1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 14-01032
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Since 2007, Applicant has incurred approximately $33,000 of delinquent debt. He
has made no documented plans to satisfy it, and it remains outstanding. Clearance is
denied. 
Statement of the Case
On May 2, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility
(DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security
concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. 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) implemented by the DOD on
September 1, 2006.
 On May 19, 2014, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting all of the allegations,
and requested a decision on the record rather than a hearing. On November 21, 2014,
2
 
Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) consisting of
documents supporting the government’s allegations. Applicant received the file on
November 26, 2014, and was informed that he had until January 7, 2015 to submit a
response. Applicant did not submit a response, and the case was subsequently
assigned to me on January 29, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 43-year-old married man with four children. Two of the children are
adults and two are teenagers. Applicant has been married to his current wife since
2001. Two previous marriages ended in divorce. (Item 4 at 22-25) Applicant is a high
school graduate and a veteran of the U.S. Army where he served honorably for a year
before receiving a hardship discharge. (Item 4 at 20)(Item 4 at 19-20) Since February
2013, he has worked for a federal government contractor in the field of construction
support.
In 2007, Applicant quit his job and took a job with a lower salary than what he
had been making. He did so because the new job was closer to home and would enable
him to spend more time with his family. (Item 4 at 16)  Subsequently, Applicant was
unable to make ends meet. By the end of the year, he had defaulted on three car loans,
two of which are listed in the SOR. (Subparagraphs 1.a and 1.k)
It is unknown from the record if Applicant ever satisfied the unlisted car loan
delinquency. The car loan delinquencies in subparagraphs 1.a and 1.k remain
outstanding. 
Applicant has incurred multiple other debts, as listed in the SOR. Seven of the
debts are less than $300 (SOR subparagraphs 1.c-1.h; subparagraph 1.l)  In sum, his
delinquencies total approximately $33,000. (Item 2) Applicant has neither satisfied these
delinquencies nor arranged any payment plans.
Policies
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 together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. 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.” 
3
 
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 for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows: 
(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.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “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.”
(AG ¶ 18) Since 2007, Applicant has incurred approximately $33,000 of delinquent debt.
AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations,” apply.
The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable.
(b) 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;
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem
and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control; and  
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts. 
4
 
Applicant’s dedication to his family, demonstrated by quitting his job in 2007 to
take another job with a lower-paying salary to be closer to them, is commendable.
However, he still has a responsibility to responsibly manage his finances. He failed to do
so, and has yet to take any concrete steps to get his finances under control. None of the
mitigating conditions apply. Upon considering the disqualifying conditions, the
inapplicability of any of the mitigating conditions, and the whole-person factors, as set
forth in AG ¶ 2(a), I conclude Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concern. 
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.m: 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.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge