1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-02638
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Thomas D. Farrell
June 23, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On September 17, 2014, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for 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 for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
On October 6, 2014, Applicant  replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and he
requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge (AJ). The case was assigned to
this AJ on January 21, 2015. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on March 10, 2015, and
the hearing was held by video teleconference on April 29, 2015. The Government
offered Exhibits 1 through 6, which were admitted into evidence without objection.
Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits A through L, which were
also admitted without objection. Applicant’s wife also testified on Applicant’s behalf. At
the hearing, the record was kept open until May 13, 2015, to allow Applicant to submit
additional evidence. The documents that were timely received have been identified and
2
entered into evidence without objection as Exhibit M. DOHA received the transcript of
the hearing (Tr) on May 8, 2015. Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and
the testimony of Applicant and his wife, eligibility for access to classified information is
granted
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including
Applicant's RSOR, the admitted documents, and the testimony of Applicant, and upon
due consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of fact: 
Applicant is 47 years old. He is married, and he and his wife have an adopted
daughter. Applicant received a Bachelor’s degree in Sociology in 1990, and a Masters
degree in Information Systems in 1998. He is employed by a defense contractor, and he
is seeking a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense
sector.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists six allegations (1.a. through 1.f.) regarding financial difficulties,
specifically overdue debts, under Adjudicative Guideline F. All of the SOR debts will be
discussed below in the same order as they were listed on the SOR:
1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-off account in the
amount of $5,377. At the hearing, Applicant testified that he has been making payments
on this debt, and the total amount owed as of October 2014 was $4,327. (Tr at 65-67.)
Exhibits C and G establish that Applicant started in September 2013, making monthly
payments of $250, and in May 2014, the payments increased to $350 a month. The
amount owed at the time of the hearing was $4,327. In a post hearing letter, Applicant’s
attorney wrote that due to continued payments from Applicant in the amount of $1,650,
the amount now owed is $2,677.30. I find that this debt is being resolved in a
responsible manner by Applicant.
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a collection account in the amount
of $3,493. Applicant testified that he has been making monthly payments on this debt of
at least $205, and the total amount then owed was approximately $1,432. (Tr at 67-68.)
Exhibits D and G establish that Applicant initially owed $2,260, and the amount owed at
the time of the hearing was $1,432. In a post hearing letter, Applicant’s attorney wrote
that due to continued payments from Applicant the amount now owed is $1,232.83. I
find that this debt is being resolved in a responsible manner by Applicant. 
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-off account in the
amount of $323. Applicant testified that this debt has been paid off. (Tr at 68-69.) Exhibit
E establishes that this debt has been paid in full. I find that this debt has been resolved. 
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-off account in the
amount of $701. This debt is to the same creditor as that listed on 1.e., below. Applicant
3
testified that he has contacted the creditor for these debts, but they informed him that
they could not find the debts, until recently. He had yet to begin making payments on
this debt. (Tr at 69-72.) In a post hearing letter, Applicant’s attorney wrote that Applicant
has now made a payment of $215.90 toward this debt and that listed on 1.e., below.
The attorney did not know the exact current balance for the two debts, but he averred
that it was less than $600. I find that Applicant has been responsible in trying to resolve
this debt. 
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-due account in the
amount of $99. Applicant has had the same difficulty getting the information from the
creditor about the debt. (Tr at 69-72.) Applicant has made a payment toward this debt
after contacting the creditor to attempt to resolve this debt. I find that Applicant has been
responsible in trying to resolve this debt. 
1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-off account in the amount
of $90. Applicant testified that this debt was approximately $20 through the credit card
company error, but Applicant was never notified, so it grew through penalties and
interest to approximately $300. Applicant has now paid off this debt. (Tr at 72-76.)
Exhibit F establishes that this debt has been paid in full. I find that this debt has been
resolved. 
Applicant testified that they had adopted a daughter in China, and it appears that
she was one of the babies who was given formula contaminated with melamine. Most of
the other children did not survive the poison. Because of this, the child has had
numerous very severe medical problems including seizures, heart problems, and
vomiting. Applicant’s wife lost significant amounts of income due to their daughter’s
illness, and also due to Applicant’s wife’s own illnesses. Applicant estimated that her
income was reduced by half for a loss of $4,000 a month for 18 months, totaling
$72,000 of lost income. (Tr at 76-79.)  
Testimony of Applicant’s wife
Applicant’s wife testified that she is the family member who pays the bills.
Through Exhibits G and H, and her testimony she established that their current debts
are all being paid on time, that they have significant assets, and they are resolving the
debts listed on the SOR. She also confirmed that they had contacted the creditor for
SOR allegations 1.d and 1.e, and it had taken the creditor about six months to give
Applicant and his wife information about what creditor owned the debt and how much
was owed. She also confirmed that they now had a payment plan for these two debts.
(Tr at 24-39.)
Applicant’s wife also confirmed that their adopted daughter from China had
multiple, severe health problems. These included the daughter stopping breathing on
five separate occasions, which caused her to lose consciousness, requiring intervention
of CPR and hospitalization greater than a week at a time.  The witness had to cut her
work hours in half as she had to stay with and take care of her child. The witness also
had surgery herself, which forced her to miss additional time from work.  (Tr at 39-44.) 
4
A letter from the doctor for Applicant’s daughter confirms that she has had
multiple seizures and has been diagnosed with partial seizure disorder. Her illness has
required significant time for Applicant and his wife to be absent from work so they can
care for their daughter. (Exhibit I.) 
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 and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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.
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. 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 mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance
decision. 
A person wh applies 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.
 
5
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that adverse 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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple
prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
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 and
could potentially apply in this case. Under AG ¶ 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts,” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶  19(c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations,” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt.  
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(b), it may be mitigating 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.” Since
Applicant’s debts were the result of loss of earnings from his wife because of her
surgery and the severe illness of their daughter, I find this condition potentially
applicable in this case. Since Applicant and his wife have now resolved two of the debts
listed on the SOR, and are in the process of paying off the other four debts from the
SOR, I find that Applicant has acted responsibly and this mitigating condition is
applicable in this case. 
I also find that ¶ 20(d) is applicable, since Applicant has “initiated a good-faith
effort to repay his overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Finally, I find that
Applicant’s overall financial situation is stable and secure, and therefore, I find Guideline
F for Applicant.
Whole-Person Concept
6
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 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
access to a classified position 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
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on all of the reasons cited
above as to why the mitigating conditions are applicable and controlling, I find that the
record evidence leaves me with no significant questions or doubts as to Applicant’s
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance under the whole-person concept. For all
these reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns under the
whole-person concept.
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. - 1.f.: 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 eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge