1
                                                             
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-10137
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
January 6, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on April 25, 2012.  On May 29, 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 15, 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 October 29, 2015.  DOHA
issued a notice of hearing on November 4, 2015, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on December 2, 2015.  The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 5,
which were received without objection.  Applicant testified on his own behalf and
2
submitted Exhibit (AppXs) A and B, which were received without objection.  DOHA
received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on December 10, 2015.  The record was
initially closed on December 2, 2015.  Despite the record being closed, on December
18, 2015, Applicant submitted four letters of recommendation, to which Department
Counsel had no objection; and as such, they were admitted into evidence as AppX C.
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 denied the factual allegations in
Subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.b. 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 57 years old long-distance truck driver, who’s employment requires
a security clearance.  (TR at page 17 line 14 to page 19 line 10.)  Applicant and his wife
also owned a bar, but she passed away in November of 1991.  (TR at page 27 line 5 to
page 28 line 25 and GX 1 at page 17.)  His grieving process lasted for years; and as a
result, he failed to pay state taxes related to their bar.  (Id.)  This, coupled with a period
of unemployment for a year and a half in 2008~2009, caused the alleged financial
shortcomings.
1.a. and 1.b.  Applicant paid the alleged state tax liens totaling about $15,461 in
January of 2010, more than five years ago.  (TR at page 21 line 16 to page 25 line 11,
at page 26 line 19 to page 27 line 3, and at page 29 lines 1~14.)  This is evidenced by
documentation from his business tax representative.  (AppX A.)  I find for Applicant vis-
a-vis these alleged state tax liens.
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
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.
3
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
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
4
disqualifying.  Similarly under Subparagraph 19(g), “failure to file annual . . . state . . .
income tax returns as required@ may raise security concerns.  Applicant had significant
state tax liens.  However, I find two countervailing Mitigating Conditions that are
applicable here.  Under Subparagraph 20(b), it may be mitigating where “the conditions
that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g.
Loss of employment, . . . or a death . . . ), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances.”  Applicant’s state tax problems were directly related to his wife’s death,
and exacerbated by a lengthy period of unemployment.  Under Subparagraph 20(d), it
may also be mitigating where “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.”  Applicant addressed the state’s alleged
tax liens more than five years ago.
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 well respected in the workplace
and in the community.  (AppXs B and C.)  The record evidence leaves me without
questions or 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
Subparagraph 1.a. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b. 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