Item 2.1
Item 1.2
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-05087
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Carroll Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant incurred 49 delinquent debts over the past decade, totaling more than
$38,000. He demonstrated neither sufficient means nor efforts toward resolving any of
them. 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 (SF-86) on August 31,
2012.  On July 14, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility1
(DoD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security
concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).  The action was taken under2
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February
Item 1.3
Department Counsel submitted five Items in support of the SOR allegations.  Item 3 is inadmissible, and it4
will not be considered or cited as evidence in this decision. It is an unsworn summary of an interview by an
investigator from the Office of Personnel Management on November 5, 2012.  Per Directive ¶ E3.1.20, it is
not admissible in the absence of adoption by Applicant, or evidence from an authenticating witness. 
Item 3; AE A.5
Item 1.6
2
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 that came into effect in the Department of
Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted a written response to the SOR on August 11, 2015, and
requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record
without a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on3
September 10, 2015. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was4
received by Applicant on September 26, 2015, 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 submitted no additional material in response to the
FORM. I received the case assignment on November 9, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 57 years old. He started work as a heavy equipment mechanic for a
defense contractor in 2012, after more than a decade working for various companies
and periods of self employment as an automotive technician. He received a GED in
1999. He has been married for 37 years and has five adult children. He has no military
service, and has never held a security clearance.  5
In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted the truth of the 49 allegations
concerning delinquent debts. They range from a $55 medical debt placed for collection
in February 2011, described in SOR ¶ 1.r, to the $8,437 balance due after the early
2012 repossession of a vehicle that he borrowed $18,287 to purchase in July 2011, as
described in SOR ¶ 1.b. He documented his undated offer to settle a law suit over this
largest debt for a series of $350 monthly payments totaling $2,862, but failed to show
that his offer was accepted or that he made any payments thereunder. All SOR-alleged
debts are supported by the record credit reports. Twenty-four of these debts are for less
than $200, and another 13 of them are for less than $400. Appellant neither asserted
nor documented any payments, disputes, or other resolution of any of these debts
except to say that he had been making payments toward the repossessed vehicle loan.6
Applicant provided no evidence establishing his current income or household
budget. He offered no evidence of financial counseling, savings or retirement
Item 1.7
3
investments, or other indicators of financial responsibility. He submitted a letter from a
loan officer at his local bank stating that he had obtained and repaid a number of small
personal loans since beginning his current employment, had paid down over $10,000 of
his total debt load, and improved his credit score by 70 points. The loan officer further
stated that Applicant had one open loan and two deposit accounts, each with an
average balance in the low four figure range.  7
Applicant also submitted a letter of reference from a shop foreman who was his
site lead supervisor for his current employer on an MRAP support program in
Afghanistan several years ago. This former supervisor described him as an
overqualified and very seasoned mechanic who worked hard every day without issue.
The record lacks any other 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. 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
4
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
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 admittedly has 49 unresolved delinquent debts, totaling more than
$38,000. These debts arose over the past several years despite his continuous
employment, and he failed to resolve even one of the numerous small balances due.
His ongoing pattern and history of inability or unwillingness to pay lawful debts raise
security concerns under DCs 19(a) and (c), and shift the burden to Applicant to rebut,
extenuate, or mitigate those concerns. 
5
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; 
(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 has incurred substantial delinquent debts, which continue to date. He
offered no evidence of any progress in addressing them, and continues to carry a large
amount of unresolved debt. He failed to demonstrate that conditions beyond his control
contributed to his financial problems, or that he acted responsibly under such
circumstances. MC 20(e) requires documented proof to substantiate the basis of a
dispute concerning a delinquent debt, and Applicant admitted owing the debts alleged in
the SOR. Accordingly, the record is insufficient to establish mitigation under any of the
foregoing conditions.
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
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.   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is an accountable
and experienced adult, who is responsible for the voluntary choices and conduct that
caused the financial problems underlying the security concerns expressed in the SOR.
His SOR-listed delinquent debts arose over the past decade, and remain unresolved
despite his reported continuous employment throughout that period. 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.ww: 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.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge