1 
 
 
                                                              
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
            DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
          
             
 
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
---------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-06592 
 ) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Adrienne Strzelczyk, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HOWE, Philip S., Administrative Judge: 
 
On February 28, 2012, Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP). On May 9, 2015, the Department of Defense 
Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DODCAF) issued Applicant a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F. 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 on August 12, 2015. Applicant requested 
his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.  
 
On September 28, 2015, Department Counsel submitted the Department=s 
written case. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM), consisting of 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
Items 1 to 6, was provided to the Applicant on September 28, 2015. He was given the 
opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. 
Applicant received the file on October 13, 2015.  
 
Applicant did not file a Response to the FORM within the 30 day time allowed 
that would have expired on November 12, 2015.  
 
 Department Counsel submitted six Items in support of the SOR allegations. Item 
3 is inadmissible. It will 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 April 23, 2012. Applicant did not adopt it as his own 
statement, or otherwise certify it to be accurate. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.20, this Report 
of Investigation summary is inadmissible in the absence of an authenticating witness. In 
light of Applicant’s admissions, it is also cumulative. 
 
I received the case assignment on December 18, 2015. Based upon a review of 
the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant admitted the allegations in the SOR. There are six financial allegations. 
(Items 1, 2)  
 
Applicant is 34 years old, married, and has one child. He served six years in the 
U.S. Air Force. Since leaving active military service in 2007 he has worked for a 
company that has him work four months, then he is laid off from work for three months 
during which he collects unemployment from his state of residence, until he is rehired. 
His debts started being delinquent in 2012. (Items 1, 2) 
 
Applicant owed a bank on a home mortgage (Subparagraph 1.a). The mortgage 
balance is $247,990 and the monthly payments were past due in the amount of 
$19,204. Applicant’s Answer states he was told by his mortgage lender that to take 
advantage of a short sale procedure he would have to stop paying on his mortgage. He 
did so and the house was sold in a short sale. The credit report of September 28, 2015, 
states the house was sold and the balance owed has been paid. This debt is resolved. 
(Items 1, 2, 4-6) 
 
Applicant owed $622 on a credit card (Subparagraph 1.b). The credit report of 
September 28, 2015, states the account was charged off and paid. Applicant’s Answer 
states he paid off the debt. This debt is resolved. (Items 1, 2, 4-6) 
 
Applicant owed a debt collector $1,274 on a credit card (Subparagraph 1.c). The 
debt became delinquent in that unemployed time period. The credit reports and 
Applicant contend he paid off this debt. It is shown on the September 28, 2015 credit 
report that the debt is paid. This debt is resolved. (Items 1, 2, 4-6) 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
Applicant owes a university for tuition the amount of $1,157 (Subparagraph 1.d). 
Applicant admits this debt because the G.I. Bill did not cover this expense and he was 
unemployed making him unable to pay the debt. It is not resolved. The credit report of 
October 7, 2014, states this debt is charged off and not paid. The September 28, 2015 
credit report states the debt is a paid charge off. This debt is resolved. (Items 1, 2, 4-6) 
 
Applicant owes a bank $810 (Subparagraph 1.e). He admitted the debt and 
attributed his inability to repay it to the four month unemployment periods in his work 
scheme with his current employer. The credit report of October 7, 2014, shows this debt 
is not resolved and is a charged off account. (Items 1, 2, 4-6) 
 
Applicant owes a bank on a real estate mortgage with a loan balance of 
$146,274 and a past-due monthly payment of $2,833 (Subparagraph 1.f). The credit 
reports in the FORM do not show that this debt is paid. Applicant admits this debt and 
was not able to pay it because he was unemployed for a four month period. The credit 
reports show foreclosure proceedings were started. This debt is not resolved. (Item 1, 2, 
4-6) 
 
     Applicant did not submit any documentation that he has participated in credit 
counseling or budget education. He provided no evidence concerning the quality of his 
job performance. He submitted no character references or other evidence tending to 
establish good judgment, trustworthiness, or reliability. 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 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, the administrative judge applies the guidelines 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(c), the entire process is a conscientious 
scrutiny of a number of variables known as the Awhole-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[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to 
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.@ In reaching this 
 
 
 
 
 
4 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on 
the evidence contained in the record.  
 
According to Directive & E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to 
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive & E3.1.15, an 
“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. 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. 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 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 at AG & 19 contains nine disqualifying conditions that could raise 
security concerns. From these nine conditions, two conditions are applicable to the facts 
found in this case: 
 
 (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and   
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
 From 2012 to the present, Applicant accumulated six delinquent debts, totaling 
$25,900, which remained unpaid or unresolved when the SOR was issued. These two 
disqualifying conditions are established. 
 
The guideline in AG ¶ 20 contains six conditions that could mitigate security 
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Only one mitigating condition might have 
partial applicability. 
 
(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. 
 
AG ¶ 20 (b) would apply if the loss of employment were shown by Applicant to 
have a substantial effect on his ability to repay his debts. In the past seven years, 
Applicant has been unemployed every four months, he claims. He did not submit any 
documents to show his income or the part-time work for his employer. His work 
conditions were not beyond his control because he could have found work during the 
months his regular employer furloughed him. Instead, he collected unemployment 
insurance. This conduct is not responsible when he has two mortgages to pay and other 
debts owed. He failed to meet his burden of proof on that issue. 
 
 Applicant failed to prove AG ¶ 20 (b) applied because he did not submit sufficient 
evidence of the conditions that he asserted were beyond his control and that he acted 
responsibly in resolving his delinquent debts during the time the debts were 
accumulating. 
 
 None of the other mitigating conditions apply. His behavior is recent and 
continuing. There is no evidence the financial problems, particularly on his mortgage, 
have been resolved. He has no basis to dispute the debts, or at least none that he 
demonstrated. Applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to repay all the debts, 
but he did repay or resolve four of the six debts.  
 
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 
 
 
 
 
 
6 
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 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant was an adult when he 
incurred the debts. There are two debts that have not been resolved of the six alleged in 
the SOR. Applicant did not show any efforts to repay all the unresolved debts except to 
state he was unemployed every four months, but nothing about his income when he 
was working and whether it was sufficient to pay his mortgage and other debts. He is 
continuing the same conduct regarding the debts. With these debts there is a likelihood 
of pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress as the debts become more delinquent.  
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or substantial doubts as to 
Applicant=s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns arising under the guideline for 
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 to 1.d:   For Applicant 
 
          Subparagraphs 1.e and 1.f:             Against Applicant 
 
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. 
 
 
    
_________________ 
PHILIP S. HOWE 
Administrative Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
 
7