The Government submitted eight items in support of its case.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-00280
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: David F. Hayes, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On April 17, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant listing security concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations). The action was taken under DOD Regulation 5200.2-R,
Personnel Security Program, dated Jan. 1987, as amended (Regulation); 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 decision based on the
written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant
Material (FORM), dated September 23, 2014.  Applicant received the FORM on1
October 1, 2014. He did not submit additional information in response to the FORM. I
received the case assignment on December 5, 2014. Based on a review of the case
file, I find Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised. Eligibility for a
clearance is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations under Guideline F,
¶¶ 1.a-1.h with explanation. (Item 3)
Applicant is 37 years old. He is employed with a defense contractor. He
graduated from high school in 1995, attended college part time, and obtained an
associate’s degree. Applicant is married and has one child. He served in the military
from October 1997 until November 2000, receiving an Honorable Discharge. While in
the military, he held a security clearance. He has been employed with his current
employer since August 2013. On August 12, 2013, he completed a security clearance
application. (Item 5) 
 The SOR alleges eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $31,500,
including  judgments, a home mortgage loan, credit cards, and other accounts. Credit
reports submitted by the Government confirm the debts. (Items 7 and 8) 
Applicant explained in his Answer that his financial issues began when he was
unemployed from November 2009 until February 2010. (Item 5) The unemployment in
conjunction with low paying jobs contributed to his financial issues.  Applicant has a
number of debts that he hopes to have paid by the end of 2014. He noted that he is
making payment arrangements for several debts. However, he did not provide the
documentation for the payment plans.
In November 2013, during an investigative interview, Applicant explained that his
financial problems are attributable to periods of unemployment and a subsequent
reduction in household income. He was not aware of several creditors and  he originally
disputed some accounts. He did not provide any documentation to support the claims.
When Applicant answered the SOR, he admitted the SOR debts, and stated that
the debt in 1.a is paid, and he provided proof of payment. Applicant noted that the debt
in 1.b was paid, but he did not  provide any documentation. As for the debt in 1.c,
Applicant stated that the debt is paid, but he provided no proof of payment. The
delinquent debt in 1.d is charged-off, and Applicant did not note any plan to make
payment arrangements. Applicant stated that the debt in 1.e is paid, but he did not
provide any documentation. Applicant stated that the last two debts alleged in SOR 1.f
and 1.g are in settlement or payment plans, but he did not provide any documentation.
As to the final debt alleged in 1.g, Applicant provided a form 1099-C to show
cancellation of debt.  (Item 1)
There is nothing in the record to show Applicant’s income or expenses. There is
no record of financial counseling. Since Applicant relied on a written record rather than
a hearing, there is no other information to supplement the record. Any doubts must be
resolved in favor of the Government. Applicant has not provided sufficient
documentation to carry his burden of proof.
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
3
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.
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
Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a2
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
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 clearance5
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
4
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to classified information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a7
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 security clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an 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.”
Applicant’s admissions and credit reports establish the collection accounts,
delinquent debts, and judgments . Consequently, Financial Considerations Disqualifying
Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC
AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply. With such conditions
raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against him and mitigate security
concerns.  
The nature, frequency, and relative recency of Applicant’s financial difficulties
make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago.” “An unpaid debt is a
continuing course of conduct for the purposes of DOHA adjudications.”  ISCR Case No.
10-11083 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 17, 2012). Applicant still has unresolved delinquent debt.
He has not provided sufficient documentation that he has addressed the majority of the
debts. The delinquent obligations remain. Consequently, Financial Considerations
Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(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)
does not apply.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the behavior 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) partially applies. Applicant’s financial
5
difficulties occurred due to a period of unemployment but he did not provide any
information to show the nexus between that unemployment and the delinquent debts.
Applicant provided proof of payment for one debt and cancellation of another debt. He
did not provide any documentation for the other debts that he claimed he has paid. He
receives partial credit under this mitigating condition. 
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) partially applies. Applicant made some effort to
pay some debts. However, as to the other collection accounts or charged-off accounts,
there is no documentation of any payment plan. He has presented insufficient
information to show mitigation. He did not present evidence that he received financial
counseling. AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has received or is receiving counseling for the
problem) does not apply. Given the ultimate burden, I find that there are not clear
indications that his financial problems are being resolved and are under control. 
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 relevant 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 37 years old. He has worked for his current employer since August 2013.
He served in the U.S. military and received an honorable discharge. He held a security
clearance when in the military. Applicant attended college and obtained an Associate’s
degree. Applicant provided documentation for two debts. He does not have a track
record of making payments on the remaining debts. An applicant does not have to have
paid all his delinquent debts to mitigate the security concern under financial
considerations guideline, but he or she must show payment progress with payments or
payment plans. 
6
Applicant relied on the written record and did not have a hearing. However, when
he responded to the FORM, he did not provide documentation of his efforts to satisfy
his debts. He submitted insufficient information and did not supplement the record with
relevant and material facts and proof of payments.  Applicant has not mitigated the
security concerns under the financial considerations guideline.
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: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.b:-1f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g-1.h: For 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 a eligibility for a security
clearance. Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge