The Statement of Reasons (SOR) misspells Applicant’s first name. It is spelled correctly in this Decision.1
(Item 5.)
Department Counsel submitted seven Items in support of the SOR allegations. 2
1
                                                             
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 13-012221
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
June 5, 2015
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on July 16, 2013. (Item 5.) On December 19, 2013, the Department of Defense
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations) concerning Applicant. The 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 (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on September
1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on January 13, 2014, and requested a
decision by an administrative judge without a hearing. (Item 4.) Department Counsel
submitted the Government’s written case (FORM) to Applicant on March 14, 2014.2
Item 5 at Section 17.3
2
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the FORM March 4, 2015. He was given 30 days
from receipt of the FORM to submit any additional documentation. Applicant elected not
to submit any additional information. The case was assigned to me on April 27, 2015.
Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 42, and divorced from his second wife.  He is employed by a defense3
contractor and seeks to obtain a security clearance in connection with his employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable,
untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant
admitted allegations 1.a and 1.b in the SOR under this paragraph. Those admissions
are findings of fact. He denied 1.c.
The SOR lists three delinquent debts, totaling approximately $54,754.
(Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c.) The existence and amount of all the debts is
supported by credit reports dated August 7, 2013; and March 13, 2014. (Items 6, and 7.)
The current status of the debts is as follows:
1.a. Applicant admits owing this past-due debt for a credit line in the amount of
$51,247. He states in his Answer, “During this time period I was going through a divorce
and loss of employment.” No further information was provided. This debt is not resolved.
1.b. Applicant admits owing this past-due debt in the amount of $3,201. He states
in his Answer, “Divorce/loss of employment.” No further information was provided. This
debt is not resolved.
1.c. Applicant denies owing a past-due automobile debt in the amount of $306.
He states that he sold the automobile and the purchaser paid the past-due debt. Item 7
at 3 states that this account is a “Paid Charge Off.” This allegation is found for
Applicant.
As stated, Applicant was divorced from his second wife in 2013. The evidence
also shows that he was unemployed August 2011 to May 2012. He was self-employed
from May 2012 to July 2013. Applicant has been gainfully employed by his current
employer since July 2013. (Item 5.) Applicant submitted no evidence that he has
received any financial counseling. He did not submit a budget, or any other information
Item 7, the April 13, 2014 credit report, shows six additional past-due or charged-off debts. They appear to4
be debts to two utilities, two banks, an automobile loan, and a home mortgage. They are not alleged in the
SOR, and will not be considered under any Guideline F Disqualifying Condition. Their existence can be
considered in determining possible mitigation, and under the whole-person concept.
3
concerning his income and expenses. No evidence was submitted to show that
Applicant has paid either of the two remaining delinquent debts.4
Applicant provided no evidence concerning the quality of his professional
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. He submitted
no character references or other evidence tending to establish good judgment,
trustworthiness, or reliability. I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or
character in person since he elected to have his case decided without a hearing. 
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  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 and
mitigating conditions, which are to be used as appropriate 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
over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny 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.  In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on
his or her own common sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the
ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that, “Any 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, “The applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
4
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.”
A person who seeks access to classified information enters 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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any
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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18:      
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. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant has over $54,000 in past-due debts, both of which have
been due and owing for several years. The evidence is sufficient to raise these
potentially disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying
conditions may be mitigated where Athe 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.@
Applicant=s financial difficulties have been in existence for several years. There is no
5
evidence that he has paid either of the remaining two debts, which continue to date.
While the debt in 1.c has been paid, it is noted that the purchaser of the automobile paid
this debt, not Applicant. This mitigating condition does not have application in this case. 
AG ¶ 20(b) states that the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where “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.” Applicant was unemployed for a year in 2011 and 2012, and
then self-employed for another year, before starting his current employment. He also
stated his divorce also had an impact. He did not submit any evidence, however, that
shows he acted responsibly once he obtained employment almost two years ago. This
mitigating condition does not have application in this case. 
AG ¶ 20(d) states it can be mitigating where, “the individual has initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Applicant has not
submitted any evidence to show that he has made successful payment arrangements
with, or made payments to, the two remaining creditors listed in the SOR. Applicant had
more than a year to resolve the debts between answering the SOR and receiving the
FORM. In addition, the latest credit report shows additional delinquencies on Applicant’s
part. This mitigating condition does not have application in this case. 
Applicant submitted no evidence that he had taken any action to contest either of
the remaining debts in the SOR. Accordingly, AG ¶ 20(e) does not apply. It requires that
“the individual [have] 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.”
In conclusion, as stated above, looking at Applicant’s entire financial situation at
the present time, I cannot find that “there are clear indications that the problem is being
resolved or is under control,” as is required by AG ¶ 20(c). Paragraph 1 is found against
Applicant.
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 the relevant circumstances. 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. The administrative judge must 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
6
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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The discussion under
Guideline F, above, applies here as well. Applicant has had financial problems for
several years, which have not been resolved despite his knowing since January 2014 of
the Government’s concerns. He has a long history of not paying his debts. Applicant’s
conduct with regard to his finances was not mitigated.
Under AG ¶ 2(a)(3), his conduct is recent and continuing. I cannot find that there
have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I also
cannot find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); or that there is no likelihood of continuation or recurrence (AG ¶
2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
situation. Accordingly, the evidence supports denying his request for a security
clearance.
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
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For 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 eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge