1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-05163
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
August 18, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge:
Applicant incurred substantial delinquent indebtedness and failed to resolve the
majority of his delinquent accounts. While he provided documentation that he resolved
two small debts, he remains indebted to 12 creditors in the approximate amount of
$28,774. The evidence failed to mitigate resulting security concerns. Based upon a
review of the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF 86) on October 19,
2011. On May 29, 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
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 for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Information, effective within the Department of Defense after September 1,
2006. 
2
Applicant answered the SOR in writing (AR) on August 2, 2014, and requested a
hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to another
administrative judge on May 1, 2015, and a Notice of Hearing was issued by that Judge
scheduling the hearing for June 3, 2015. On May 29, 2015 that hearing was cancelled
and the file was transferred to me on June 1, 2015. The Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a new Notice of Hearing on June 2, 2015, and I convened the
hearing, as scheduled, on June 23, 2015. The Government offered Exhibits (GE) 1
through 6, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf
and presented Appellant’s Exhibits (AE) A and B. The record was left open until close of
business July 28, 2015. Applicant presented a five-page submission, marked AE C, on
July 28, 2015. Department Counsel had no objections to AE C and it was admitted. The
record then closed. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on July 2, 2015. 
Procedural Ruling
At the hearing on June 23, 2015, Department Counsel made a motion to amend
the SOR, in order to conform to the evidence, by adding ¶1.n pursuant to Directive ¶
E3.1.17. Applicant had no objections to the amendment. The motion to amend was
granted. (Tr. 43-44.) The allegation is as follows:
1.n You were indebted to [Creditor] on a private student loan in the approximate
amount of $10,102.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 31-years-old. He graduated in 2009 with a bachelor’s degree. He
was hired by a government contractor in June 2009 and has been fully employed since
then. He seeks a security clearance in connection with his employment. He is single
and identified no children. (GE 1; Tr. 28-29.)
The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a clearance because he
has made financial decisions that indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which raise questions about his
reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. The SOR alleged
that Applicant is delinquent on 14 debts in the total amount of $29,074. His debts
consist of delinquent student loans totaling $27,253, and unpaid medical debt of $1,821.
In his AR, Applicant admitted all of the allegations concerning delinquent debts set forth
in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.h, and 1.k through 1.m. He admitted SOR ¶ 1.n at hearing. (Tr.
48.) He denied SOR ¶¶ 1.i and 1.j in his AR. Applicant’s admissions are incorporated in
the following findings.
Applicant claims he became delinquent on his student loan debt because the
repayment notices were mailed to his grandmother’s home and were not forwarded to
him. In July 2014 he applied to consolidate some of his student loan debt, totaling
$21,139.83. He testified that SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.h were included in his consolidation,
but offered no documentation to support this claim. He claimed to have made payments
3
of $109 on the consolidated loan, although he admitted missing two payments. His June
2015 credit report reflect SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.h are past due, although he was current
on his consolidated loan payments. (GE 6.) Because Applicant failed to show that the
debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.h are included in the consolidated loan, they are
unresolved. Further, the student loan debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.n remains unresolved.
(GE 6; Tr. 33-36, 38-40, 42, 47.)
Applicant testified he resolved all of his medical debts. (Tr. 27.) He documented
he resolved the two medical debts identified in SOR ¶¶ 1.i and 1.j.  He presented a
receipt from this creditor showing that he paid these two debts in full. His June 2015
credit report also reflects these debts as paid. They are resolved.  (GE 6; AE A.)
However, Applicant failed to present documentation to show that he has addressed the
medical debts identified in SOR ¶¶ 1.k through 1.m. (GE 3.) They are unresolved.
Applicant testified that he has an undisclosed amount of money left over at the
end of the month after paying his bills. He estimated that he has between $2,000 and
$3,000 in savings. (Tr. 46-47.)
Applicant provided character references describing his good judgment,
trustworthiness, integrity, and reliability from his senior pastor, his supervisor, and a
coworker. They note Applicant has exceptional talent both in his job, musically, and in
sports. (AE C.)
There is no evidence that Applicant obtained credit counseling, sought
assistance with a debt consolidation company, or formally contested any of his debts.
He did not provide a budget or a solid plan to address the delinquent debts. He
submitted no evidence concerning the quality of his professional performance, or the
level of responsibility his duties entail.
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. 
The record evidence potentially raises 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 incurred significant student loan debt that he ignored after graduation,
despite full employment. He also failed to address medical delinquencies, despite
having a positive monthly net remainder. His history of indebtedness and remaining
debts from 2009 to present raise security concerns under DCs 19(a) and (c), thereby
shifting 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’s SOR-listed delinquent debts are recent and ongoing, without
indication that the circumstances under which they arose have changed. His history of
financial irresponsibility goes back several years, with no demonstrated period of
meeting his voluntarily undertaken debt obligations despite regular employment. He
therefore failed to establish substantial mitigation under MC 20(a). 
Applicant also offered insufficient evidence to support significant mitigation under
MC 20(b). He voluntarily incurred all of the debt in question, and has been fully
employed during the period the payments became delinquent. This is not responsible
action under the circumstances.
Applicant did not provide any evidence of financial or credit counseling. Partial
mitigation applies to the two debts that have been resolved. However, he neither
documented any effort to repay or otherwise resolve the remaining SOR-listed
6
delinquent debts, nor asserted a legitimate basis to dispute their validity. These facts
preclude mitigation under MC 20(c), (d), or (e). 
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): 
(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 incurred substantial
delinquent indebtedness that he has made little effort to repay. These debts remain
outstanding, creating the ongoing potential for pressure and duress. He provided no
evidence to show that continuation or recurrence is unlikely, or that behavioral changes
demonstrate rehabilitation. He is a mature and experienced individual who is
accountable for his choices and financial irresponsibility. Overall, the record evidence
creates ongoing doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility and suitability 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
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.i and 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.k through 1.n: Against Applicant
7
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.
                                              
JENNIFER I. GOLDSTEIN
Administrative Judge