The Government submitted ten items in support of its case.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-01956
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline E. Heintzelman, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On July 11, 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 2, 2014.  Applicant received the FORM on1
September 11, 2014. She did not submit additional information for the record.
(Appellate EX 1) I received the case assignment on February 3, 2015. 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 her answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations under Guideline F,
¶¶ 1.a-1.b with explanation. (Item 4)
Applicant is 63 years old. She graduated from high school in 1969, and obtained
a technical certificate as a medical assistant. (Item 7) She is an administrative assistant
for a defense contractor. Applicant has been divorced three times. She has an adult
daughter. Applicant is single. She has been employed with her current employer since
1997. Applicant has held a security clearance since 2007. On July 27, 2013, she
completed a security clearance application. (Item 5) 
 The SOR alleges two delinquent debts totaling approximately $28,000, including
 a charged-off home-equity loan and a collection account. Credit reports confirm the
debts. (Items 8 through 10) As to the two SOR allegations, Applicant asserts that since
they are both charged-off, they are resolved. 
Applicant explained in her Answer that her financial issues began when she
purchased a second home in 2009, for the benefit of her daughter and son-in-law.
(Items 4,5, and 7).  When Applicant’s daughter was unable to pay the mortgage loan
note due to a 2010 divorce, Applicant moved into the second home. However, Applicant
could not afford both her primary mortgage loans and the second one by 2011. 
Applicant noted that she had several refinances over the course of years for
home improvements. She purchased her primary residence in 2002. When the housing
market dropped, she was in difficulty. She was emphatic that she had no financial
problems before the issue with the second home. She lived within her means and was
current on her obligations. She also helps her elderly mother. (Item 6) She claims that
she is now debt free. (Item 4) She has not had any financial counseling. 
In September 2012, during an investigative interview, Applicant explained that
since she could not afford both home mortgage loans, the logical thing was to let the
primary residence go to foreclosure. She noted that she met with an attorney to decide
a course of action, either a short sale or foreclosure. She wanted something that would
be simple and liquidate the mortgage loan on the second home. She states that the
attorney advised foreclosure. (Item 4) Applicant believes her last mortgage payment
was in 2011.
When Applicant answered DOHA interrogatories, she again referred to the two
SOR allegations as charged-off accounts and that she plans to take no action on them
as they are no longer her responsibility. (Item 7)
 Applicant earns approximately $55,546 annually. She listed her total monthly net
income as $2,416, and her net remainder as $1,089.32. As part of her assets she listed
property worth $35,000 in another state. She has a 401(k) account and some savings. 
 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 charged-off accounts in
the amount of approximately $28,000. 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 her 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.
The delinquent obligations remain despite the fact that they are charged off on her
credit report. 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) does not apply. Applicant’s financial
difficulties occurred when a second home that she purchased for her daughter in 2009
5
was in danger due to her daughter’s 2010 divorce. Applicant moved from her primary
residence and lived in her daughter’s home so that she could help pay the mortgage
loan. However, by 2011, she could not afford both mortgage notes. She defaulted on
the primary residence and it went to foreclosure. She considers the fact that it is now
charged off on her credit report, it is no longer her responsibility. She does not intend to
pay either account. She did not act responsibly in this matter. She does not receive
mitigation under this guideline. 
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply. Applicant presented no
information concerning the foreclosure or any attempts that she made to address or
resolve the SOR allegations. She stated that she intends to take no action on them
since they are charged off. She has not met her burden. She did not present evidence
that she 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 doubts about her judgment and responsibility in this case. 
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 63 years old. She has worked for her current employer since 1997. She has
held a security clearance since 2007. There is no evidence in the record of any security
incidents. Applicant tried to help her daughter with a home mortgage, but let her primary
residence go to foreclosure. She does not intend to take any action on the two SOR
debts related to the primary home. She erroneously believes that she has no financial
responsibility because they are charged off accounts.   
6
Applicant relied on the written record and did not have a hearing. However, she
did not respond to the FORM with any other information. Based on the facts in the
record, she has not met her burden of proof. I have doubts about her judgment and
responsibility. 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
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.b: 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 a eligibility for a security
clearance. Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge