The Government submitted five items for the record.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)     ISCR Case No. 14-05853
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A, Administrative Judge:
On January 22, 2015,  the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance
Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative
guidelines (AG) implemented in September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a review based on the written
record in lieu of a hearing. The case was assigned to me on October 9, 2015.
Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), dated July 21,
2015.  Applicant received the FORM on August 26, 2015. Applicant submitted1
information in response to the FORM, which was marked and admitted into the record
as AX A.  Based on a review of the case file, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted.
2
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations under
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) with explanations. (Item 1)
Applicant is a 40-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He received his
undergraduate degree in 2002, and his graduate degree in 2013. (Item 2) He is married
and has two children. He has worked for his employer since 2008. He completed a
security clearance application in 2014. He has had a security clearance since 2003.
The SOR alleges six delinquent debts totaling $20,900. (Item 1) The majority of
the debt is from collection accounts. (Items 4-6)
Applicant attributes his delinquent debts to underestimating the cost of building a
home on land he purchased. In 2005, he received an estimate for the construction, but
it cost about $85,000 more than the projected cost. He paid the builder from 2005 until
2006. He used credit to pay for living expenses. He made timely payments on his credit
cards. However, over time the required minimum payment increased and he was
unable to maintain them.
In addition, his wife could not find full time employment as a teacher. She was a
substitute teacher at a lower pay level and had unreliable hours. They also had day
care expenses for two children. One child was born in 2008. (Item 3)  Applicant paid
other bills that were not included in the SOR.  He is current on taxes and his mortgage.
He has a specific timeline for paying his debts. He and his wife do not use credit cards.
(Item 3)
Applicant disclosed the negative financial information on his security clearance
application. He also reported it to the investigator during his 2014 interview. Applicant is
not accumulating new debt, and he is paying his current bills in a timely fashion. His
wife is now teaching full time.  His credit report (Item 5) notes many accounts as “pays
as agreed.”
As to the SOR allegation at 1.a for a charged-off account in the amount of
$14,164, he has an established payment plan. Applicant initially paid $50 monthly. This
has increased to $150 for the next 36 months. He provided documentation that the
account is current and payments received. The balance at the time of response was
$12,790. (AX A) 
As to the SOR allegation at 1.b for a collection account in the amount of $2,149,
the account will be paid in full by December 2015. Applicant provided documentation
that his payment plan started in December 2014, with an initial payment of $752 and
subsequent monthly payments of $116.
As to the SOR allegation of 1.c for a charged-off account in the amount of $836,
the account is in repayment status. Payments started in November 2014. Applicant
3
provided documentation that he is paying $76 a month on the account. He also
included documentation that he paid $267 on a similar account with a balance of $304.
Applicant provided documentation for the account in SOR 1.d for a collection
account in the amount of $623. He paid $186.90 as a first payment and agreed to pay
$62.30 in subsequent months. The balance has been reduced to $436. 
Applicant stated that, as to the alleged debt at 1.e, the account in the amount of
$201, has been paid. Applicant spoke to the company, and they confirmed a zero
balance. He is in the process of having it removed from his credit report.
As to the alleged debt at SOR 1.f in the amount of $2,823, Applicant explained
that he has a repayment plan and pays $125 a month. A recent credit report shows an
account with the same number as “pays as agreed.”  He noted that he had difficulty
with this account, as it was taken over by another company. He entered into an
agreement and provided documentation that shows the payment plan. It is not clear
that this account is  the same one that appears on his credit report as in payment. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An 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. 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
The United States Government must present evidence to establish controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. An applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and
other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
4
proven by Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a2
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of 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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a7
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an 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.” It also
states that “an individual who is financially overextended is at risk
of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.
5
Applicant incurred delinquent debt. His admissions and credit reports
confirm the debts. Consequently, Financial Considerations Disqualifying
Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC
DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply. With such
conditions raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against him and
mitigate security concerns.  
Applicant notes that the construction costs of building a home exceeded
the initial projections. He paid the builder, but over time he could not maintain the
minimum payments on the credit cards that he used for daily expenses. At the
same time, his wife could not find a full time teaching position and was forced to
substitute teach at a much lower salary with unreliable hours. Applicant and his
wife also had a child in 2008 and day care expenses increased. His wife is now
teaching full time. He is gainfully employed. Consequently, Financial
Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) 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) partially applies.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (the
conditions that resulted in the behavior 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) applies. Applicant experienced circumstances beyond his
control. He did everything that he could to stay current with the builder and his
credit cards, but could not maintain his minimum payments. He is now in
repayment status. 
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) applies. He  resolved debts that were not listed in
the SOR. He provided for his family. He paid one debt on the SOR. He arranged
payment plans for the others. He is current with his mortgage and bills. FC MC AG ¶
20(c) (the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are
clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control) does not apply.
 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 an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should 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
6
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. 
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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person
factors. Applicant is 40-years old.  He is married and has worked many years. He has
held a security clearance without incident.
Applicant answered the FORM with more information on two accounts that are
in repayment status. He produced sufficient information concerning payment plans for
the delinquent debts. He is current with his mortgage and daily expenses.  He and his
wife are now both employed and in a position to have steady income. The
circumstances beyond his control, when his wife could not get full time employment,
and the income was greatly reduced, did not stop him from acting responsibly. He paid
other debts that were not listed on the SOR. He has no new debt. I have no doubts
about his judgment and reliability based on the record. His credit report shows a track
record of financial responsibility before the isolated financial difficulty.  
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
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.f: 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is granted.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge
7