1
                                                             
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 12-10933
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
February 18, 2016
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on May 22, 2012. (Item 4.)  On April 26, 2015, 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 May
28, 2015, and requested a decision by an administrative judge without a hearing.
(Answer.) Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case (FORM) to
Department Counsel submitted six Items in support of the SOR allegations. Item 5 is inadmissible and will1
not be considered or cited as evidence in this case. It is the summary of an unsworn interview of Applicant
conducted by an interviewer from the Office of Personnel Management on June 20, 2012. It was never
adopted by Applicant as his own statement, or otherwise certified by him to be accurate. Under Directive ¶
E3.1.20, this Report of Investigation summary is inadmissible in the absence of an authenticating witness.
Given Applicant’s admissions, it is also cumulative.
2
Applicant on August 11, 2015.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the FORM August1
21, 2015. He was given 30 days from receipt of the FORM to submit any additional
documentation. Applicant elected not to submit any additional information. The case
was assigned to me on October 13, 2015. Based upon a review of the pleadings and
exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 53, and married. 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, or failed to file tax returns as
required, and therefore potentially unreliable, untrustworthy, or at risk of having to
engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant admitted all four allegations (1.a
through 1.d) in the SOR. He also submitted additional information to support his request
for a security clearance.
The SOR lists two delinquent debts (1.a and 1.b), totaling approximately
$21,118. The existence and amount of the debts is supported by a credit report dated
November 17, 2014. (Item 6.) The SOR also alleges that Applicant did not file his 2010
state income tax return, and that he was late filing his 2008 and 2009 state income tax
returns (1.c and 1.d).
The current status of the debts, and tax returns, is as follows:
1.a. Applicant admitted that he was indebted to a creditor for a past-due credit
card debt in the amount of $13,002. He stated that he has a payment arrangement with
the collection agent on this account, and has been making timely payments of $250 per
month for over two years as of the date of his Answer. According to Applicant, “Original
charge-off was over $17000. It is below $12000 now.” He also submitted written
confirmation of the agreement and that he is making timely payments. (Answer at 3,
13.) This debt is being resolved.
1.b. Applicant admitted that he was indebted to a creditor for a past-due credit
card debt in the amount of $8,116. Applicant states, “Two years ago [the bank] was
willing to let me make direct payments to them through automatic debit. I have been
3
doing so consistently.” He also submitted bank records showing that he is making timely
payments of $200 a month. (Answer at 3-5.) This debt is being resolved.
1.c. Applicant admitted that he did not file his 2008 and 2009 state income tax
returns until 2012. He further states, “There is no excuse.” (Item 5 at Section 26;
Answer at 3.)
1.d. Applicant admitted that he did not file his 2010 state income tax return in a
timely fashion. Applicant provided a copy of the tax return and his check paying the
taxes he owed. The return was filed in May 2015. (Answer at 3, 6-12.)
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.
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
4
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
security concerns. Applicant, by his own admission, and supported by the documentary
evidence, had two delinquent accounts that he formerly could not resolve. The 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. As shown above, the debts set forth in
subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b are being resolved. Applicant has filed his state income tax
returns for years 2008 and 2009, and paid the applicable taxes and interest, mitigating
1.c The 2010 tax return has been filed, mitigating subparagraph 1.d. Based on the
particular facts of this case, I find that Applicant has “initiated a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” as required by AG ¶ 20(d). I also find that
“there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control,” as
required by AG ¶ 20(c). Guideline F is found for Applicant.
5
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
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 have been resolved. 
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.d: For Applicant
6
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