1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-06564
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
December 2, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on July 10, 2014.  On May 3, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F 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 June 9, 2015.  He answered the
SOR in writing on June 22, 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 September 15, 2015.  DOHA
issued a notice of hearing on September 16, 2015, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on October 6, 2015.  The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 4,
which were received without objection.  Applicant testified on his own behalf and
2
submitted Exhibits (AppXs) A through C, which were received without objection.  DOHA
received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on October 15, 2015.  I granted Applicant’s
request to keep the record open until November 6, 2015, to submit additional matters.
On October 23, 2015, he submitted Exhibit D, which was received without objection.
The record closed on November 6, 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.b., and 1.c. of the SOR, with explanations.  He denied the factual
allegations in Subparagraph 1.a. the SOR.  He also provided additional information to
support his request for eligibility for a security clearance.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Applicant is 57 years old, has a degree in “Electronics,” and has held a security
clearance without any violations since about 1995, 20 years.  (TR at page 20 line 22 to
page 23 line 22.)
1.a.  Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor A as a result of an
automobile repossession in the amount of about $8,613.  He co-signed for an
automobile loan for another, and the other person stopped making the car payments.
(TR at page 26 line 7 to page 34 line 20.)  That car was purchased by a third party, and
that third party is making car payment to the satisfaction of Creditor A.  (Id.)  This is
evidenced by the Government’s most recent October 2015 credit report that shows
payments are being made, and the auto loan is not past due.  (GX 4 at item 23.)
1.b. and 1.c.  Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor B for past-due
student loans totaling about $7,106.  He has been making monthly payments of $50
towards these student loans since January of 2014 to the satisfaction of Creditor B.
(AppX B, and AppX D at pages 1~5.)  This is evidenced by correspondence from
Creditor B.  (Id.)  As of September 16, 2015, he has paid $928.66 towards these loans.
(AppX D at page 1.)
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
factors listed in the adjudicative process.  The administrative judge’s over-arching
3
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
4
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 has had difficulty meeting his
financial obligations.  However, under Subparagraph 20(d), it may be mitigating where
“the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts.”  Applicant has made a good-faith effort to resolve all of the alleged past-
due debt.
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances.  Under 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.
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.  Applicant is highly respected in the
workplace.  (AppX C.)  The record evidence leaves me without questions and doubts as
to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.  For this reason, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his Financial
Considerations, under the whole-person concept.
5
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.c. 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 eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge