The Government submitted eleven items for the record.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-04249
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell,  Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On May 30, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising 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 (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance
Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative
guidelines (AG), implemented in September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a review based on the written
record in lieu of a hearing. The case was assigned to me on December 1, 2015.
Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), dated September
8, 2015.  Applicant received the FORM on September 24, 2015. Applicant submitted a1
response to the FORM, which was marked as AX A, and entered into the record without
2
objection. Based on a review of the case file, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
Findings of Fact
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the SOR allegations 1.a through
1.i under Guideline F. She also provided explanations.
Applicant is 53 years old. She is married and has one son. She obtained her
undergraduate degree in 1997 and her master’s in 2000. She has been employed with
her current employer since 2014. She completed an application for a security clearance
in October 2011. (Item 5) She has held a security clearance since 1987.
Financial
The SOR alleges two bankruptcy filings and seven delinquent debts that amount
to $152,000. (Item 1)  
Applicant does not dispute that in 1997 she and her husband filed for Chapter 7
bankruptcy and that the bankruptcy was discharged. (SOR 1.a) She stated that she
filed due to advice given to her by her attorney and tax preparer. Her husband is a
disabled Navy veteran who had numerous medical facility and treatment bills. As her
husband could not work, they had less money to pay for the increasing medical bills.
(Item 4) She noted that at the time she was working in a “cleared environment” and her
FSO was aware of the financial issue.
Applicant admits that in January 2012, she filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy,
which was dismissed in April 2014. (SOR 1.b) She explained that her husband was
denied SSI disability benefits twice. In the preceding years he had been hospitalized
four times. She noted that he did receive disability in 2010 which helped pay some bills.
However, she explained that by 2012 she was again overwhelmed with making all her
payments on time. She stated that she received credit counseling from her bank. Again,
her attorney advised the filing of bankruptcy. She filed a Chapter 13 because she
wanted to pay her creditors. The reason the Chapter 13 was dismissed was due to
unemployment she experienced for the second time in 22 months. She received
unemployment benefits but her income was reduced from $6,800 a month to $2,500 a
month. With assistance from relatives she continued to pay on the bankruptcy plan at
$692 a month. (Item 7) Applicant noted that her FSO has been fully informed of the
Chapter 13 filing.
As to SOR 1.c, Applicant admitted that she borrowed money to complete her
degree. She states that she will continue to pay the money she owes. She noted that
some tax refunds have gone directly to the student loan holder. Now that she is fully
employed she can pay a greater amount. She supplemented her answer in a response
to the FORM. She stated that the credit reports do not reflect accurate balances for the
student loans. The SOR alleged a defaulted student loan account that has been
assigned to the government in the approximate amount of $139,133.
3
As to the remaining delinquent debts in the SOR 1.d through1.I, Applicant did not
give specific reasons for the debts other than the mounting medical bills and
prescriptions for her husband’s health. She reiterated that since her full-time
employment in 2014, she will continue to pay her debts. 
Applicant submitted a credit report dated October 14, 2015, and believes that
according to that report, she has about $3,958 in delinquent debts. She disputed the
student loan amount. Her report does reflect accounts that are current, including her
mortgage. (AX A)
Applicant’s response to the FORM noted when she was unemployed in 2012 and
2013. She vehemently denied that she is a threat to security and is unable to protect
classified information. She stated that she continues to investigate ways to eliminate
debt. Since 2012, she has held no credit cards. She stated that she has no tax liens
and has remained current with her bank accounts.
The record is devoid of any documentary evidence of payments made after the
dismissal of the Chapter 13 bankruptcy. She has not presented any payment plan for
the debts listed on the SOR. She states that she will pay her debts and is a responsible
person.  However, without documentation to substantiate her efforts to resolve her
delinquent debts, she has not shown sufficient mitigation in this case.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An 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.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record. 
The U.S. Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts
alleged in the SOR. An applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other
evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
4
by Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a2
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather
than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
 
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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a7
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for financial considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an 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.” It also states that “an individual who is
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.
5
 Applicant filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1997, which is a long time ago.
However, since then it appears that she has continued to have financial difficulties, and
she filed for Chapter 13 in 2012. Due to unemployment, she had to stop making
payments to the trustee, and the bankruptcy petition was dismissed. She still has
significant debts that have not been resolved. Consequently, Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts),
and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply. With such
conditions raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against her and mitigate
security concerns.  
The nature, frequency, and relative recency of Applicant’s financial difficulty
make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago.” Applicant has not shown that
she has paid or resolved any debts after the Chapter 13 dismissal in 2014. She still has
unresolved debts. Consequently, Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC
MC) AG ¶ 20(a) (the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) does not apply.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (the
conditions that resulted in the behavior 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)
has partial application. Applicant’s unemployment and her husband’s illness are
certainly circumstance beyond her control. She tried to resolve her debts in a legal
manner through Chapter 13 bankruptcy. However, she has not shown that since then
she has addressed any debts or that she has the ability to do so financially. She has
worked in a full-time position since 2014. She did not provide any information that
would allow this mitigating condition to apply. She did not produce any documentation
that she acted responsibly under the circumstances.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) partially applies. Applicant attempted to use
Chapter 13 to resolve her debts in a legal manner. However, she could not continue
due to another period of unemployment.  There is no evidence in the record to show
what Applicant has done to resolve the remaining debts. The record does not have
documentation about Applicant’s claim of credit counseling.  FC MC AG ¶ 20(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) does not apply.
Absent documentary evidence in support of her efforts to resolve the delinquent debts
or a payment plan in place, her current financial status and future ability to meet
financial obligations remain a question because there are no indications her financial
problems are being resolved or under control. 
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 an applicant’s
6
conduct and all the 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
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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on  Applicant. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
Applicant is a 53-year-old employee who has held a security clearance for almost 30
years. She has had several challenges over the years with employment and her
husband’s illness and disability. These are circumstances beyond her control. It does
not appear that she lived beyond her means, but there is no documentation to show
what she has done recently to pay her delinquent debts. Her 1997 bankruptcy is not at
issue due to its age, but there is no explanation as to why that occurred, and it shows a
pattern of some financial instability. The 2012 Chapter 13 bankruptcy was a legitimate
means to resolve her debts, but it was dismissed because she could not continue to
make the monthly payments. With no other information provided, other than Applicant’s
time line of unemployment and explanation of her husband’s medical condition, I
cannot find that she has met her burden. She has not presented mitigation in this case
due to lack of any documentary evidence.
The Government’s evidence as contained in this FORM reflects Applicant’s
inability or unwillingness to fully meet her financial obligations. Applicant’s unresolved
delinquent debts combined with her inability to meet financial obligations, and apparent
financial distress, both in stressful circumstances and when gainfully employed,
establishes unmitigated security concerns under the financial considerations guideline.
Absent documentary evidence in support of resolution of the SOR debts, information on
her current financial status and future ability to meet financial obligations, mitigation
credit is not appropriate.
7
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-i: 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge