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. 14-01601
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Pamela Benson, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On June 4, 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 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 January 9, 2015.  Applicant received the FORM on September1
11, 2014. He did not submit additional information for the record. (Appellate EX 1) I
received the case assignment on March 10, 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 his answers to the SOR, Applicant admitted the majority of the allegations
under Guideline F, ¶¶ 1.a-1.v with explanations. (Item 4) Applicant did not recall some
of the debts.
Applicant is 48 years old. He graduated from high school in 1984, and attended
college for about two years. He obtained a degree from a technical college. (Item 7) He
is an engineer for a defense contractor. Applicant has been divorced twice. He has two
adult children. Applicant is single, but has a girlfriend. He has been employed with his
current employer since 1986. Applicant has held a security clearance since 1986, but
he noted that he has never seen or read anything that requires a clearance. On January
19, 2012, he completed a security clearance application. (Item 5) 
 The SOR alleges 21 delinquent debts totaling approximately $33,290, including 
a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in 1997. (Item 1) Credit reports confirm the debts.
(Items 6 through 8) As to  SOR allegations, Applicant asserts that he paid $2,400 to a
law firm for the debt alleged in 1.h. (Item 4)
Applicant explained in his Answer that his financial issues began when he
attempted to help his girlfriend with the purchase of a new business. He loaned her
money and co-signed a loan. Applicant’s girlfriend did not repay Applicant, and she filed
for bankruptcy.  Applicant also co-signed for a number of credit cards for his girlfriend.
(Item 5)
In March 2012, during an investigative interview, Applicant explained that he
reviewed his 2012 credit report and stated that in three months he would pay off the
debts. At that time he had five charged-off accounts and seven collection accounts.  His
401(k) loan payments would end, and Applicant noted that in April 2012, his child
support of $800 a month would end. He would be in a financial position to pay his
delinquent debts and get his finances in order. (Item 5)
When Applicant answered the 2014 DOHA interrogatories, he again referred to
the $2,400 payment he made to a law firm. He did not specify which debt was
addressed by this payment, and he did not provide any documentation showing he paid
$2,400 to the law firm. Applicant did not provide any documentation for any payments
on any of the alleged delinquent debts.
 Applicant listed his total monthly net income as $4,726, and his net remainder
as $124. As part of his assets he listed real estate, savings, stocks, and a car/boat that
totaled $262,427. There is nothing in the record that shows financial counseling.
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
 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.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
3
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
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
 Id.      7
4
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 delinquent SOR debts in
the amount of approximately $33,920. In 1997, his debts were discharged under
Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. 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.
The delinquent obligations remain despite the fact that Applicant promised to pay them
after his child support ended in 2012. 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 he co-signed loans for his girlfriend and used credit cards to
give her cash. He has been employed for 28 years, but he chose to fund his friend’s
5
business venture. He did not act responsibly under the circumstances. Applicant has
been aware of the debts since his 2012 investigative interview and stated that he
intended to act to resolve his delinquent debts. He noted that he would have money
when his child support obligation was paid. He did not act responsibly in this matter
because he did not provide any evidence that he has paid any debts or that he has a
plan to do so. He does not receive mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b). 
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 any attempts that he made to address or resolve the SOR
allegations. He has not met his burden. 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 doubts
about his 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 has worked as an engineer for his current company for 28 years. There is no
record of unemployment. He has held a security clearance since his first employment.
There is no evidence in the record of any security incidents. Applicant tried to help his
friend by co-signing loans and giving her cash. However, it is his responsibility to repay
the loans. He did not submit information to mitigate the financial considerations security
concern.
Applicant relied on the written record and did not have a hearing. He did not
respond to the FORM with any other information. Based on the facts in the record, he
6
has not met his burden of proof. I have doubts about his 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.v: 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