1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-05154
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
October 2, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on June 15, 2009.  On January 7, 2015, 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 after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on January 26, 2015.  He answered
the SOR in writing on February 12, 2015, and requested a hearing before an
Administrative Judge.  The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) received
the request soon thereafter, and I received the case assignment on May 4, 2015.
DOHA issued a notice of hearing on May 6, 2015, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on May 29, 2015.  The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 8,
which were received without objection.  Applicant testified on his own behalf and
2
submitted Exhibits (AppXs) A and B, which were received without objection.  DOHA
received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on June 8, 2015.  I granted Applicant’s
request to keep the record open until June 29, 2015, to submit additional matters.  On
June 25, 2015, he submitted Exhibit C, which was received without objection.  The
record closed on June 29, 2015.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in
Subparagraphs 1.a., 1.f. and 1.g. of the SOR, with explanations.  He denied the factual
allegations in Subparagraphs 1.b.~1.e. of the SOR.  He also provided additional
information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Applicant is 57 years old, twice divorced, and attributes the alleged financial
difficulties to his second divorce.  (TR at page 26 line 8 to page 30 line 14.)  He has
addressed his past-due debts, and lives within his financial means.  (TR at page 43 line
14 to page 48 line 10).
1.a. and 1.f.  Applicant admits that he was past due on his primary mortgage to
Creditor A in the amount of about $1,936; and had a charge off of $19,301, his second
mortgage, with Creditor A.  He is now current with his primary mortgage, as evidenced
by the Government’s most recent May 2015 credit report.  (TR at page 38 line 18 to
page 39 line 9, and GX 8 at page 2.)  As to his second mortgage, he is making $229
monthly payments, albeit sometimes late; but it is no longer charged off.  His past-due
amount is now about $1,882, as evidenced by the Government’s most recent May 2015
credit report (CR).  (TR at page 30 line 15 to page 34 line 8, and GX 8 at page 2.)  I find
that Applicant is making a good-faith effort to address his mortgages.
1.b.  Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor B in the past-due amount of
about $81.  This debt has been paid, as evidenced by a letter from Creditor B.  (TR at
page 34 line 9 to page 35 line 2, and AppX A at page 2.)
1.c.  Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor C in the past-due amount of
about $688.  This debt “has been settled in full,” as evidenced by correspondence from
Creditor C.  (TR at page 35 line 3 to page 35 line 13, at page 48 line 22 to page 44 line
12, and AppX C at pages 3 and 4.)
1.d.  Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor D in the past-due amount of
about $299.  This debt has been paid, as evidenced by a letter from Creditor D.  (TR at
page 36 line 14 to page 37 line 4.)
1.e.  Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor E in the past-due amount of
about $3,385.  This debt has been paid, as evidenced by extracts from a January 2014
3
CR.  (TR at page 37 line 5 to page 38 line 17, at page 49 line 13 to page 50 line 23, and
AppX C at pages 1, 2 and 7.)
1.f.  This alleged past-due debt has already been discussed, above.
1.g.  Applicant admits he is indebted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) for
unpaid taxes for tax years 2009~2012.  This is the result of Applicant prematurely taking
monies out of his 401K (deferred income for retirement) fund.  (TR at page 39 line 13 to
page 43 line 13.)  It is alleged that he owes about $32,468.  Applicant has been making
monthly payments of $600 towards this tax debt, and as of May 2015 has reduced the
amount owed to about $23,227.  This is evidenced by documentation from his employer
and from the IRS.  I find that Applicant is making a good-faith effort to address his back
taxes.
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 the adjudicative process.  The administrative judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision.  According to AG
Paragraph 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.
Paragraph 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 Paragraph E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR.  Under Directive Paragraph E3.1.15,
the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut,
explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department
Counsel. . . .”  The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a
favorable security decision.
4
A person who seeks access to classified information enters 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.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that 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 Paragraph 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.  Under
Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially
disqualifying.  Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations@ may raise security concerns.  Applicant has had difficulty meeting his
financial obligations.  However, I find two countervailing Mitigating Conditions that are
applicable here.  Under Subparagraph 20(b), it may be mitigating where “the conditions
that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g. . . .
divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.”
Applicant’s past-due indebtedness is directly attributed to his second divorce.  Under
Subparagraph 20(d), it may also be mitigating where “the individual initiated a good-faith
effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.”  Applicant has made a
good-faith effort to resolve all of the alleged past-due debts.
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances.  Under Paragraph 2(c), the ultimate determination of
5
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.
The administrative judge should also consider the nine adjudicative process
factors listed at AG Paragraph 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.
I considered all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and
mitigating conditions surrounding this case.  The record evidence leaves me without
questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.
For this reason, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from
his Financial Considerations, under the whole-person concept.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g. For Applicant
6
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.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge