DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 13-00438
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Pamela Benson, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
April 3, 2014
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on June 21, 2013.  On October 17, 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines
F and E for 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 after
September 1, 2006.
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR soon thereafter.  She answered the
SOR in writing (Answer) on November 5, 2013, and requested an Administrative
Determination by an administrative judge.  Department Counsel issued a File of
Relevant Material (FORM) on December 31, 2013.  Applicant responded to the FORM
(Response) on February 24, 2014.  Department Counsel had no objection, and the
documents are entered into evidence.  Based upon a review of the pleadings and
exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, dated November 5, 2013, Applicant admitted the
factual allegations in Paragraphs 1.b.~1.x. of the SOR, with explanations.  She denied
the factual allegations in Paragraphs 1.a., and 2.a. of the SOR.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Applicant is a 48 year old, “supporting the Warfighter since 2006.”  (Item 5 at
page 5, and Response at page 1.)  It is alleged that she has 23 past due debts, as
supported by credit reports from July of 2013 and December of 2013.  (Items 7 and 8.)
1.a.  Applicant filed for the protection of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in August of
2005.  (Item 6 at page 1.)  The filing was dismissed in January of 2006, as she “failed to
attend two scheduled . . . meetings of the creditors,” and “failed to begin payments
within thirty days of filing the plan.”  (Item 6 at page 6.)  She denies the allegation
claiming merely “we did not go through with” it.  (Answer at page 2.)  This allegation is
supported by court documents; and as such, despite Applicant’s averment, I find it was
filed and dismissed as alleged.
1.b.  It is alleged that Applicant has a judgment pending against her in favor of
Creditor B in the amount of $331.  This judgment has been satisfied by Applicant, as
evidenced by her January 2014 credit report.  (Response at pages 3 and 6.)
1.c.  It is alleged that Applicant has a past-due debt to Creditor C in the amount
of $4,849.  She has engaged the services of a debt counseling service (Answer at
pages 1 and 2); and through them, Applicant is making monthly payments of $66
towards this and to two other, much smaller, alleged past-due debts, 1.q. and 1.w., that
will be discussed below.  (Answer at pages 3 and 4.)
1.d.~1.m.  It is alleged that Applicant has ten past-due debts to Creditor D in an
amount totaling about $1,878.  Through the services of her debt counseling service
these alleged debts have been deleted and removed, as evidenced by her January
2014 credit report.  (Response at pages 6~9.)
1.n., 1.o., 1.t., and 1.x.  It is alleged that Applicant has past-due debts to Creditor
N in an amount totaling about $1,653.  Through the services of her debt counseling
service these alleged debts have been deleted and removed, as evidenced by her
January 2014 credit report.  (Response at pages 7, 13 and 14.)
1.p. and 1.s.  It is alleged that Applicant has past-due debts to Creditor P in an
amount totaling about $516.  Through the services of her debt counseling service these
alleged debts have been deleted and removed, as evidenced by her January 2014
credit report.  (Response at pages 7, 12 and 13.)
1.q.  It is alleged that Applicant has a past-due debt to Creditor Q in the amount
of $289.  She has engaged the services of a debt counseling service (Answer at pages
1 and 2); and through them, Applicant is making monthly payments of $66 towards this
alleged past-due debt.  (Answer at pages 3 and 4.)
3
1.r.  It is alleged that Applicant has past-due debts to Creditor R in an amount of
$172.  Through the services of her debt counseling service this alleged debt has been
deleted and removed, as evidenced by her January 2014 credit report.  (Response at
pages 7 and 12.)
1.u.  It is alleged that Applicant has past-due debts to Creditor U in an amount of
$54.  Through the services of her debt counseling service this alleged debt has been
deleted and removed, as evidenced by her January 2014 credit report.  (Response at
pages 7 and 13.)
1.v.  It is alleged that Applicant has past-due debts to Creditor V in an amount
also of $54.  Through the services of her debt counseling service this alleged debt has
been deleted and removed, as evidenced by her January 2014 credit report.
(Response at pages 7 and 13.)
1.w.  Finally, it is alleged that Applicant has past-due debts to Creditor W in an
amount also of $31.  Through the services of her debt counseling service this alleged
debt has been deleted and removed, as evidenced by her January 2014 credit report.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
2.a.  In answer to “Section 26: Financial Record,” on her on June 21, 2013, e-
QIP, Applicant failed to disclose her $331 judgment in favor of Creditor B, as noted in
subparagraph 1.b., above; and she failed to disclose her “debts turned over to a
collection agency,” as noted in subparagraphs 1.c.~1.x., above.  Applicant avers she
“did not pull my credit report prior to filling out the questionnaire,” which is why she did
not fill out the form properly.  This response is not credible.  She knew, or reasonably
should have known, she had an outstanding judgment and past-due indebtedness when
she executed her e-Qip.
Policies
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 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
Paragraph 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.
Paragraph 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for
4
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 Paragraph E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR.  Under Directive Paragraph 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.
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 Paragraph 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
Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially
disqualifying.  Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations@ may raise security concerns.  Applicant had significant past-due
indebtedness.  The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying
conditions, requiring a closer examination.
5
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties.  Subparagraph (c) applies where “the person
has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear
indications that the problem is being resolved or under control.”  Subparagraph 20(d)
applies where the evidence shows “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.@  Applicant, through her debt counseling
service, has addressed all of her alleged past-due debts.  Financial Considerations are
found for Applicant.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in
Paragraph 15: “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.”
The following Disqualifying Condition under Subparagraph 16(a) applies.  It
provides that the “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts
from any personnel security questionnaire . . . or similar form used to conduct
investigations . . .” may be disqualifying.  I can find no countervailing Mitigating
Condition here, as Applicant should have disclosed her prior judgment and her other
past-due debts.
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.  Under AG Paragraph 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 should also consider the nine adjudicative process
factors listed at AG Paragraph 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 all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and
mitigating conditions surrounding this case.  The record evidence leaves me with
questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.
For these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising
from her Personal Conduct.
6
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
Subparagraphs 1.a.~1.x. For Applicant
Paragraph 1, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a.: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge