and upon due
consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of fact: 
Applicant is 51 years old. He is employed by a defense contractor, and he seeks
a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense sector.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists nine allegations (1.a. through 1.i.) regarding financial difficulties
under Adjudicative Guideline F. The debts and the bankruptcy will be discussed below
in the same order as they were listed on the SOR:
1.a. Applicant filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy on or about May 2011. The SOR
alleges that Applicant is $4,610 delinquent in making his payments according to the
bankruptcy plan, and the Chapter 13 Trustee filed a motion to dismiss the bankruptcy.
In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this SOR allegation. He wrote, “I have been in contact
with our bankruptcy attorney regarding this situation, and [the attorney] has been in
contact with the Trustee regarding late payment. We are working out a plan in order to
bring account current.” (Item 4.) 
In a letter by Applicant, dated February 18, 2014, he wrote, “There were months
in which the monthly bankruptcy payment fell behind. These were during times that we
faced the costly car repairs, during the times that I was out of work, and during the times
that repairs needed to be made to our home. We have always kept in constant contact
with our bankruptcy attorney so that she could keep the trustee informed of the
situation.” (Item A.) 
Item 6 included a “Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss for Delinquent Plan Payments and
Notice of Intent to Lodge Order Dismissing Case Without Hearing,” dated August 13,
2013. This motion states that the bankruptcy can be summarily dismissed without
further notice or hearing if the Debtor has not (a) made payments of the full amount
stated as delinquent, (b) converted the bankruptcy to a Chapter 7, or (c)  filed and
served a request for a moratorium of delinquent plan payment. Since Applicant failed to
furnish information to indicate that the bankruptcy is still active, but rather has continued
to reiterate that he is delinquent on the bankruptcy payments, it does appear that the
Trustee’s Motion to Dismiss the bankruptcy should have been granted and that the
bankruptcy would be dismissed. At this point, I cannot assume that the debts are being
satisfied in bankruptcy. 
3
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a medical account in the amount of
$58.  In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this SOR allegation and he wrote that this debt
had not been paid nor was it included in his bankruptcy. He also wrote that he did not
know the source of this debt. (Item 4.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved. 
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-off account in the
amount of $6,231.  In his RSOR, Applicant denied this SOR allegation because this
debt was listed in his bankruptcy. (Item 4.) Since Applicant has not met his
requirements under the bankruptcy, I do not find that this debt has been resolved. 
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-off account in the
amount of $7,664. In his RSOR, Applicant denied this SOR allegation because this debt
was listed in his bankruptcy. (Item 4.) Since Applicant has not met his requirements
under the bankruptcy, I do not find that this debt has been resolved. 
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-off account in the
amount of $9,359.  In his RSOR, Applicant denied this SOR allegation because this
debt was listed in his bankruptcy. (Item 4.) Since Applicant has not met his
requirements under the bankruptcy, I do not find that this debt has been resolved. 
1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a medical account in the amount of
$150.  In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this SOR allegation and he wrote that this debt
had not been paid nor was it included in his bankruptcy. He also wrote that he did not
know the source of this debt. (Item 4.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved. 
1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a medical account in the amount of
$112.  In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this SOR allegation and he wrote that this debt
had not been paid nor was it included in his bankruptcy. He also wrote that he did not
know the source of this debt. (Item 4.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved. 
1.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a medical account in the amount of
$164 In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this SOR allegation and he wrote that this debt
had not been paid nor was it included in his bankruptcy. He also wrote that he did not
know the source of this debt. (Item 4.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved. 
1.i. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a collection account in the amount
of $1,466.  In his RSOR, Applicant denied this SOR allegation because this debt was
listed in his bankruptcy. (Item 4.) Since Applicant has not met his requirements under
the bankruptcy, I do not find that this debt has been resolved. 
As reviewed above, Applicant explained the reason for his current financial
difficulties was that he had costly car repairs, he was unemployed for periods of time,
and repairs needed to be made to his home. Additionally, because  his son was having
problems, he sent his son to a private high school, which cost a significant amount.
Finally, Applicant concluded in response to interrogatories propounded to him that he
and his wife mismanaged their funds, including taking their family to Hawaii in 2009 for
4
a seven day vacation. Ultimately, their “financial difficulties became a heavy burden and
at times I chose to take a blind eye to the situation.” (Item 7.)
Finally, Applicant offered no evidence that with his current financial situation he
would be able to resolve his past overdue debts or stay current with his present debts, if
any additional or unexpected bills should arise. 
Mitigation
In Applicant’s FORM letter, he wrote that he needed to repair two of his two
vehicles, one that cost almost $3,000 and the other costing almost $2,000. (Item A.)
Applicant  submitted a bill for one of the vehicles, dated January 8, 2014, showing the
actual amount of the bill to be $1,608.64. (Item C.) Finally, Applicant submitted a letter
from his direct supervisor, dated January 22, 2014. The supervisor wrote that Applicant
“always proved himself to be a trust worthy (sic) employee. In the eight years that he
worked for me I never doubted his personal integrity.” (Item B.)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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. 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.
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.
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 as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
5
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. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to 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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
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 and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts,” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶  19(c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt, which has not been satisfied. 
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties. Under AG ¶  20(b), it may be mitigating 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.” As
reviewed above, Applicant explained his financial difficulties occurred, in part, because
Applicant was unemployed. Also, the cost of significant unforeseeable automobile
repairs would be considered in this category.  However, some of Applicant’s debt is due
to conditions he could control, including his self-professed mismanagement of his funds,
such as taking his family to Hawaii for a vacation, and when his financial difficulties
6
became a heavy burden, taking a blind eye to the situation. Therefore, I find that this
mitigating condition is not a factor for consideration in this case.
AG ¶  20(d) is arguably applicable, since Applicant “initiated a good-faith effort to
repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” by using the legal remedy of filing
a bankruptcy to resolve his debts. However, since Applicant has not met his financial
obligations under Chapter 13 bankruptcy, I do not find that this mitigation condition or
any other mitigating condition applies to this case. Finally, I cannot conclude that
Applicant will be able to pay off his past debts or keep up to date on his current debts
and expenses, especially if any new or unexpected debts are incurred. 
Therefore, I conclude that Applicant has not mitigated the Financial
Consideration concerns, which are 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 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on all of the reasons cited
above as to why the disqualifying conditions apply and no mitigating conditions are
applicable, I find that the record evidence leaves me with significant questions and
doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance under the
whole-person concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the
security concerns under the whole-person concept. 
7
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. - 1i.: 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 eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge