DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-02045
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Philip K. Katauskas, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
June 15, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
The Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) July 24, 2013.  (Government Exhibit 5.)  On July 11, 2014, the
Department of Defense (DoD), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as amended), issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed reasons why the DoD
could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether
clearance should be denied or revoked.
Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on a date uncertain, and elected to
have the case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing.  Department Counsel
submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) to Applicant on April 1,
2015.  Applicant received the FORM on April 3, 2015.  Applicant was instructed to
submit information in rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt.
Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM.  This case was assigned to the
undersigned on May 21, 2015.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, and exhibits,
eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
2
 FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is 35 years old, and is divorced with three sons.  She has a high school
diploma and some college.  She is employed with a defense contractor as an Electrician
and is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with this employment.
The Government opposes Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she is financially overextended and at risk
of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
Applicant served on active duty in the United States Army from 2001 to 2003,
and then in the active reserves from 2003 to 2009, when she was honorably
discharged.  She has been working for her current employer since March 2011.
Applicant has a history of financial indebtedness.  There are fourteen delinquent
debts set forth in the SOR totaling in excess of $16,567.  Applicant admitted allegations
1.a., 1d., 1e., 1f., 1.g., 1.h., 1.l., and 1.m. set forth under this guideline.  These seven
debts total $11,087.  She also admits filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in April 2010, and
that her debts were discharged in October 2010.  She denies allegations 1.b., 1.c., 1.i.,
1.j., 1.k., 1n., and 1.o., contending that they have either been paid, are being paid, or
are being disputed.  (See Government Exhibit 3.)  She has provided no documentary
evidence to support her contentions.  
A credit report of the Applicant dated August 16, 2013, which include information
from all three credit reporting agencies, reflects that she is indebted to each of the
creditors set forth in the SOR.  (Government Exhibit 7.)  The debts include 1.b., a
judgment filed against her by a creditor in the amount of $404; 1.c., a debt owed to a
creditor in the amount of $181; 1.d., a debt owed to a cable company in the amount of
$491; 1.e., a delinquent medical bill in the amount of $71; 1.f., a delinquent medical bill
in the amount of $201; 1.g., a delinquent medical bill in the amount of $146; 1.h., a
delinquent medical bill in the amount of $25; 1.i., a delinquent student loan account in
the amount of $3,866; 1.j., a delinquent student loan account in the amount of $7,815;
1.k., a delinquent student loan account in the amount of $1,934; 1.l., a delinquent
telephone bill in the amount of $739; l.m., a delinquent medical bill in the amount of $31;
1.n., a debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $399; and 1.o., a delinquent telephone
bill in the amount of $264.       
Applicant’s background investigation reveals that she was married in September
2001.  She separated from her husband in October 2002, and remained separated for
ten years, until they divorced in June 2012.  She is a single parent with three sons from
different fathers.  She provides all of their financial support and receives no financial
3
assistance from their fathers.  This has caused or contributed to her financial problems.
(Government Exhibit 6.)  
Applicant indicated in her answer to the SOR that she would have the bills in
question paid off by October 2014.  (See Government Exhibit 3.)  She has provided no
documentary evidence to show that any of the delinquent debts listed in the SOR have
been paid or are currently being paid.  She provides no explanation with respect to the
final disposition of these debts nor any supporting documentation that any of them have
been resolved.  Without more, Applicant is still held responsible for the debts. 
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Condition that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19,  in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding
circumstances;
     b.  The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
4
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavior
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct, which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence, which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as
emphasized by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination
under this order . . . 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.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility, which demonstrates
poor judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
5
holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation,
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The Applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  This evidence indicates poor
judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of
the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or
connection with her security clearance eligibility.
The evidence shows that Applicant remains delinquently indebted to each of the
creditors set forth in the SOR.  Except for the student loans, the debts alleged in the
SOR were incurred shortly after her Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which was discharged in
October 2010, and date back to at least 2011.  There is no evidence of any efforts to
repay the debts prior to or after receipt of the SOR.  There is no evidence of even an
attempt to pay the smallest of the debts, which is only $71.  In the absence of
documentary evidence submitted in response to this FORM to show that Applicant has
been able to attain some resolution on her delinquent debts and establish a track record
of debt repayment, this concern must be decided against her in evaluating her suitability
to have access to classified information.     
Applicant’s history of excessive indebtedness, without sufficient mitigation,
demonstrates a pattern of unreliability and poor judgment.  Applicant failed to provide
proof of payment, receipts, or any documentation to demonstrate that she has, can, or
will resolved her delinquent debts.  There is nothing in the record to show that Applicant
can live within her means.  Without more, the Applicant has failed to establish that she
is fiscally responsible.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that she has received credit
counseling to help her set a budget and learn to live within it, or that her finances are
under control.
Under the particular circumstances of this case, Applicant has not met her
burden of proving that she is worthy of a security clearance.  She has not sufficiently
addressed the delinquent debts in the SOR and, therefore, she does not have a
concrete understanding of her financial responsibilities.  Thus, it cannot be said that she
has made a good-faith effort to resolve her past due indebtedness.  She has not shown
that she is or has been reasonably, responsibly or prudently addressing her financial
situation.  Applicant has not demonstrated that she can properly handle her financial
affairs or that she is fiscally responsible.  Her debts are significant.  Assuming that she
demonstrates a history and pattern of fiscal responsibility, including the fact she has not
acquired any new debt that she is unable to pay, she may be eligible for a security
clearance sometime in the future.  However, she is not eligible now.  Considering all of
the evidence, Applicant has not introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation
or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the Government's case. 
6
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligations, apply.  There is no evidence in the record to show that Applicant has done
anything to resolve her debts.  In fact, from what is presented, Applicant could benefit
from intense financial counseling. In this case, none of the mitigating conditions are
applicable.  Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations).    
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth above, when viewed under all of the guidelines as a
whole, support a whole-person assessment of poor judgement, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, a lack of candor, an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations,
and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard
classified information.
  I have considered all of the evidence presented.  It does not mitigate the negative
effects of her history of financial indebtedness and the effects that it can have on her
ability to safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that Applicant
has not overcome the Government's case opposing her request for a security
clearance.  Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against Applicant as to the
factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.  
    FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1:  Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.    1.a. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.b. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.c. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.d. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.e. Against the Applicant.
 Subpara.    1.f. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.g. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.h. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.i. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.j. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.k. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.l. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.m. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.n. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.o. Against the Applicant.
7
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
the Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge