1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 14-06761
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant failed to provide enough documentary evidence to substantiate his
contention that his financial problems are under control. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On May 15, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility
(DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security
concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. 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) implemented by the DOD on
September 1, 2006.
 On August 14, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting all of the
allegations, and requested a decision on the record rather than a hearing. On
September 23, 2015, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM)
2
 
consisting of documents supporting the government’s allegations. Applicant received
the file on October 5, 2015, and was informed that he had until November 4, 2015 to
submit a response. Applicant did not reply, and the case was subsequently assigned to
me on November 10, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 26-year-old single man with two children, ages five and seven. He
graduated from high school in 2008. Since 2013, he has worked for a defense
contractor as a maintenance man. (Item 3 at 1) 
Applicant has approximately $17,000 of delinquent debt. Approximately $16,000
of this debt, as alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.a, is back child support that has been
delinquent since 2009. (Item 3 at 4) Subparagraphs 1.b and 1.c., totalling approximately
$500, are utility bills, and the debt alleged in subparagraph 1.d stems from a judgment
for $667 entered against Applicant in 2012. 
Applicant attributes his financial problems to lengthy periods of unemployment
between November 2009 and July 2013. (Item 3 at 4-5) Applicant contends that upon
beginning his current employment, he contacted his payroll office to arrange for both
current and back child support to be deducted from his paycheck. (Item 3 at 4) He also
contends that he will pay the other SOR debts now that his employment is stable. He
provided no corroborating documentary evidence of any child support or debt payments.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. 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.
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 national security.” 
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 applicant or proven by department counsel. . . .” The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
3
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows: 
(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.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “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.”
(AG ¶ 18) Applicant has approximately $17,000 of outstanding delinquent debt, nearly
all of which is composed of a child-support delinquency. AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations,” apply.
The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable.
(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; and  
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts. 
Although Applicant’s financial problems were substantially related to lengthy
periods of unemployment between 2009 and 2013, he has failed to provide any
documentary evidence supporting his contention that he has either paid or is making
payments toward the satisfaction of these debts.  Under these circumstances, none of
the mitigating circumstances apply, and Applicant has failed to mitigate the financial
considerations security concerns.
4
 
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
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.d: 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.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge