Item 2.1
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-02850
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: David F. Hayes, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant had a delinquent credit card account that he resolved through a
payment plan from 2011 to 2013. A major bank charged off three of his daughter’s
college student loan debts, for which he had cosigned, when she failed to repay them in
2012. He has otherwise been financially responsible, and works two full-time jobs to pay
his bills. Resulting security concerns were mitigated. Based on a review of the pleadings
and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF 86) on October 15,
2013.  On August 5, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications1
Facility (DoD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing
Item 1.2
Item 1. 3
The Government submitted six Items in support of the SOR allegations. Item 3 is a portion of the Office of4
Personnel Management (OPM) Report of Investigation that is not admissible into evidence without either a
witness’ authentication, or adoption by Applicant, per Directive ¶ E3.1.20. Neither appears in this record so
Item 3 is inadmissible. It cannot be, and was not, considered in reaching this eligibility determination. 
Item 2.5
Item 1. 6
2
security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).  The action was taken2
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 that came into effect in the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted a written response to the SOR (Answer) on August 22, 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
March 28, 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 June 3, 2015. He submitted no material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within
the 30-day period thereafter. He 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 July 30, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 55 years old. He and his wife have been married for more than 35
years. They have three children, ages 34, 32, and 28, all of whom he reported on his SF
86 to be living in the family home they purchased in 2003. He was honorably discharged
after serving in the Army from 1980 to 1985. He graduated from high school in 1978,
and earned an associate’s degree from a vocational school in 1987. He was hired by his
present employer, a defense contractor, in August 2010. He has also been working
another full-time night-shift job with a package delivery company, which he started in
June 2009.  In his response to the SOR, Applicant denied each of the four allegations of5
delinquent debt, with explanations.6
Item 1; Item 4 at 7; Item 5 at 3; Item 6 at 5.7
Item 1; Item 4; Item 5; Item 6.8
3
Applicant opened a credit card account with a major bank in March 2007. The
account was delinquent and placed for collection in January 2011 with a balance of
$14,819, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. Applicant entered into a repayment agreement with
the collection agency in July 2011, and completed making all agreed payments to settle
this account in August 2013, two months before submitting his SF 86 and a year before
the DoD CAF issued the SOR.7
The record also shows that Applicant co-signed for his youngest daughter on
three college student loans issued to her by a major bank in 2007, 2008, and 2009. She
defaulted on these loans in March 2012, and in November 2013 the bank charged them
off to profit and loss in the total amount of $43, 227. There is no indication that the bank
has pursued any further collection action against either Applicant or his daughter
concerning these student loans.8
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.
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
4
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 is sufficient to initially
raise, 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. 
Applicant’s November 2013 credit report, obtained shortly after submission of his
SF 86, showed the delinquent debts alleged in the SOR. Those debts arose at various
times during the preceding six years, before Applicant obtained his current employment.
This evidence raised 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:
5
(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 no new delinquencies since obtaining his present
employment in 2010, and he completed paying off his delinquent credit card debt
several months before submitting his current SF 86. He, like many parents, was
convinced that assisting his daughter to incur student loan debt was a good idea at the
time. She defaulted on those loans when her deferment ended, after which the bank
chose to write them off against its other profits rather than pursue collection. Applicant
has been working two full-time jobs to support his family, including three adult children,
without incurring other delinquent debt. Applicant’s financial situation does not cast
doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. The evidence
therefore establishes substantial mitigation under MC 20(a). 
Applicant offered insufficient evidence to support mitigation under MC 20(b) or
20(e). His SOR-alleged debts were voluntarily incurred, and he made no effort to
excuse them as having arisen from circumstances beyond his control, or to dispute their
initial legitimacy.
Applicant offered no evidence of formal financial counseling, but did establish
clear indications that his earlier financial problems have been resolved, and that his
budget is under control. He successfully resolved his formerly delinquent credit card
debt after obtaining his present second full-time job, but before submission of his SF 86.
Rather than pursue collection action against Applicant or his daughter for her student
loan debts, that creditor chose to write off those loans as losses against other profits.
This evidence shows additional mitigation under MC 20(c) and 20(d).
6
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 is an accountable
and mature adult, who has been working two full-time jobs to support his family and
resolve the security concerns expressed in the SOR. His choice to help his daughter
obtain student loan debt for college education is consistent with national policy
encouraging such behavior, and her inability to repay those loans is not unusual in the
current economic climate. The creditor bank knowingly undertook this arrangement, and
chose to write off the loan debt against other profits rather than pursue collection
actions. No other debts of security concern appear in the record.. This shows significant
maturity, trustworthiness, and responsibility. No potential for pressure, coercion, or
duress from these former debts exists to support security concerns.  
The record evidence leaves me without doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility
and suitability for a security clearance. He met 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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d: For Applicant
7
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.
                                            
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge