1 
                                                            
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 -------------- )  ISCR Case No. 14-05440 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
Appearances 
 
                    For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted insufficient documentary evidence to mitigate Guideline F 
security concerns. Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance is denied. 
 
                                        Statement of the Case  
 
On January 15, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated 
Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing 
security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The action was taken 
under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry 
(February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel 
Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the 
adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DOD on September 1, 2006.  
 
In a response to the SOR, dated February 2, 2015, Applicant admitted the nine 
allegations raised and requested a determination based on the written record in lieu of a 
hearing. On August 4, 2015, the Government issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) 
that contained six attachments (“Items”). Applicant received the FORM on August 14, 
2015, and did not respond within the 30 days provided. The case was assigned to me 
on October 9, 2015. Based on my review of the case file and submissions, I find 
Applicant failed to mitigate financial considerations security concerns. 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
       Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant is a 32-year-old clerk working for a defense contractor. She has earned 
an associate’s degree. Currently single, she is the mother of one child. Over the past 
decade, Applicant experienced periods of unemployment from July 2011 to August 
2011, July 2008 to September 2008, and December 2007 to January 2008.  At issue in 
the SOR are nine allegations (1.a-1.i), each representing a delinquent debt. In sum, the 
past-due accounts at issue amount to approximately $15,750 in debt. They range in 
amount from $272 to $5,586. 
 
Applicant attributes her acquisition of delinquent debt on a move to a different 
state, but little information is provided regarding this move, including the date of the 
move. (FORM, Item 6 at 3, 5) She believes her debts are tied to events beyond her 
control, but remains unclear as to her basis for this assertion. Applicant is helping her 
brother pay his mortgage and helping her sister with her debts. She has no knowledge 
of many of the accounts at issue. There is no documentary evidence indicating 
Applicant has disputed any of the accounts at issue or received financial counseling. 
 
Lacking a response to the FORM, information about Applicant and her finances 
is limited. Unverified investigator’s notes, a security clearance application, and 
Applicant’s brief response to the SOR comprise the majority of the official case file. In 
response to the SOR, Applicant wrote: 
 
I admit I am in debt to the nine accounts provided on the [SOR]. . . . I am 
aware of my financial issue and debt. Therefore, I understand the 
reasoning for my denial of eligibility for my security clearance. However, I 
plan to resolve my financial issues and delinquent debts by this year. I 
may not be financially able to pay the entire amount off in one payment. 
However, I plan on seeking financial advice and try to pay it off in 
increments of what I could currently afford. (FORM, Item 2 at 3) 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are 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 the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching 
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, 
 
 
 
 
3 
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 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.  
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an “applicant is 
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel and has the 
ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain 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. 
Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may 
deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 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 
 
Under Guideline F, AG ¶ 18 sets forth that the security concern under this 
guideline is that 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 engaging in illegal acts to generate funds.  
 
Here, the Government introduced credible evidence showing Applicant incurred 
approximately $15,750 in delinquent debt. Applicant admits the related SOR allegations. 
This is sufficient to raise two financial considerations disqualifying conditions:  
 
AG ¶ 19(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
 
AG ¶ 19(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.  
 
Five conditions could mitigate these finance-related security concerns:  
 
 
 
 
4 
 AG ¶ 20(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; 
 
 AG ¶ 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; 
 
 AG ¶ 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;  
 
 AG ¶ 20(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and 
 
 AG ¶ 20(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 attributed her delinquent debts to her move to another state at some 
unclear time in the past decade. She did not, however, provide sufficient documentary 
evidence to show that this vaguely defined move was necessary, or provide a narrative 
linking that move to her currently delinquent debts. There is no evidence showing that 
she behaved in a financially responsible manner at the time of this move. She did not 
attempt to attribute her delinquent debts to her brief periods of unemployment. There is 
no evidence she has disputed any of the multiple accounts still at issue, or otherwise 
attempted to address those debts. Indeed, Applicant concedes she has made no 
progress on the debts at issue, and there is no evidence of a reasonable plan to 
address them in the near future. Given these facts, none of the available mitigating 
conditions apply, and financial considerations security concerns remain unmitigagted. 
 
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 
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). Under AG ¶ 2(c), the determination of 
whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense 
judgment based on consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.        
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I incorporated my comments under 
 
 
 
 
5 
the guideline at issue in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) 
were addressed under that guideline, but some warrant additional comment.  
 
Applicant is a single, 32-year-old, mother of one child who is working as a clerk. 
She has earned an associate’s degree. She experienced periods of unemployment from 
July 2011 to August 2011, July 2008 to September 2008, and December 2007 to 
January 2008. At issue in the SOR are nine past-due accounts (1.a-1.i), amounting to 
approximately $15,750 in debt. Those debts range in amount from $272 to $5,586. 
 
The burden in these proceedings is on the applicant to provide evidence 
rebutting, refuting, or otherwise challenging documented evidence of delinquent debt. 
Applicant provided little more than a brief and general commentary in response to the 
SOR allegations as a whole. In that commentary, she admitted the debts at issue and 
conceded that no action had been taken on those debts. Lacking documented progress 
on the past-due accounts at issue or evidence that a reasonable plan for addressing 
these debts has been successfully implemented, financial considerations security 
concerns remain unmitigated. 
 
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 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a-1.i:   Against Applicant 
 
             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 a security clearance. 
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
                                                   
_____________________________ 
Arthur E. Marshall, Jr. 
Administrative Judge