1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)  ISCR Case No. 14-02343
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell,  Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On October 2, 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 29, 2015.  A notice of
hearing was issued on February 26, 2015, scheduling the hearing for April 3, 2015.
Government Exhibits (GX) 1-5 were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant
testified and submitted Exhibits AX A through E, which were admitted into the record.
The transcript was received on April 14, 2015. Based on a review of the pleadings,
testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
2
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted half the SOR allegations and
denied half, with explanations.
Applicant is a 30-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has an
associate’s degree from a community college. Applicant obtained his undergraduate
degree in 2014. Applicant worked full time while attending those classes at night.  He is
starting to take courses in information technology (IT), so that he may become more
marketable. Applicant has been employed with his current employer since January
2014. He held a position of public trust, but this is his first application for a security
clearance. (GX 1)
Applicant is single and has no children. He takes care of his mother and father.
(Tr. 36) Applicant provides financial support to his mother by paying her rent and
groceries. He sends his father about $200 about once a month. (Tr. 36) Before his
current job, Applicant had a series of low paying jobs. He also had jobs where he had
fewer than full-time hours. Some weeks he would only work about 22 hours. (Tr. 35)
Applicant has been applying for part-time jobs to supplement his income. He has an
interview for a security guard position. (Tr. 77)
The SOR alleges seven delinquent debts in the total amount of about $12,000,
but Applicant admits to three of the debts totaling $6,600. (GX 2) .
Applicant explained that when he learned about some delinquent accounts on
his credit report, he reached out to the creditors and established a payment plan. He
also paid some that he was able to pay. One of the debts was a student loan and
Applicant is paying monthly with an established payment plan. (Tr.10; AX G)
Applicant has a 2012 judgment in the amount of $4,413 resulting from surgery.
(GX 4) He was not aware of the judgment until he received the SOR.  Applicant tried to
resolve the debt with the insurance company. He had a payment plan and was sending
them $50 monthly.  He stopped the payments when he learned that there was an error
with the insurance billing. Applicant asked for a statement from the rehabilitation
company, but they never provided one. (Tr. 42) He is waiting for a response to resolve
the issue. He intends to settle the account, but needs an explanation from the
insurance company. (Tr. 29) He is disputing the bill. (Tr. 68)
Applicant believes the debt alleged in SOR 1.b, a 2007 judgment in the amount
of $1,814, is fraudulent. There is a consent judgment but Applicant could not recall the
particulars. He stated that he made three payments, but stopped because he did not
want to pay for something that was not his bill. He remembers giving $50 last year. This
account no longer appears on his credit account. (AX E) Applicant later learned that his
roommate may have had something to do with the credit card.
 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
3
As to SOR 1.c, a collection account in the amount of $444, Applicant recently
settled the medical account for $230. He provided documentation that reflected a zero
balance for the account. (AX C and D)
Applicant provided documentation for the alleged debts in SOR 1.d though 1.g to
three creditors. They are also associated with his surgery. When Applicant contacted
the company he received the statements that show a zero balance. (AX A, B and F) He
offered these statements as evidence.
Applicant earns approximately $2,800 net a month. He has applied for a part
time job. He sometimes has a negative net monthly remainder. He now has a
roommate to help with expenses. Sometimes his girlfriend helps with expenses.  He
has not received 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
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
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
 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
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.
Applicant admitted he owes delinquent debts as reported in his SOR. He settled
some non-SOR debts. He still has an unresolved debt. His credit reports confirm the
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 him and mitigate security concerns.  
5
Applicant had surgery in 2011 and the bills that are delinquent are the result of
the surgery and the rehabilitation. He was unaware of the judgment related to the debt.
That account is still unresolved. 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.
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)
applies. Applicant had surgery and rehabilitation. He had insurance at the time. He
contacted the insurance company and the company that billed him. He tried to pay what
he could in the beginning, but he stopped because he was not sure of the validity of the
bills. He has submitted documentation that the majority have been settled. This
mitigating condition applies.
(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 initially
with payment plans. He explained why he stopped the payments. He has settled the
medical accounts. He is still working to resolve the judgment. He did not ignore the
accounts. (FC MC) 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. 
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. 
6
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 30 years old.  He has worked hard to obtain an undergraduate degree. He
is still taking classes to better his job opportunities. He helps his parents. He recently
obtained a permanent job. He has worked in a variety of positions, and some have
been low paying. He provided documentation to prove that the medical accounts have
been resolved. The delinquent bills did not result from frivolous spending. He had
surgery. He disputes the judgment that may be the result of fraud.
Applicant has  met his burden to overcome security concerns under the financial
considerations guideline. I believe that he has acted responsibly. I have no doubts
about his current reliability and judgment. Clearance is granted.   
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.g: 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