1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-06207
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
November 2, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on November 13, 2010.  On March 17, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines
F and E 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 acknowledged receipt of the SOR on April 1, 2015.  He answered the
SOR in writing on April 21, 2015, and requested a hearing before an Administrative
Judge.  The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) received the request
soon thereafter, and I received the case assignment on June 16, 2015.  DOHA issued a
notice of hearing on July 2, 2015, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on August
13, 2015.  The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 6, which were received
without objection.  Applicant testified on his own behalf.  DOHA received the transcript
2
of the hearing (TR) on August 25, 2015.  I granted Applicant’s requests, one made at
his hearing and one made after his hearing, to keep the record open until October 14,
2015, to submit additional matters.  On October 14, 2015, he submitted Exhibits
(AppXs) A~C, which were received without objection.  The record closed on October 14,
2015.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for
access to classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in
Subparagraphs 1.d., and 1.h. of the SOR, with explanations.  He denied the factual
allegations in Subparagraphs 1.a.~1.c., 1.e.,~1.g., 1.i. and 2.a. of the SOR.  He also
provided additional information to support his request for eligibility for a security
clearance.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Applicant is a 34 year old employee of a government contractor.  (TR at page 17
line 9 to page 18 line 22.)  This is his first time applying for a security clearance.  (TR at
page 18 line 23 to page 20 line 5.)  He attributes his financial difficulties to two failed
marriages.  (TR at page 20 to page 23 line 15, and AppX C at page 10.)
1.a. and 1.b.  Applicant has filed both his Federal and state income tax returns
for tax years 2011 and 2012.  (TR at page 23 line 16 to page 27 line 1.)  This is
evidenced by documentation from those taxing authorities.  (AppX B at pages 1~5, and
10~12.)  In an abundance of caution, he has also submitted documentation showing he
has also filed for tax years 2013 and 2014.  (AppX B at pages 6~9.)  These allegations
are found for Applicant.
1.c.  Applicant was past due to his state taxing authority, for tax year 2011, in the
amount of about $2,190.  He is now current with his state taxing authority; and as such,
its “Withholding Order” to cover back taxes due is “Withdrawn.”  This is evidenced by
documentation from the state taxing authority.  (AppX B at pages 10~12.)  This
allegation is found for Applicant.
1.d.  In 2006, Applicant’s motor vehicle was voluntarily repossessed as he had to
repeatedly replace it’s engine.  (TR at page 30 line 5 to page 33 line 10.)  According to
the Government’s most recent, June 2015 credit report, the creditor was satisfied with
this repossession, as it is noted as “Paid and Closed” with a “$0" past-due amount.  GX
6 at page 5.)  This allegation is also found for Applicant.
1.e.  Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor E in the amount of about
$987.  He disputes this debt as being that of his deceased grandfather, who’s name is
the same as Applicant’s, except for one letter in their middle names.  (TR at page 33
line 11 to page 35 line 11.)  Applicant’s middle name is “Lee,” while that of his
grandfather is “Leo.”  This is evidenced by a formal dispute letter, and his grandfather’s
“Certificate of Death.”  (AppX C at pages 1, 2 and 8.)  Furthermore, all of his debts to
3
Creditor E, as they appear on the Government’s credit report, note a past due amount
of “$0."  (GX 6.)  This allegation is found for Applicant.
1.f.  Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor F in the amount of about
$147.  He disputes this debt as not being his debt, as evidenced by a formal dispute
letter.  (TR at page 35 line 12 to page 36 line 18, and AppX C at page 3.)  Furthermore,
this debt does not appear on the Government’s most recent credit report.  (GX 6.)  This
allegation is found for Applicant.
1.g.  Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor G in the amount of about
$160.  He disputes this debt as not being his debt, as evidenced by a formal dispute
letter.  (TR at page 36 line 19 to page 37 line 17, and AppX C at page 4.)  Furthermore,
this debt does not appear on the Government’s most recent credit report.  (GX 6.)  This
allegation is found for Applicant.
1.h.  Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor H in the amount of about
$644.  He has paid this debt, as evidenced by documentation from Creditor H.  (TR at
page 37 line 18 to page 38 line 15, and AppA C at pages 5~7.)  This allegation is found
for Applicant.
1.i.  Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor I in the amount of about
$126.  He disputes this debt as being that of his deceased grandfather, as evidenced by
a formal dispute letter.  (TR at page 38 line 16 to page 39 line 14, and AppX C at page
9.)  Furthermore, this debt does not appear on the Government’s most recent credit
report.  (GX 6.)  This allegation is found for Applicant.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
2.a.  Applicant denies that he failed to cooperate with his personnel security
investigation.  (TR at page 39 line 15 to page 44 line 2.)  He avers that as this was the
first time he applied for a security clearance, he was unaware of what information was
expected of him.  (Id.)  He did provide candid responses on 14 of the 15 pages of his
written interrogatories, and he was most candid at his hearing.  (On page 10 of said
interrogatories, he failed to fully address unfounded psychological issues averred to by
his estranged former spouse.)  His good character is also attested to by those who
know Applicant in the workplace.  (AppX A.)  This allegation is found for Applicant.
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
4
factors listed in the adjudicative process.  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.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.
Paragraph 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.
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 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
5
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 had significant past-due
indebtedness.  The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying
conditions, requiring a closer examination.  Subparagraph 1(g) is not applicable, as
Applicant has filed his “annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns as required,”
albeit in an untimely manner.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties.  Subparagraph 20(b) applies where “the
conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s
control (e.g. . . . divorce . . .), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances.”  Applicant’s past-due debts are directly attributable to his divorces.
Subparagraph 20(c) applies where “there are clear indications that the problem is being
resolved or is under control.”  Subparagraph 20(d) applies where the evidence shows
“the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts.@  Applicant has addressed all of his admitted past-due debts, and has
successfully contested those debts that were his deceased grandfather’s.  Financial
Considerations are found for Applicant.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in
Paragraph 15: “Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.”
I find no Disqualifying Condition that is applicable here.  This was the first time
Applicant has applied for a security clearance.  Once he realized the gravity of his
situation, he was fully cooperative with the Government’s inquires at his hearing.
Personal Conduct is found for Applicant.
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.
6
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.  Those who know Applicant in the
workplace speak most highly of him.  (AppX A.)  The record evidence leaves me without
questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.
For these reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising
from his alleged Financial Consideration and Personal Conduct.
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.i. For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a. For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge