1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-02802
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez,  Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On August 5, 2014, the Department of Defense  (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising 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 (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 hearing before an
administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on January 16, 2015. The hearing
was originally scheduled for March 6, 2015, but was postponed due to inclement
weather. The hearing was rescheduled for March 13, 2015 and held accordingly.
Government Exhibits (GX) 1-3 were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant
testified and submitted Applicant Exhibits (AX) A-C, which were admitted without
objection. I kept the record open for an additional submission, and Applicant submitted
another document, which was marked as AX D, and admitted into the record without
objection. The transcript was received on March 20, 2015. Based on a review of the
2
pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is
granted.
Findings of Fact
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant denied the SOR allegations under Guideline
F, with the exception of ¶¶ 1.j, k, and l.
Applicant is 37 years old. She is single and has one daughter who is four years
old. She works as a security assistant, and has been with her current employer since
2007. Applicant has had held a security clearance for seven years. (GX 1)
Applicant attended university and graduated with an undergraduate degree in
2003. She obtained six student loans for her education. She also attended graduate
school for almost three semesters. (Tr. 16 ) her full-time work schedule prevented her
from taking more graduate courses. 
The SOR alleges delinquent debts, including six student loans that are past-due,
six collection accounts, and a past-due mortgage loan in the amount of $16,801.
Applicant admits that she owes some collection accounts. Her student loans (SOR 1.b-
1.g) have been consolidated and are current. Her payments resume in July 2015. (AX
A). Recent credit reports confirm the forbearance. (GX 3) Applicant is also attempting to
have payments lowered. She noted that when she bought a home, she was advised it
would look better if she consolidated the student loans. 
As to the SOR allegation in 1.a, Applicant recently contacted the collection
company. She understands that the account has been sold. The original account was a
credit card. The delinquent amount is $511. (Tr. 27) She is waiting to hear from the
company so that she may address the account. (Tr. 37) As a post-hearing submission,
Applicant presented a settlement for the account with a proof of payment of $256. (AX
D)
Applicant called the telephone/cable company regarding a collection account
(SOR 1.h) for $220. She was told that she does not have a balance. At the present
time, she has all three services that the company provides and is current. (Tr. 28)
In August 2010, Applicant purchased a home for $200,000. The mortgage rate
was a fixed one. She qualified for a program, which permitted her to put $40 down as a
down payment. Applicant had termite problems and some other structural issues. She
had to pay for the repairs. She fell behind in her payments, but she obtained a loan
modification in April 2014. (AX C) The arrearage was added into the approved
modification. The interest rate was lowered, as well as her monthly mortgage payment
by about $150.  She is current on her monthly mortgage payment of $1,191. (Tr. 20)
This addresses SOR 1.i.
3
Applicant paid $750 and provided a receipt for the parking tickets alleged in SOR
1.j, k, and l. (AX B) She believes that she may have another ticket but it is not reflected
on the SOR.
Applicant incurred financial difficulties when her daughter was born. She had just
moved into her house and was not expecting additional expenses. The pregnancy was
unexpected and with the birth of her daughter there were a number of new expenses.
So that Applicant could maintain her work, she had to pay for day care. This was
approximately $703 a month. (Tr. 29) Although Applicant does not receive any court-
ordered child support, she receives about $200 cash a month from the child’s father
and her daughter has health insurance through her father’s company. Applicant’s
daughter is in a non-public preschool and has tuition costs. However, next year
Applicant’s daughter will attend public school. As a result, her expenses for school
tuition will be non-existent. Applicant has a roommate who shares the household
expenses. (Tr. 34)
Applicant’s current position is stable with good health benefits and opportunity for
growth and promotion. Applicant’s annual salary is $64,000. She has earned
promotions and her salary has grown from an initial $36,00. Applicant is current with all
her expenses.  She believes she has about $450 net monthly remainder. (Tr. 31) She
uses a budget and had financial counseling when she bought her home. (Tr. 31)
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 U.S. 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
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      1
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      2
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      3
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      4
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
 Id.      6
4
by Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a1
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  2 3
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 clearance4
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt5
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a6
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 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.” It also states that “an individual who is
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.
5
Applicant admitted she owes the delinquent debts. 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.  
Applicant had a mortgage loan that was past-due and student loans that she
consolidated. She also had parking tickets and a collection account. Her daughter’s
birth created havoc with her budget. She has modified her mortgage and is current with
her expenses. She has steady employment. 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)
partially applies.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (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.  As noted above, Applicant’s financial difficulties are a combination of
several things. This does not apply.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) has some application. Applicant took steps to
modify her mortgage loan, consolidate her student loans, and provide for her daughter.
She has addressed all the delinquent debts.  She now has steady employment with a
company that will provide her with benefits and opportunity for growth and promotion.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(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) partially applies.
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 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. 
6
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. She is single and has one daughter. Applicant has held a
security clearance for seven years.  She lives within her means. Her credit reports
reflect that she pays most of her accounts “as agreed.” She has acted responsibly.
Applicant has shown financial reform. 
Applicant has shown sound judgment and reliability throughout the years. She
has persuaded me that she refuted and mitigated the Government’s case concerning
security concerns under the financial considerations guideline. She met her burden of
proof.   
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 : FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.l: 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is granted.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge