Applicant’s middle names were incorrectly merged into one name on the Statement of Reasons.  She has1
two middle names as shown here, per her two security clearance applications. (Item 5 at 5; Item 9 at 6.) 
Item 5.2
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
                                      )       ISCR Case No. 14-022511
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant incurred about $43,000 in delinquent debts over the past seven years,
and failed to document resolution of any of them. She was fired from her previous job
for making personal long-distance calls on the company’s telephone. Resulting security
concerns were not mitigated. Based on a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility
for access to classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on January 17, 2013.  On2
July 28, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DoD
CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns
Item 1.3
Item 4. 4
Department Counsel submitted 10 Items in support of the SOR allegations. Item 8 is inadmissible and will5
not be considered or cited as evidence in this case. It is the summary of an unsworn interview of Applicant
conducted by an interviewer from the Office of Personnel Management on February 20, 2013. It was never
adopted by Applicant as her own statement, or otherwise certified by her to be accurate. Under Directive ¶
E3.1.20, this Report of Investigation summary is inadmissible in the absence of an authenticating witness.
Item 5.6
Applicant admitted SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.e, 1.g through 1.n, 1.s, and 1.t.7
Applicant denied SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.f, 1.o, 1.p, 1.q, and 1.r.8
2
under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct).  The3
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 that came into effect in
the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted a written response to the SOR on August 22, 2014, and
requested that her case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record
without a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on4
December 2, 2014. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was5
provided to Applicant, and she was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit
material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of her receipt of the
FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of her copy of the FORM
on January 27, 2015. She submitted no additional material in response to the FORM,
made no objection to consideration of any contents of the FORM, and did not request
additional time to respond. I received the case assignment on March 16, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 35 years old, and has worked for a defense contractor since August
2011. She has never married, and has two children ages 17 and 5. She earned her high
school diploma in 1997, and an information systems networking associate’s degree in
2006. She has no military service, and was granted a security clearance in late 2007 in
connection with previous employment.  6
In her response to the SOR, Applicant admitted 12 allegations  concerning her7
delinquent debts, with uncorroborated explanations claiming she had either paid them
or made arrangements to do so. She denied the remaining eight allegations,  claiming8
Item 4. She neither said from where they were “removed,” nor provided an updated credit report or letters9
from a credit bureau to corroborate her claims.
SOR ¶ 1.f.10
Items 4, 6, and 7.11
Item 6.12
Item 7.13
SOR ¶ 1.m.14
Items 4 and 6.15
3
that the alleged debts were not hers and were “removed.”  Applicant’s admissions are9
incorporated into the following findings of fact.
The eight delinquent debts that Applicant claimed were not hers appear on one
or both record credit reports. Seven of the eight (totaling $4,100) are medical accounts
that went unpaid between 2007 and 2012, and were placed for collection. The eighth
debt  was an $8,321 automobile loan account that was opened in February 2004, last10
paid in May 2008, and charged off by the lender in October 2010. Applicant offered no
evidence to support her claims that these debts were not hers, or had otherwise been
resolved.11
Applicant admitted owing the five student loan debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.g, 1.h,
1.i, 1.k, and 1.l, totaling $22,763. She claimed that they are in a loan rehabilitation
program, but provided neither details nor documentary corroboration of that assertion.
Comparing the balances due on these debts reported on her March 17, 2014 credit
report,  with those on her February 8, 2013 credit report,  shows a net reduction of12 13
$1,208 due on the four ECMC loans and an increase of $566 on the CITIBANK loan. 
Applicant also admitted owing the remaining seven alleged delinquent debts,
totaling $7,737. She claimed, again without supporting evidence, that six of them had
either been paid or that she had made arrangements to pay them. All remain unpaid on
her most recent record credit report. She said that she was disputing the seventh of
these debts,  for $1,965 to a fitness club, because she thought her contract could be14
canceled with a doctor’s order. She did not document a basis for this claim either.15
The record does not address whether Applicant obtained financial counseling.
She offered no evidence showing a budget from which her ability to resolve these
delinquencies or avoid additional debt problems could be predicted with any confidence.
Applicant admitted that she was fired in March 2011 from her employment at
another government contractor, where she started working in October 2008, due to her
violation of an ethics policy by making numerous personal long-distance calls on her
work telephone line. She was unemployed for about five months thereafter. She was
Items 4 and 5.16
4
also unemployed between jobs from October 2005 to August 2006, October 2004 to
March 2005, and November 2002 to September 2003. She voluntarily quit her jobs
before the most recent two periods to attend school. The earliest period resulted from
being laid off from a receptionist job due to budget cutbacks.  16
The record lacks evidence concerning the quality of Applicant’s professional
performance, the level of responsibility her duties entail, or her track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. No character
witnesses provided statements describing her judgment, trustworthiness, integrity, or
reliability. I was unable to evaluate her credibility, demeanor, or character in person
since she elected to have her case decided without a hearing.  
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used in
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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 the 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”
5
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter into a
fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon 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 or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns under the guideline for financial considerations are set out
in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:      
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. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
Department Counsel asserted, and the record evidence established, security
concerns under two Guideline F DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.
Applicant admitted $30,500 in unresolved delinquent debts that she incurred over
the past seven years. She provided no corroboration for her claims to have recently
repaid some of them, or arranged payments for others. The balance of record evidence
contradicts her claims that she is not responsible for the other eight alleged
delinquencies, totaling $12,421. Her ongoing pattern and history of inability or
unwillingness to pay lawful debts raises security concerns under DCs 19(a) and (c), and
shifts the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those concerns. 
The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:
(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; 
6
(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; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.
Applicant has incurred substantial delinquent debts, totaling almost $43,000,
which continue to date. She claimed that several smaller alleged debts have been or
are being resolved, but offered no evidence from which to determine the validity of
these statements or establish a track record of debt resolution. She failed to
demonstrate that conditions beyond her control contributed to her financial problems or
that she acted responsibly under such circumstances. MC 20(e) requires documented
proof to substantiate the basis of a dispute concerning an alleged debt, and Applicant
failed to provide such evidence. Accordingly, the record is insufficient to establish
mitigation under any of the foregoing provisions for her financial irresponsibility.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
AG ¶ 16 describes one condition that raises security concerns and may be
disqualifying with relation to the allegations in this case:
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any
other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse
determination, but which, when combined with all available information
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply
7
with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the
person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes
but is not limited to consideration of: . . . (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule
violations; and (4) evidence of significant misuse of Government or other
employer’s time or resources. 
Applicant was fired in 2011 for misusing her employer’s telephone service for
numerous personal long-distance calls. This occurred during a period of time that many
of her debts went unpaid, indicating that she not only violated known company ethics
policies, but consciously chose to charge personal expenses to her employer. This
demonstrated questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor,
and unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.
AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate personal conduct security
concerns. Three have potential applicability under the facts in this case:
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is
so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable,
or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur; and
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.
Applicant’s misuse of her employer’s resources was serious enough to result in
her termination. It was relatively recent, and did not occur under unusual circumstances.
Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence from which to conclude that this
misconduct does not adversely reflect on her current reliability, trustworthiness, and
judgment. Nor did she demonstrate counseling, rehabilitation, or other steps to reduce
vulnerability to manipulation or duress. Thus, Applicant failed to establish mitigation
under any of these conditions.
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 the applicant’s
conduct and all 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
8
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.   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is an accountable
adult, who is responsible for her voluntary choices and conduct that underlie the
security concerns expressed in the SOR. Her delinquent debts arose over the past
seven years and remain largely unresolved despite her full employment, or voluntary
unemployment to attend school, during the period involved. She offered insufficient
evidence of financial counseling, rehabilitation, better judgment, or responsible conduct
in other areas of her life to offset resulting security concerns. She also violated ethics
policy by misusing her former employer’s telephone service to make numerous personal
long-distance calls. The potential for pressure, coercion, and duress from her financial
situation remains undiminished, and she has not demonstrated a basis to conclude that
she would not violate rules or regulations for personal gain in the future. Overall, the
record evidence leaves me with substantial doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility and
suitability for a security clearance. She did not meet her burden to mitigate the security
concerns arising from her financial considerations and personal conduct.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.t: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant
9
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.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge