The Government submitted four items for the record.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-02476
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: John Bayard Glendon,  Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On July 11, 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 review based on the written
record in lieu of a hearing. The case was assigned to me on April 27, 2015.
Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), dated February 25,
2015 . Applicant received the FORM on March 12, 2015. Applicant timely submitted a1
response and documentation to the FORM. Based on a review of the case file, eligibility
for access to classified information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all but two of the SOR allegations
under Guideline F.  
Applicant is 41 years old. He graduated from high school in 1992. He obtained a
technical degree in 1994. Applicant is married and has two children. He has been
employed with his current employer since 2011. (Item 3) This is Applicant’s first request
for a security clearance.
The SOR alleges nine delinquent debts, including a judgment, medical accounts
and a past-due mortgage totaling about $26,277. (Item 1)
Applicant admits that he made some financial decisions that do not make him
proud, but he states that he did not want to make them and had a reason for doing so.
He explained that he fell behind on so many bills because he lost his job in 2011 when
the company merged with another company. He had been with the company for about
12 years. He was unemployed for about six months. The unemployment he received
was not sufficient to pay his mortgage and his bills. His wife is not able to work due to
health issues. (Item 2)
Applicant stated that he had paid the 2012 judgment in the amount of $1,999. He
does not understand why it is still listed on his credit report. He did not have any
documentation to support his assertion for SOR allegation 1.a.
Applicant stated that he paid the medical accounts listed in SOR 1.b, 1.c, and
1.h in March 2015. He is waiting for a letter from the creditor to show that the account
was paid. Applicant stated that 1.d is a duplicate of 1.c and that the issues are resolved.
As to the SOR allegation 1.e for a past-due mortgage account in the amount of
$15,906, Applicant notes that he was in a program which makes homes affordable. For
a trial period, he paid less than the original mortgage. He states that he is still working
with the company. Applicant asserts that he is currently in good standing with his loan.
He did not provide any documentation, and his current credit report reflects that he is
past-due in the amount of $16,255. (Item 4)
Applicant stated that SOR 1.g and 1. I are for parking tickets from about 2000 or
2002 but he did not know about them. He intends to make arrangements to pay them.
Applicant denied the account in 1.f. He stated that he was contacted years ago
and told by the company that it was not his account. He will try to contact the company
again to have it removed from his credit report.  (Response to FORM)  
 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.
3
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 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
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
4
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
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 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 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 that he had delinquent debts. His 2015 credit report confirms
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.  
The nature, frequency, and relative recency of Applicant’s financial difficulties
make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago.” Applicant still has unresolved
debts. 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)
does not apply. Applicant has given reasons for his delinquent debts. His
unemployment and his wife’s inability to work were beyond his control. However, he
presented no evidence that he has acted responsibly. He has been working since 2011.
He states that some delinquent accounts are paid, but he did not provide any
corroborating evidence. He has not acted responsibly.  
5
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) has some application. Applicant maintains that he
paid or will pay accounts, but this assertion is not supported by documentary evidence.
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) does not apply.
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. 
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 a young man who has worked for a number of years. He has a wife and two
children. The record does not provide any details about his duty performance.
Applicant has not provided information concerning payment of his delinquent
debts. He described a program for his past-due mortgage account but did not provide
any documentation.
Applicant did not persuade me that he refuted or mitigated the Government’s
case concerning the financial considerations security concerns. Any doubts must be
resolved in the Government’s favor. For all these reasons, clearance is denied.
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
6
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.i: 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 security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge