1Item 3.
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-05216
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Benjamin R. Dorsey, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
December 30, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge:
Applicant remains indebted to seven creditors in the total approximate amount of
$24,325. 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 May 24, 2012.1 On
November 19, 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
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended
2Item 2.
3Item 3 and 4.
4Items 5 and 6.
5Item 6.
2
(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 June 25, 2015, and
requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record
without a hearing.2 Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on
August 27, 2015, containing six 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 September 14, 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 November 10, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 36 years old, and has worked for a defense contractor since 2012.
He is married, and is a high school graduate. He has two children from a prior
relationship.3
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 seven debts in the total amount of $24,325. In Item 2,
Applicant admitted all of the delinquent debts as set forth in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.g.
Applicant’s delinquent accounts appeared on his credit reports dated May 9, 2014, and
June 2, 2012.4 
Applicant’s debts consist of: a delinquent mobile home loan; a consumer loan; an
auto loan; a collection account; two medical debts; and a note loan. Applicant’s largest
debt, the $18,361 mobile home loan, became delinquent in approximately 2009 when
he and the mother of his children ended their relationship. His extra income at that time
went toward paying child support and he was unable to pay his creditors. The mobile
home was repossessed and the remaining debt was charged off by the creditor in
December 2009.5 Applicant’s May 2014 credit report reflected no recent action of any of
the alleged debts. In his August 2014 answers to interrogatories, he indicated he was
3
not making payments on any of his debts, but had a monthly remainder between $756
and $990. 
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.”
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
4
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 2009 to present, he
accumulated seven delinquent accounts totaling $24,325. His ongoing pattern of
delinquent debt, and history of inability or unwillingness to pay his lawful debts, raise
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; 
(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; 
5
(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 seven
delinquencies. He offered little evidence from which to establish a track record of debt
resolution. He has a significant monthly net remainder, but is not working toward the
resolution of any of his delinquencies. While his separation with the mother of his
children was a condition beyond his control, he failed to demonstrate that he acted
responsibly under such circumstances. He did not produce evidence that he received
financial counseling or claim to dispute any of his debts. 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.   
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
seven years and appear to remain unresolved. 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
6
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.g 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