1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-00839
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
October 10, 2014
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on November 23, 2013. (Government Exhibit 1.)  On April 24, 2014, 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 May 19, 2014 (Answer), and
requested a hearing before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA). Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on July 2, 2014.
This case was assigned to me on July 11, 2014. DOHA issued notices of hearing on
July 25, and August 25, 2014. I convened the hearing as scheduled on September 9,
2014. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 5, which were admitted
without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf, and submitted Applicant Exhibits
A through F, also without objection. Applicant asked that the record remain open for the
2
receipt of additional documents. Applicant submitted Applicant Exhibit G on September
10, 2014, and it was admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the
hearing (Tr.) on September 18, 2014, and the record closed. Based upon a review of
the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is
granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 35, single and has a Bachelor of Arts degree. He is employed by a
defense contractor and seeks to retain a security clearance in connection with his
employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable,
untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant
admitted subparagraphs 1.c and 1.d. in the SOR under this paragraph. Those
admissions are findings of fact. He denied the remaining allegations. He also submitted
additional information to support his request for a security clearance.
The SOR lists four delinquent debts, totaling approximately $16,021. The
existence and amount of the debts is supported by a credit report dated December 10,
2013. (Government Exhibit 3.)
The current status of the debts is as follows:
1.a. and 1.b. Applicant denies that he is currently delinquent on two of his
student loans. He admits that he did fall behind on these loans in approximately 2012.
He entered a rehabilitation program, which required him to make twelve monthly
payments to the state education assistance authority of the state where he attended
college. He successfully completed that process in May 2014. Subsequent to that he
has been paying the affected student loans directly to the lender. Applicant has
obtained ten student loans. Records from the lenders show that Applicant has paid off
three of the loans, and is current with his payments for the others. The most recent
credit reports in the record indicate that all of Applicant’s student loans are current.
(Government Exhibits 4, and 5; Applicant Exhibits B, and G at 3; Tr. 45-61.) These
debts have been resolved.
1.c. Applicant admits that he was indebted for a medical bill in the amount of
$342. Applicant provided documentation showing he paid this bill on May 12, 2014.
(Applicant Exhibit G at 2, 4; Tr. 37-40.)
1.d. Applicant admits that he was indebted for a cable bill in the amount of $88.
Applicant provided documentation showing he paid this bill on May 9, 2014. The most
3
recent credit reports in the record show this debt as paid. (Government Exhibits 4 and 5;
Applicant Exhibit G at 2, 4; Tr. 40-45.)
Mitigation
Applicant submitted documentation showing that he is a highly respected person
and employee. He served honorably in the United States Air Force for five years,
leaving the service in 2005. For his service he received an Air Force Achievement
Medal, as well as other recognition. (Applicant Exhibits A, and C at 1, 3, 5, 7 through
12.)
Applicant has worked for his current employer since 2011. Records from his
employer indicate that he is a valued employee, who receives high marks for his
abilities. His current supervisor states that Applicant’s conduct indicates that he has
values “like trust, excellence, teamwork, integrity and passion.” (Applicant Exhibits C at
2, 4, 6, D, E, and F.)
Applicant testified that his current financial situation is stable. He is able to pay all
of his current debts and repay his student loans without trouble. (Tr. 28-31, 61-62.)
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 AG ¶ 2 describing 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.  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.
4
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
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, by his own admission, and supported by the documentary
evidence, had four delinquent debts that he formerly could not resolve. 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), disqualifying conditions
may be mitigated where Athe behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or
5
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.@ In addition,
based on the particular facts of this case, I find that he has “initiated a good-faith effort
to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” as required by AG ¶ 20(d).
The evidence shows that both of the above mitigating conditions apply to
Applicant. Applicant fell behind on resolving two of his student loans, and two small
debts. Applicant has not tried to avoid this situation, but has worked hard to resolve it.
He entered and successfully completed a rehabilitation program regarding his student
loans, and he is making current, timely payments. The small debts have been resolved.
Applicant has not received financial counseling. However, as found above, his
current financial situation is stable. I find that “there are clear indications that the
problem is being resolved or is under control,” as required by AG ¶ 20(c). All of these
mitigating conditions apply to the facts of this case. Guideline F is found for 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. While Applicant has had financial problems in
the past, they have been resolved, and he has the knowledge and ability to avoid such
problems in the future. 
Under AG ¶ 2(a)(2), I have considered the facts of Applicant’s debt history.
Based on the record, I find that there have been permanent behavioral changes under
AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); and that there is a low likelihood of recurrence
(AG ¶ 2(a)(9)). 
6
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with no questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
situation. Accordingly, the evidence supports granting his request for a security
clearance.
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 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 eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge