1The case number on the SOR was incorrect. The correct case number is ISCR Case No. 12-09763.
2Item 3.
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-097631
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
November 18, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge:
Applicant remains indebted to five creditors in the total approximate amount of
$17,775. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated. Based on a review of the
pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on April 3, 2012.2 On
December 12, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility
(DoD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, 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; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial
3Item 2.
4Item 3.
5Items 4 and 5.
6 Department Counsel conceded in her FORM that SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1d are duplicate entries. Thus, Applicant
is found to have five valid debts.
2
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended
(Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines that came into effect in the Department of
Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted a written response to the SOR, dated February 24, 2015,
and requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record
without a hearing.3 Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on
June 25, 2015, containing five Items. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material
(FORM) was provided to Applicant, and he was afforded an opportunity to file objections
and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt
of the FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of his copy of the FORM
on July 2, 2015.He submitted no additional material in response to the FORM, made no
objection to consideration of any contents of the FORM, and did not request additional
time to respond. I received the case assignment on September 22, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 52 years old, and has worked for a defense contractor since 1998.
He is married, and has three children.4 
The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a clearance because he
made financial decisions that indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which raise questions about his
reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. The SOR alleged
that Applicant is delinquent on six debts in the total amount of $24,557. In Item 2,
Applicant admitted the delinquent debts as set forth in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, and 1.e. He
denied the delinquent debts as set forth in SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.f, because ¶ 1.d was a
duplicate entry of the debt identified in ¶ 1.a, and ¶ 1.f was paid through a garnishment.
Applicant’s delinquent accounts appeared on his credit reports dated October 17, 2014;
and April 12, 2012.5 
Applicant’s debts consist of a credit card debt in the amount of $6,782 that has
been delinquent since 2008 (alleged in both SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1d)6; a collection account
in the amount of $1,191 that has been delinquent since approximately 2009 (SOR ¶
1.b); a $99 debt, delinquent since 2009 (SOR ¶ 1.c); a collection account in the amount
3
of $4,995 (SOR ¶ 1.e); and a charged off credit card in the amount of $4,708 (SOR ¶
1.f). 
Applicant’s Response failed to include documentation to support his claim that he
resolved ¶ 1.f through a garnishment, or show he had addressed any of his remaining
debts in a meaningful way. None of Applicant’s five debts have been resolved.
The record lacks evidence concerning the quality of Applicant’s professional
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. No character
witnesses provided statements describing his judgment, trustworthiness, integrity, or
reliability. I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or character in person
since he elected to have his case decided without a hearing. 
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 (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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.
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 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 ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he 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.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny 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.”
4
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns under the guideline for financial considerations are set out
in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:      
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. 
Department Counsel asserted, and the record evidence established, security
concerns under two Guideline F DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.
Applicant has a long history of delinquent debt. From 2008 to present, he
accumulated 5 delinquent accounts totaling $17,775. His ongoing pattern of delinquent
debt, and history of inability or unwillingness to pay his lawful debts, raises security
concerns under DCs 19(a) and (c), and shifts the burden to Applicant to rebut,
extenuate, or mitigate those concerns. 
The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:
(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; 
5
(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;
(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; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(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 failed to produce sufficient evidence that he has addressed his five
delinquencies. He offered little evidence from which to establish a track record of debt
resolution. He failed to demonstrate that conditions beyond his control contributed to his
financial problems or that he acted responsibly under such circumstances. He did not
produce evidence that he received financial counseling. MC 20(e) requires documented
proof to substantiate the basis of a dispute concerning an alleged debt, and Applicant
failed to provide such evidence, despite claiming he resolved ¶ 1.f. Accordingly, the
record is insufficient to establish mitigation under any of the foregoing provisions.
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
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. 
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.   
6
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is an accountable
adult, who is responsible for his voluntary choices and conduct that underlie the security
concerns expressed in the SOR. His SOR-listed delinquent debts arose over the past
eight years and appear to remain unresolved despite his employment during the period
involved. He offered insufficient evidence of financial counseling, rehabilitation, better
judgment, or responsible conduct in other areas of his life to offset resulting security
concerns. The potential for pressure, coercion, and duress from his financial situation
remains undiminished. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with substantial doubt as
to Applicant’s present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. He did not meet
his burden to mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial considerations.
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.d For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.e through 1.f 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 eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                              
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Administrative Judge