DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-03732
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: David F. Hayes, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
October 15, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on March 3, 2014.  On September 6, 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 after September 1, 2006.
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing (Answer) on September 24, 2014, and
requested an Administrative Determination by an administrative judge.  Department
Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on April 9, 2015.  Applicant
responded to the FORM (Response) on June 16, 2015.  Department Counsel had no
objection, and the documents are entered into evidence.  The case was assigned to me
on July 21, 2015.  Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for
access to classified information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR,, Applicant denied the factual allegations in all the
Subparagraphs of the SOR, with explanations.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Applicant is a 46 year old government contractor.  (Item 3 at page 5.)  He avers
that he “was a credit card fraud victim,” and that he “did not make the majority of the
charges that totaled the balances due on each” alleged past-due debt.  (Item 2 at page
1, emphasis in original.)  His claim of identity theft is supported by correspondence from
his medical provider: i.e., that its “IT system” was compromised.  (Response at pages
1~2.)
1.a.  It is alleged that Applicant in indebted to Creditor A as the result of a
judgment in the amount of about $13,354.  This allegation is supported by an April 2015
credit report.  (Item 5 at page 1.)  Applicant unsuccessfully disputed this judgement as
evidenced by court documents.  (Answer at pages 2~9.)  His “Motion to Vacate
Judgment was denied.”  (Answer at pages 10~11.)  Although he continues to dispute
this judgment with credit reporting services (Response at pages 5~7); and Creditor A
has written-off this debt as a business loss, I find that this judgment is still outstanding.
This allegation is found against Applicant.
1.b., 1.c. and 1.d.  It is alleged that Applicant in indebted to Creditor B for past-
due debts totaling about $17,598.  This allegation is supported by an April 2015 credit
report.  (Item 5 at pages 2~3.)  Creditor B sued Applicant in this regard; but it was
dismissed without prejudice, the “action having been amicably adjusted by and between
the parties.”  This is evidenced by a court order.  (Answer at page 25.)  Applicant
offered to settle these debts for $2,250, as evidenced by a letter to Creditor B.  (Answer
at page 26.)  Creditor B, through counsel, has counter offered to accept $3,213 as
payment of only one of the three alleged past-due debts, allegation 1.c..  (Answer the
last page.)  As nothing further follows, I find that these debts is still outstanding.
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.  (AG Paragraph 2.)  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.
3
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.  AG
Paragraph 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 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.
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 AG 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 significant past-due debts and
an outstanding judgment, which he has not yet resolved.  He disputes an unspecified
4
“majority” of the alleged debts, but has yet to address those that he admits are his.  I
can find no countervailing Mitigating Condition that is applicable here.
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 circumstances.  Under AG Paragraph 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 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 with
questions and doubts as to her eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.
Applicant has failed to fully respond to the Government’s concerns; and as such, has
failed to address the alleged past-due debts and outstanding judgment.  For this reason,
I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the whole-person
concept arising from his Financial Considerations.
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d. Against Applicant
5
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.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge