Item 2.1
Item 1.2
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-01483
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Pamela Benson, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant incurred more than $57,000 in delinquent debts over the past four
years, and failed to document resolution of any of them. His home is in foreclosure.
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 November 20, 2012.  On1
June 12, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DoD
CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns
under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).  The action was taken under Executive2
Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960),
Item 1. 3
Department Counsel submitted five Items in support of the SOR allegations.4
Item 2.5
These debts are documented in the credit reports at Items 3, 4, and 5; except that the amount of $528.00,6
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d, appears as $1,296 in those credit reports. Additionally, the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f
increased from $1,507 to $1,783 in his most recent credit report at Item 5.
SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, and 1.g.7
2
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 July 29, 2014, and
requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record
without a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on3
February 24, 2015. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was4
provided to Applicant, and he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit
material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the
FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of his copy of the FORM
on April 1, 2015. He 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 May 22, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 41 years old, and has worked for a defense contractor since
November 2009. He is married, with an 18-year-old stepson. He served on active duty
in the Navy from March 1994 to September 2007, and was honorably discharged in pay
grade E-6. He worked for another defense contractor from September 2007 to
November 2009, when he voluntarily left for his current position. He has held a security
clearance since his time in the Navy.  5
In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the allegations concerning
his ten delinquent debts, totaling $57,137.  He also admitted that his home mortgage is6
in foreclosure with an outstanding balance of $252,821. Applicant’s admissions are
incorporated as findings of fact.
Record credit reports show that eight of the SOR-listed delinquent debts,7
ranging from $74 to $36,534 and totaling $54,498, had dates of last activity between
October 2011 and February 2012.  A medical debt in the amount of $2,521 was reduced
SOR ¶ 1.a.8
SOR ¶ 1.j.9
SOR ¶ 1.h. Items 3, 4, and 5.10
Item 2.11
3
to judgment in May 2013.  Applicant’s insurance company placed a $118 debt for8
collection in November 2012.  Applicant’s home mortgage loan, opened in October9
2004 with a high credit amount of $252,821, had a balance due of $211,869 when it
became delinquent in December 2012. It is currently in foreclosure.   10
The record does not address whether Applicant obtained financial counseling. He
offered no evidence showing a workable budget, from which his ability to resolve his
admitted delinquencies and avoid additional debt problems could be predicted with any
confidence. Applicant said in his security clearance application that he, “Got behind on
payments,” for the credit card debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b in late 2007 after he separated
from the Navy, was involved in a motorcycle accident, and his son broke his arm
skateboarding. Concerning his other debts he said, “Got behind on payments after
getting behind on others.”  He offered no explanation for his sudden inability or11
unwillingness to pay his debts after late 2011, or of any steps he took to rectify the
situation.
The record lacks evidence concerning the quality of Applicant’s professional
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. No character
witnesses provided statements describing his judgment, trustworthiness, integrity, 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
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.
4
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.”
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.
5
Applicant owes more than $57,000 in unresolved delinquent debts that he
incurred over the past four years, and his home mortgage loan is being foreclosed. He
provided no evidence of any effort to repay or otherwise resolve any of these debts. His
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; 
(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, which continue to date. He
offered no evidence from which to establish a track record of debt resolution. He failed
to demonstrate that conditions beyond his control contributed to his financial problems,
or that he acted responsibly under such circumstances. MC 20(e) requires documented
proof to substantiate the basis of a dispute concerning a delinquent debt, and Applicant
admitted owing each debt alleged in the SOR. Accordingly, the record is insufficient to
establish mitigation under any of the foregoing provisions.
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):
6
 (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.   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is an accountable
and experienced adult, who is responsible for the voluntary choices and conduct that
underlie the security concerns expressed in the SOR. His SOR-listed delinquent debts
arose over the past four years and remain unresolved despite his continuous
employment during the period involved. He offered insufficient evidence of financial
counseling, rehabilitation, better judgment, or responsible conduct in other areas of his
life to offset resulting security concerns. The potential for pressure, coercion, and
duress from his financial situation remains undiminished. Overall, the record evidence
leaves me with substantial doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility and suitability for a
security clearance. He did not meet his burden to mitigate the security concerns arising
from his financial considerations.
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.k: 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 eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge