DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-04844
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Stephanie C. Hess, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
February 17, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on February 19, 2014.  On November 14, 2014, 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 answered the SOR in writing on December 2, 2014, and requested an
Administrative Determination by an administrative judge.  Department Counsel issued a
File of Relevant Material (FORM) on August 15, 2015.  Applicant did not respond to the
FORM.  The case was assigned to me on November 10, 2015.  Based upon a review of
the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in all the
Subparagraphs of the SOR, with explanations.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Applicant is 42 years old, served on active duty with the Army from 1995~2002,
was unemployed for about seven months from 2012~2013, and is currently employed
by a government contractor.  (Item 4 at pages 5, 11~12, and 15.)  He attributes his
financial difficulties to his “problems with finding a full time job.”  (Item 2 at page 1.)
1.a.  Applicant admits that he is indebted to State A for delinquent child support
in the amount of about $17,699.  (Item 2 at page 1.)  He has submitted nothing further in
this regard; and as such, this allegation is found against Applicant.
1.b.  Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor B for a past-due debt of
$125.  In his answer to the SOR, he avers he is now “in good standing with” this
creditor.  (Item 2 at page 1.)  However, the Government’s most recent, June 2015,
credit report still shows a past-due amount of $40.  (Item 5 at page 2.)  This allegation is
found against Applicant.
1.c.  Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor C for a past-due, “cable
equipment,” debt of $429.  In his answer to the SOR, he avers “I never received a final
bill and was never contacted by anyone.”  (Item 2 at page 1.)  However, this past-due
debt appears on the Government’s March 2014 credit report (Item 6 at page 5.)  This
allegation is found against Applicant.
1.d.  Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor D for a past-due, “school,”
debt of $569.  In his answer to the SOR, he avers that this debt has been “paid . . . in
full.”  This averment is supported by a letter from this creditor, which states the “debt to .
. . [Creditor D] has been reduced to $0.00.”  (Item 2 at page 3.)  This allegation is found
for Applicant.
1.e.  Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor D for another past-due,
“school,” debt of $124.  In his answer to the SOR, he avers that this “balance will be
taking (sic) from . . . [his] education benefits in January 2015.”  (Item 2 at page 1.)  As
this debt does not appear as past due on the Government’s most recent, June 2015,
credit report, this allegation is also found for Applicant.
1.f.~1.l.  Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor F for past-due, “medical
bills,” totaling about $3,479.  In his answer to the SOR, he offers documentation
showing, as of November 2014, he was making monthly payments of $60 with a
“current balance due: $3,453.00.”  (Item 2 at pages 4~5.)  As these debts do not appear
as past due on the Government’s most recent, June 2015, credit report, these
allegations are found for Applicant.
1.m.  Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor J for past-due debt of $36.
In his answer to the SOR, he avers that he “will pay this account on the 18  ofth
The Government alleges two Subparagraphs 1.j.  This is obviously Subparagraph 1.m.,1
and I have designated it accordingly.
3
December”  2014.  (Item 2 at page 1.)  As this debt does not appear as past due on the
Government’s most recent, June 2015, credit report, this allegation is found for
Applicant.1
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.  (AG Paragraph 2.)  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.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.  AG
Paragraph 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 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.
4
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
disqualifying.  Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations@ may raise security concerns.  Applicant has significant past-due debts,
which he has not yet resolved.
I can find no countervailing Mitigating Condition that is applicable here.  Although
Applicant attributes much of his past-due debts to his seven months of unemployment
from 2012~2013, he has failed to act “responsibly under the circumstances,” as required
by Subparagraph 20(b) with respect to his debts.  Furthermore, Subparagraph 20(d)
requires that “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.”  Applicant has yet to credibly address his past-due debts
totaling over $18,000.  Accordingly, Applicant has not met his burden of persuasion.
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 circumstances.  Under AG 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
5
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.  The record evidence leaves me with
questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.
Applicant has about $18,000 in past-due indebtedness that he has yet to address.  For
these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the
whole-person concept arising from his Financial Considerations.
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m. For Applicant
6
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.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge