DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14–04933
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Adrienne Strzelczyk, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
October 29, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Questionnaire for Investigations Processing, (E-QIP) on
February 10, 2013.  (Government Exhibit 2.)  On March 1, 2015, the Department of
Defense (DoD) pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as amended), issued a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for Applicant. The
SOR set forth the reasons why DoD adjudicators could not make the preliminary
affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant and recommended
referral to an administrative judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or
revoked.
Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on March 10, 2015, and elected to
have the case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing.  Department Counsel
submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) to Applicant on June 8,
2015.  Applicant received the FORM on June 11, 2015.  Applicant was instructed to
submit information in rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt.
Applicant submitted no response to the FORM.  This case was assigned to the
2
undersigned on August 20, 2015.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, and exhibits,
eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
 
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 58 years old and divorced.  She has an Associate’s Degree from
a Community College and holds the position of Logistician for a defense contractor.
She is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with this employment.   
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she is financially overextended and at risk
of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant admitted each of the four allegations set forth in the SOR under
this guideline.  (See Applicant’s Answer to SOR.)  A Credit Report of the Applicant
dated February 22, 2015, reflect that Applicant was at one time indebted to each of the
creditors set forth in the SOR, in an amount totaling in excess of $35,316.  (Government
Exhibit 4.)  Applicant has worked for a government contractor for over 40 years and has
never incurred a security violation.  She has been employed with her current employer
since December 2012, and has held a security clearance since at least 2000 without
incident. 
Applicant states that circumstances beyond her control caused or greatly
contributed to her financial problems.  In July 2003 Applicant was going through a
divorce. She could not afford to make the house payment by herself, and so she applied
for and obtained a loan modification on her home.  Her intention was to get the
mortgage company to make the loan more affordable due to the loss of her husband’s
income.  In 2007 her domestic partner was diagnosed with cancer and he could no
longer work.  At this time, Applicant was also the caretaker for her mother who had
terminal cancer.  Applicant’s monthly income was substantially reduced.  In April 2013
Applicant’s mother died of cancer, and in May 2013 her domestic partner died of
cancer.  Applicant further explained that her daughter was in an abusive relationship
and needed a place for herself and her four children to live.  Applicant allowed her
daughter to move into a vacant apartment that Applicant had in order to keep her safe
and protected.  Applicant did not receive any rental income from her daughter during
this period that further reduced Applicant’s income and her ability to pay her bills.    
Applicant became indebted to three creditors for delinquent accounts totaling
approximately $35,316.  1.a., a delinquent account placed for collection by a creditor in
the amount of $152 was outstanding.  A repayment of $100 was agreed upon between
3
the parties and the Applicant has paid the debt.  Applicant submitted a copy of the
check for proof of payment.  (See Applicant’s Answer to SOR, attachment 1.)
1.b.  A delinquent mortgage account owed to a lender for a deficiency balance of
$34,210 was at one time delinquent.  Applicant states that her current mortgage is not
held by this lender and the debt alleged was never brought to her attention.
Furthermore, the debt is not reflected on her most recent credit report.  Applicant has
never been notified about the debt by mail or phone calls for eight years.  Her house
was not foreclosed upon and in fact she still lives in the home.  She claims that she
does not owed the debt.  It is possible that when her home mortgage was modified, the
deficiency balance was placed on the back end of the loan.  (See Applicant’s Answer to
SOR, attachment 2.) 
      
1.c.  A delinquent credit card debt in the amount of $954 was placed for
collection and was outstanding.  Applicant set up a payment plan with the creditor and
paid of the debt over a period of six months by payments of $79.52 monthly.  Applicant
submitted proof of payment showing the debt has been paid in full.  (See Applicant’s
Answer to SOR, attachment 3.)
    
1.d. In October 2007, Applicant filed for Chapter 13 as a strategy to get the
bank to work with her to accomplish her mortgage loan modification and payment
arrangements with other creditors.  Applicant wanted to keep her house and in order to
do so, she need to modify her mortgage loan.  In November 2007 Applicant obtained
the loan modification, and dismissed the Chapter 13.  Before the divorce, the mortgage
loan was based upon both her and her husband’s income.  After the divorce, the loan
modification was based upon her income, which made a significant difference in the
payment required.  Applicant provided a copy of the loan modification which indicates
that her adjustment in the payment is reflected by a principal forgiveness in total amount
of $184,384.11.  (Government Exhibit 5.)     
Applicant recently accepted a new job with an increase in salary.  All of her
financial accounts are current and she continues to live within her means.  She states
that her employer is pleased with her work and her co-workers find her to be extremely
reliable and trustworthy.    
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
  
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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
4
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. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
20.(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; 
20.(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; and 
20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19, in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the administrative judge should
consider the following general factors:
a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct;
b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and 
5
i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct, which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.”  The administrative
judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in 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 applicant concerned.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an applicant for
clearance may be involved in excessive financial indebtedness that demonstrates poor
judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the applicant’s conduct and the
continued holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the
burden then shifts to the applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or
mitigation, which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The
applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that Applicant
has had excessive financial indebtedness (Guideline F) and the totality of this evidence
indicates poor judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of Applicant.
Because of the scope and nature of Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or
connection with her security clearance eligibility.  Considering all of the evidence,
Applicant has introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that
is sufficient to overcome the Government's case under Guideline F of the SOR.  
6
The evidence shows that circumstances beyond her control primarily caused her
financial difficulties.  Namely, a divorce, followed by several deaths in the family, and
problems with her daughter’s domestic partner that caused Applicant to spend money
that she would otherwise have used on her bills.  She became delinquently indebted to
several creditors.  Since things have stabilized, she has paid off her delinquent debts,
and modified her mortgage loan to become affordable.  She has submitted compelling
documentary evidence showing that she has acted responsibly and in good-faith to
repay her financial obligations, established a meaningful track record of repayment or
otherwise has a substantiated basis to dispute the legitimacy of her delinquent debts.
There is sufficient evidence of financial rehabilitation.  Considering all of the evidence,
Applicant has introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that
is sufficient to overcome the Government's case. 
   
In regard to Guideline F, Financial Considerations, Disqualifying Conditions
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 19.(c) a history of not meeting
financial obligations, apply.  However, Mitigating Conditions 20.(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; and 20.(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, and 20.(d) the
individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts are also applicable.  Accordingly, I find for Applicant under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations).
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Applicant has worked in the defense
industry for forty years and has never incurred a security violation.  She has made a
good faith effort to resolve her debts and has demonstrated honesty and
trustworthiness.  
Under the particular facts of this case, the totality of the conduct set forth under
all of the guidelines viewed as a whole supports a whole-person assessment of good
judgment, trustworthiness, reliability, candor, a willingness to comply with rules and
regulations, and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may properly
safeguard classified information.  
A security clearance is a privilege, not a right.  In order to meet the qualifications
for access to classified information, it must determined that the applicant is and has
been sufficiently trustworthy on the job and in her everyday life to adequately protect the
Government’s national interest. Overall, based upon the seriousness of the conduct
outlined here, this Applicant has demonstrated that she is sufficiently trustworthy, and
does meet the eligibility requirements for access to classified information.  Accordingly, I
find for the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial Considerations.)
     
7
On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has overcome the Government's
case opposing her request for a security clearance.  Accordingly, the evidence supports
a finding for Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in
Paragraph 1 of the SOR.  
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: For Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.a.: For Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.b.: For Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.c.: For Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.d.: For Applicant.
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant.
Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge