Item 3.1
Item 1.2
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-03834
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant incurred 18 delinquent debts, totaling more than $43,000. 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 November 25,
2013.  On October 7, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications1
Facility (DoD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing
security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).  The action was taken2
Item 2.3
Department Counsel submitted six Items in support of the SOR allegations. Item 6 is inadmissible and will4
not be considered or cited as evidence in this decision. It comprises two unsworn summaries  of interviews
with Applicant by investigators from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that were conducted May
4, 2009, and January 21, 2014.  Per Directive ¶ E3.1.20, these summaries are inadmissible without having 
been adopted by Applicant, or presentation of evidence from an authenticating witness. 
Item 3.5
Item 4.6
2
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 that came into effect in the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted a written response to the SOR on October 27, 2014, 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
June 25, 2015. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was received4
by Applicant on August 24, 2015, and he was afforded the opportunity to file objections
and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt
of the FORM. Applicant timely submitted a statement in response to the FORM, but sent
it to the DoD CAF instead of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals. On
November 2, 2015, Department Counsel indicated that he had no objection to
consideration of Applicant’s FORM response, which is admitted into the record as
Applicant Exhibit (AE) A. I received the case assignment on November 9, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 36 years old. He has worked continuously in various information
technology supervisory positions since January 2010, when he received an Honorable
medical discharge from the U.S. Navy after eleven years of service. He is twice
divorced, with no children.  5
In his response to the SOR and the FORM, Applicant admitted the truth of the 18
SOR allegations concerning his delinquent debts. Unfortunately, the drafter of the SOR
failed to correctly interpret the credit report on which the allegations were based, and
Department Counsel did not mention or request correction of the numerous factual
errors in the SOR allegations in the FORM. The allegations were based on the OPM
Full Data Credit Report obtained on January 7, 2014.  A table illustrating the nine6
incorrect SOR allegations and the correct information from that credit report is provided
below. The net result of the errors reflects a total delinquent indebtedness of $43,192
instead of the total $44,188 that is alleged in the DoD CAF SOR. 
Item 2; AE A.7
3
SOR ¶ Erroneously Alleged Information: Should Read:
1.a $18,141 $18,614
1.b $3,903 $2,877
1.d ` “charged off” “placed for collection”
1.e $1,334 $840
1.f $1,276 $1,160
1.h $1,112 $1,174
1.j $348 $280
1.m $54 $514
1.r $327 $40
As noted above, Applicant admitted all SOR allegations. He provided neither
evidence of any basis to dispute their validity, nor of any payments to reduce or
otherwise resolve any of them. He claimed in AE A that he had reduced his outstanding
balance on the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a to below $13,000 but provided no evidence to
support this claim. He also claimed that he had resolved some of the debts alleged in
SOR ¶¶ 1.d through 1.j, without specifying any details, but said that he had no
corroborating evidence because his ex-wife would not provide him with mail during their
separation and divorce.   7
Applicant provided no evidence establishing his current income or household
budget. He offered no evidence of financial counseling, of savings or retirement
investments, or of other indicators of financial responsibility. The record lacks any
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
4
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
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. 
5
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 18 unresolved delinquent debts, totaling more than
$43,000. These debts arose over the past several years despite his continuous
employment, and he failed to show that he resolved any of them. 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. 
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, he did not establish mitigation under any of these conditions.
W ith the factual corrections to the SOR allegations as noted in the table on page 3 above.8
6
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
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 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.r: Against Applicant8
7
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