1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-02532
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
October 14, 2015
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on February 28, 2013. (Government Exhibit 1.)  On December 4, 2014, the
Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security
concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) concerning 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 on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on December 30, 2014 (Answer), and
requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared
to proceed on February 10, 2015. This case was assigned to me on February 18, 2015.
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued notices of hearing on
February 4, and April 8, 2015. I convened the hearing as scheduled on May 20, 2015.
The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 5, which were admitted without
objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf, his wife also testified, and he submitted
Applicant Exhibit A, also admitted without objection. Applicant asked that the record
2
remain open for the receipt of additional documents. Applicant submitted Applicant
Exhibit B on June 4, 2015, and Applicant Exhibit C on June 11, 2015. Both exhibits
were admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on
June 1, 2015. The record closed on June 12, 2015. Based upon a review of the
pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is
granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 61 and married. He is employed by a defense contractor, for whom
he has worked 19 years and 11 months as of the date of the hearing, and seeks to
retain a security clearance in connection with his employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable,
untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant
admitted all four subparagraphs in the SOR under this Paragraph. Those admissions
are findings of fact. He also submitted additional information to support his request for a
security clearance.
Applicant retired from the United States Army in 1995 after 20 years of service.
He started work for his current employer almost immediately. He has had a security
clearance for approximately 35 years, without a problem. (Government Exhibit 1 at
Sections 13A and 15; Tr. 24-26.)
Applicant and his wife have been together for 20 years, and married for 12. In
approximately 2008 she began having serious medical issues. This is what created their
financial difficulties. Specifically, she was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor,
which caused severe long- and short-term memory issues, and other physical issues.
Since then she has had her thyroid surgically removed, and was due for back surgery
due to degenerative disk disease this year. However, she was recently informed by her
doctors that the surgery was not possible. She testified, “He gives me at least less than
six months and I’ll be in a wheelchair.” (Tr. 47.)
Applicant’s wife took care of the family finances before her illness. During that
time she was gainfully employed as an insurance broker. When she was diagnosed with
a brain tumor she lost her job and her driver’s license almost simultaneously. This had a
severe financial impact because they lost her income almost immediately in early 2010.
She was having seizures at that time and afraid to tell Applicant that she could not make
the credit card payments. At this point she also began running up debts on the credit
cards listed in the SOR that she knew they could not pay. She testified, “I have some
shame for what I did. But I think I just kind of had like a complete melt down when I lost
everything.” She went on to say, “I just went into a really deep, deep depression. And
when I was there, I didn’t have to think about anything.” Applicant did not know about
3
the past-due indebtedness until he was interviewed by Government investigators in
connection with his security clearance renewal, then confronted his wife concerning the
situation. (Applicant Exhibit A at 1; Tr. 27-29, 32-35, 46-47.)
Regarding the fact that she did not tell Applicant what she had done and the full
extent of the debt situation, she testified:
I didn’t go to him and tell him. I know he knew that I was hurting. I really
messed up because, like I said, my whole world crumbled. It just went out
from me. . . . So everything was just coming down on top of us. And then I
was trying to figure out what I was going to do with my life, you know.
When somebody tells you that you have [a] brain tumor. They basically
told me that it was too far in and anymore I eventually wouldn’t wake up.
So, it’s hard, you know. . . . I knew what I was doing was wrong. . . . [Oh],
what are you going to do to pay the bills? It was all of this. . . . I just should
have never done that. Like I said, he is the most honorable man I ever met
in my life. And I will never, ever hurt him again. 
(Tr. 68-69.)
The SOR lists four delinquent debts, totaling approximately $67,790. The
existence and amount of the debts is supported by credit reports dated March 12, 2013;
May 14, 2014; February 10, 2015; and May 20, 2015. (Government Exhibits 2, 3, 4, and
5.)
The current status of the debts is as follows:
1.a. Applicant admitted that he owed $23,827 for a past-due credit card debt.
Applicant’s wife testified that he did not know about this account that she opened. Since
his wife lost her job and income they have continued to pay either the bank or the
collection agencies on this debt on a consistent basis, as shown by bank statements
submitted by Applicant.  Applicant’s wife maintains communication with the creditor.
(Applicant Exhibits A at 2, 4-6, B at 7-16; Tr. 35-45.) This debt is being resolved.
1.b. Applicant admitted that he owed two past-due credit card debts to a bank,
one for 18,862, and the second for $10,929. Applicant knew about one of these
accounts, but did not know what his wife had charged to it. Since his wife lost her job
and income they have continued to pay either the bank or the collection agencies on
this debt on a consistent basis, as shown by bank statements submitted by Applicant.
After the hearing Applicant was presented a settlement on the $10,929 account.
Applicant has made two payments towards that debt. (Applicant Exhibits A at 2, 7-12,
16-17, B at 7-16, C at 3; Tr. 45-49, 54-55.) These debts are being resolved.
1.c. Applicant admitted that he owed $13,646 for a past-due credit card debt.
Since his wife lost her job and income they have continued to pay either the bank or the
collection agencies on this debt on a consistent basis, as shown by bank statements
submitted by Applicant. Applicant’s wife maintains communication with the creditor.
(Applicant Exhibits A at 2, 13-15, B at 7-16; Tr. 58-60.) This debt is being resolved.
4
1.d. Applicant admitted owing a past-due credit card debt in the amount of
$526. Applicant’s wife testified that they are disputing that debt because it has been
paid. Due to her memory issues Applicant’s wife was unable to confirm that this debt
has been paid. (Tr. 49-50.) Applicant called the collection agency on this account on
December 14, 2014, and informed them that Applicant is disputing the debt. (Applicant
Exhibit A at 2.) The two most recent credit reports in the record, from 2015, do not show
this debt. (Government Exhibits 4 and 5.) Under the particular circumstances of this
case, particularly given the fact that Applicant and his wife have both willingly and
credibly testified about their debt situation, I find that this debt is in dispute.
Applicant’s current financial situation is stable. He is able to pay his monthly
debts. They will be in even better financial condition now that his wife is receiving her
Social Security disability payments. He sold two cars to help out their financial situation,
thereby reducing monthly expenses. (Tr. 51-52, 60-61, 64-65.)
In conclusion Applicant said:
I am responsible for them [the debts], and together my wife and I will make
sure that they get paid. We are not just going to let them go by. . . . I think
if we are going to do anything like that, we probably already would have
filed for Bankruptcy. But that’s just too easy a way to go. You know, if you
have a debt, pay your debt. That’s how I feel. And that was the way I was
raised. 
(Tr. 70.)
Mitigation
Applicant submitted documentation showing that he is a respected employee and
person. Applicant Exhibit B at 2-5 contains letters of recommendation from several co-
workers, and a personal friend. 
Applicant’s deputy site manager has known Applicant for 18 years. He first got to
know Applicant when the deputy site manager was still on active duty with the Army as
a company first sergeant. The letter states, “[Applicant] is a true professional with high
ethical standards and customer interaction talents.”
Applicant’s division manager has known Applicant since 2000. In 2008 he
appointed Applicant as the deputy division manager. The witness describes Applicant
as a man of “integrity.”
A co-worker who has known Applicant for nine years states, “[Applicant’s] work
ethics are of the highest caliber and his integrity and patriotism is without question.”
The final letter is from a friend of Applicant’s, who has known him since 2012.
The writer is a vice-president in a national veterans non-profit organization. He states,
“[Applicant] is a very reliable person. He has a strong work ethic and strong moral
character.”
5
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  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 to be used as appropriate 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.  In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on
his or her own common sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the
ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that, “Any 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, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”
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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any
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
6
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Paragraph 1 (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. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant, by his own admission, and supported by the documentary
evidence, had four delinquent accounts that he could not resolve. The evidence is
sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), disqualifying conditions
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ In addition, AG
¶ 20(b) states that disqualifying conditions may be mitigated 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.”  
The evidence shows that both of the above mitigating conditions apply to
Applicant. It appears that the vast majority of this debt was incurred as a result of his
wife’s very severe illness, the depression that she suffered due to the diagnosis of an
inoperable brain tumor, and her decision to hide from Applicant the true extent of the
debt situation for several years. The loss of her job income also had a tremendous
impact. Applicant and his wife have worked diligently over many years to resolve the
debts, consistently paying the original creditors or the successor collection agencies on
a regular basis. Based on the particular facts of this case, I find that he has “initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” as required by
AG ¶ 20(d).
1ISCR Case No. 06-12930 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 17, 2008) (quoting ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2-3 (App. Bd.
Jul. 6, 2006)). See ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008).
7
Applicant has not received financial counseling. However, as found above, his
current financial situation is stable. I find that “there are clear indications that the
problem is being resolved or is under control,” as required by AG ¶ 20(c). 
Applicant has acted in a way that shows good judgment, making the best he
could out of an incredibly difficult and emotional situation. As the DOHA Appeal Board
has said, “An applicant is not required to show that [he] has completely paid off [his]
indebtedness, only that [he] has established a reasonable plan to resolve [his] debts
and has taken significant actions to implement that plan.”1 All of these mitigating
conditions apply to the facts of this case.
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 the relevant circumstances. 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. The administrative judge must 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The discussion under
Guideline F, above, applies here as well. While Applicant has had financial problems in
the past, they are being resolved, and he has the knowledge and ability to avoid such
problems in the future. 
Under AG ¶ 2(a)(2), I have considered the facts of Applicant’s debt history.
Based on the record, I find that there have been permanent behavioral changes under
AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); and that there is a low likelihood of recurrence
(AG ¶ 2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with no questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
8
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
situation. Accordingly, the evidence supports granting his request 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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d: 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.
_________________
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge