Department Counsel submitted four Items in support of the SOR allegations. 1
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 14-01365
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Pamela Benson, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
January 28, 2016
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on September 16, 2013. (Item 2.)  On October 10, 2014, the Department of
Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) regarding 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 on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing, with supporting documentation, on
November 10, 2014, and requested a decision by an administrative judge without a
hearing. (Answer.) Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case
(FORM) to Applicant on June 15, 2015.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the FORM1
June 30, 2015. He was given 30 days from receipt of the FORM to submit any
2
additional documentation. Applicant submitted additional information on July 13, 2015.
Department Counsel had no objection to my considering the documents, and they are
admitted collectively as Applicant Exhibit A. The case was assigned to me on August
11, 2015. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to
classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 54, and married to his second wife. As further discussed below, he
and his wife have custody of four minor grandchildren. He is employed by a defense
contractor, and seeks to retain a security clearance in connection with his employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable,
untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant
admitted allegations 1.a through 1.d, and 1.f, in the SOR. He denied the remaining
allegation (1.e) because he did not recognize the debt. He also submitted additional
information to support his request for a security clearance.
Applicant states that his financial situation was stable until the time he divorced
his first wife in 2010. As part of the 2010 divorce decree he took responsibility for paying
most of the marital debts until 2014. (Applicant Exhibit A at 7-31.) Applicant remarried in
2011, and the expenses of that marriage also provided a strain to his finances. (Answer
at 1.) However, the major strain to his finances occurred in June 2012. In May 2012
Applicant’s two-year-old grandson accidentally drowned. The other four grandchildren
were going into foster care when Applicant stepped in and took custody of them. The
ages of the grandchildren are currently 8, 7, 6, and 4. (Answer at 1-2; Applicant Exhibit
A at 2-3, 32-35.)   
The SOR lists five delinquent debts (1.a through 1.e), totaling approximately
$28,245. The existence and amount of the debts is supported by credit reports dated
September 27, 2013; and May 26, 2015. (Items 3 and 4.) The SOR also alleges that
Applicant did not file his 2012 Federal income tax return (1.f).
The current status of the debts, and tax return, is as follows:
1.a. Applicant admitted that he owed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
$11,352 in back taxes for the 2010 tax year. A tax lien was filed for this year. Part of his
income tax refund for 2013 was used to pay this debt in full and the IRS released the
lien, as shown in documentation provided by Applicant. (Answer at 7-8.) This debt is
resolved.
1.b. Applicant admitted that he owed the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
$13,180 in back taxes for the 2011 tax year. A tax lien was filed for this year. Parts of
3
his income tax refunds for 2012, 2013, and 2014 were used to pay this debt in full and
the IRS released the lien, as shown in documentation provided by Applicant. (Answer at
8; Applicant Exhibit A at 4-5, 51.) This debt is resolved.
1.c. Applicant admitted that he was indebted for a department store credit card
in the amount of $1,276. Applicant showed proof of payment of this debt in December
2014. This debt is resolved. (Applicant Exhibit A at 41.)
1.d. Applicant admitted that he was indebted for a delinquent telephone bill in
the amount of $1,411. Applicant showed proof of payment of this debt in December
2014. This debt is resolved. (Applicant Exhibit A at 40.)
1.e. Applicant denied owing $1,026 for a delinquent medical bill. In his Answer
Applicant stated he did not recognize the bill, which was merely identified by an account
number and a statement it was medically related. Through research, Applicant was able
to identify the particular medical provider and the date of the alleged service. Applicant
has filed a dispute with the credit reporting agencies. (Applicant Exhibit A at 43.) This
debt is in dispute.
1.f. Applicant admitted not filing his 2012 Federal income tax return in a timely
fashion. He stated in his Answer that this was an error. He timely mailed the return and
believed it had been received by the IRS. He did not know until receiving the SOR that it
had not been received. He has since successfully filed that return, as shown in
documentation from the IRS. (Applicant Exhibit A at 51.) This allegation is resolved. 
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  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 to be used as appropriate 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
over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶ 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.  In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on
his or her own common sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the
ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision.
4
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that, “Any 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 ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “The 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.”
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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any
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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 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
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
As stated, Applicant does not admit that the debt in subparagraph 1.e is his.2
Regarding subparagraph 1.e, Applicant states in his Answer that he is willing and able to pay this debt if3
further research shows that it is his, obviating any possible security concerns regarding this minor debt. 
5
security concerns. Applicant, by his own admission, and supported by the documentary
evidence, had four delinquent accounts that he formerly could not resolve.  The2
evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions. In addition, AG &
19(g) also applies, “failure to file annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns as
required or fraudulent filing of the same.”
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), disqualifying conditions
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ In addition, AG
¶ 20(b) states that disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where “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.” 
 The evidence shows that both of the above mitigating conditions apply to
Applicant. The tax debts and the two consumer debts were the result of the financial
strains of his divorce, as well as he and his wife suddenly, and tragically, taking on
responsibility for four minor children. As shown above, the debts set forth in
subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d have all been resolved.  The 2012 tax return has been3
successfully refiled, mitigating subparagraph 1.f.
Based on the particular facts of this case, I also find that Applicant has “initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” as required by
AG ¶ 20(d). I find that “there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or
is under control,” as required by AG ¶ 20(c). Finally, with regard to the medical debt
(1.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,” as
required by AG ¶ 20(e).
Applicant has acted in a way that shows good judgment, making the best he
could out of a very difficult situation. All of these mitigating conditions apply to the facts
of this case. Guideline F 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 relevant circumstances. Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination
of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense
6
judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person
concept. The administrative judge must 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The discussion under
Guideline F, above, applies here as well. While Applicant has had financial problems in
the past, they were primarily the result of circumstances beyond his control, have been
resolved, and he has the knowledge and ability to avoid such problems in the future. 
Under AG ¶ 2(a)(2), I have considered the facts of Applicant’s debt history.
Based on the record, I find that there have been permanent behavioral changes under
AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); and that there is a low likelihood of recurrence
(AG ¶ 2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with no questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
situation. Accordingly, the evidence supports granting his request for a security
clearance.
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.f: For Applicant
7
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.
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge