DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-06023
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
January 28, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
The Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) dated June 30, 2014.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On February 21,
2015, the Department of Defense (DoD), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as
amended), issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed
reasons why the DoD could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the
Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a
security clearance for the Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative
Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked.
Applicant responded to the SOR on April 9, 2015, and he requested a hearing
before a Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative Judge.  This case was
assigned to this Administrative Judge on July 13, 2015.  A notice of hearing was issued
on August 12, 2015, scheduling the hearing for September 23, 2015.  At the hearing the
Government presented six exhibits, referred to as Government Exhibits 1 through 6,
which were admitted without objection.  The Applicant presented five exhibits, referred
to as Applicant’s Exhibits A through E, which were admitted without objection.  He also
testified on his own behalf.  The official transcript (Tr.) was received on October 1, 2015.
2
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
 FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant is 42 years old, is separated, and in the process of divorce, and has
three children.  He has a high school diploma and an Associates Degree.  He is
employed with a defense contractor as a Product Trainer and is seeking to obtain a
security clearance in connection with this employment.
The Government opposes Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is financially overextended and at risk of
having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
Applicant has a history of financial indebtedness.  There are thirteen delinquent
debts set forth in the SOR that total approximately $45,000.  Applicant admitted each of
the allegations except 1.d., because the creditor has charged off the account; and 1.e.,
since he is paying the debt through wage garnishment.  He has been employed on a full
time basis with his current employer from October 2002 to November 2010, and then
again from May 2011 through the present.  
Credit reports of the Applicant dated July 8, 2004; July 11, 2014; February 10,
2015; June 29, 2015; and September 19, 2015, which includes information from all
three credit reporting agencies, indicate that Applicant is indebted to each of the
creditors set forth in the SOR.  (Government Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.)     
In August 1994, Applicant got married.  In 1996, he filed for Chapter 7
Bankruptcy and discharged about $13,000 in debt.  (Tr. p. 44.)  In 2006, he and his wife
had twins.  It was about this time that his wife, who had been earning about $80,000
annually, lost her job.  In 2008 they had a third child.  This is when the financial
challenges began.  As time passed and spending continued, Applicant was unable to
afford his lifestyle.  Applicant was laid off of his job in November 2010.  Applicant was
rehired by his employer in May 2011.  He and his wife separated in September 2012.
She and the children moved out of state.  The following thirteen debts became
delinquent and owing:    
1.a.  A delinquent debt in the amount of $5,505 remains owing.  This was for two
months of rent that Applicant failed to pay and was evicted.  (Tr. P. 23-24.)  1.b.  A
delinquent debt owed to a cable company in the amount of $148 remains owing.  1.c. A
delinquent medical bill in the amount of $26 remains owing.  (Tr. pp. 25-27.)  1.d. A
delinquent debt to a bank in the amount of $5,704 was charged off by the creditor.  (Tr.
3
pp. 27-28 and 38.)  1.e. A delinquent debt owed to a car dealership in the amount of
$26,943 remains owing.  In 2008 Applicant purchased a Land Rover after his third child
was born.  The payments were $1,400 a month and they could not afford them.  The car
was repossessed in September 2010, and Applicant now owes the deficiency judgment.
Applicant has reduced the debt down from $31,000 to $26,000 over the past year.  The
debt is being paid through wage garnishment of $150 monthly from his payroll account.
(Applicant’s Exhibit B.)  1.f.  A delinquent medical bill in the amount of $315 remains
owing. (Tr. pp. 34-35.)  1.g.  A delinquent medical bill in the amount of $1,499 remains
owing.  (Tr. pp. 34-35.)  1.h.  A delinquent medical bill in the amount of $65 remains
owing.  (Tr. pp. 34-35.)  1.i.  A delinquent electric bill in the amount of $516 remains
owing.  (Tr. pp. 36-37.)  1.j.   A delinquent medical bill in the amount of $1,245 remains
owing.  1.k.  A delinquent medical bill in the amount of $2,231 remains owing.  1.l. A
delinquent medical bill in the amount of $429 remains owing.  1.m.  A delinquent
medical bill in the amount of $65 remains owing.           
Applicant testified that he intends to hire a debt relief company for purposes of
assisting him in consolidating his debts and rolling them into one payment that he can
afford.  (Tr. p. 40.)  Applicant also continues to support his wife and children with 70% of
his income each pay period.  They remain separated, although no divorce papers have
ben filed in court.   
Applicant’s performance reviews for the period from January 2012 through
December 31, 2015, are favorable.  His ratings are that he always either “achieves
expectations” or “consistently achieves expectations”.  (Applicant’s Exhibits C, D and E) 
A letter from the Applicant’s wife corroborates his testimony.  She indicates that
they are in the middle of an amenable divorce.  She states that the last few years have
been financially difficult. She does not want their failed relationship and associated
financial breakdown to keep him from doing what he loves at his job.  She further states
that since September 2012, Applicant has been supporting her and their three children
through direct deposit bi-weekly payments of $1,350 from his bank account without a
court order.  She believes Applicant to be responsible and trustworthy.  
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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
4
is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate
funds. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Condition that could mitigate security concerns:
None.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19,  in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a.  The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding
circumstances;
     b.  The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavior
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct, which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
5
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence, which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as
emphasized by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination
under this order . . . 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.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility, which demonstrates
poor judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation,
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The Applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F).  This evidence indicates poor
judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant.  Because of
the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or
connection with his security clearance eligibility.
The evidence shows that Applicant and his wife separated in 2012 and are in the
process of filing for divorce.  Over the years, they have had many financial problems.
They filed for Chapter 7 Bankruptcy protection in 1996.  Since then, Applicant has
worked and tried to be the sole household provider, but his income has simply not been
enough to cover his family and their expenses.  Each of the debts set forth in the SOR,
except one, have not been addressed in any fashion and remain owing.  The debt for
the Land Rover is being paid through wage garnishments.  The remaining twelve debts
are outstanding.  Applicant intends to hire a debt consolidation company for assistance,
but he has not done that yet.  He has not acted responsibly and reasonably under the
circumstances.  At this point, Applicant has a long way to go before he can be relied
upon by the Government. Presently, he remains delinquently indebted to all of the
6
creditors set forth in the SOR, totaling at least about $40,000.  There is no evidence of
any efforts to repay these debts, be it prior to or after receipt of the SOR.  There is no
evidence of even an attempt to pay the smallest of the debts, which is only $26.       
Applicant’s history of excessive indebtedness, without sufficient mitigation,
demonstrates a pattern of unreliability and poor judgment.  Applicant failed to provide
proof of payment, receipts, or any documentation to demonstrate that he has, can, or
will resolve his delinquent debts.  There is nothing in the record to show that Applicant
can live within his means.  Without more, the Applicant has failed to establish that he is
fiscally responsible.  Furthermore, there is no evidence that he has received credit
counseling to help him set a budget and learn to live within it, or that his finances are
under control.
Under the particular circumstances of this case, Applicant has not met his burden
of proving that he is worthy of a security clearance.  He has not sufficiently addressed
the delinquent debts in the SOR, and does not have a concrete understanding of his
financial responsibilities.  Thus, it cannot be said that he has made a good-faith effort to
resolve his past-due indebtedness.  He has not shown that he is or has been
reasonably, responsibly or prudently addressing his financial situation.  Applicant has
not demonstrated that he can properly handle his financial affairs or that he is fiscally
responsible.  His debts are significant.  Assuming that he demonstrates a history and
pattern of fiscal responsibility, including the fact he has not acquired any new debt that
he is unable to pay, he may be eligible for a security clearance sometime in the future.
However, he is not eligible now.  Considering all of the evidence, Applicant has not
introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to
overcome the Government's case. 
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligations, apply.  There is no evidence in the record to show that Applicant has done
anything to resolve his debts.  In fact, from what is presented, Applicant could benefit
from intense financial counseling. In this case, none of the mitigating conditions are
applicable.  Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations).    
I have also considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.  Under the particular facts of this case, the
totality of the conduct set forth above, when viewed under all of the guidelines as a
whole, support a whole-person assessment of poor judgement, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, a lack of candor, an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations,
and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard
classified information.
  I have considered all of the evidence presented.  It does not mitigate the negative
effects of his history of financial indebtedness and the effects that it can have on his
ability to safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that Applicant
7
has not overcome the Government's case opposing his request for a security clearance.
Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against Applicant as to the factual and
conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.  
    FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1:  Against the Applicant.
    Subpara.    1.a. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.b. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.c. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.d. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.e. For the Applicant.
 Subpara.    1.f. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.g. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.h. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.i. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.j. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.k. Against the Applicant.
Subparas.  1.l. Against the Applicant.
Subpara.    1.m. Against the Applicant.
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
the Applicant.
  Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge