1
                                                             
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-06131
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: 
Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant:
Skylar Sam, Esquire
Claery & Green LLP
March 24, 2016
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on November 1, 2012. (Government Exhibit 1.) On March 27, 2015, the
Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security
concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) concerning 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 on May 7, 2015 (Answer), and requested
a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on July 7, 2015. This case was assigned to me on July 16, 2015. The Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on July 22, 2015. I convened
the hearing as scheduled on September 1, 2015. The Government offered Government
Government Exhibit 2 indicates that Applicant was subject to a garnishment from bank 1 in the amount of1
$18,799 effective August 3, 2012. Government Exhibits 3 through 6 indicate that Applicant was subject to a
judgment from bank 2 in the amount of $16,676 effective June 2011. Applicant claims that the judgment to
bank 2 was paid from a garnishment on his wages and was completed. (Tr. 25-26, 31-34.) No documentary
evidence was submitted by Applicant to show that either judgment had been paid off. The Government elected
not to allege these judgment debts in the SOR. Accordingly, they will be considered only in terms of
determining any mitigation, and under the whole-person concept. 
2
Exhibits 1 through 6, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his
own behalf, and submitted Applicant Exhibits A through E, which were also admitted
without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing on September 10, 2015.
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 56, divorced, but has a long-time companion. 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 and therefore potentially unreliable,
untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant
admitted both allegations (1.a and 1.b) in the SOR under this Paragraph. Those
admissions are findings of fact. He also submitted additional information to support his
request for a security clearance.
The SOR lists 2 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $35,090. The existence
and amount of these debts is supported by credit reports dated March 19, 2013; March
20, 2014; July 6, 2015; and July 22, 2015. (Government Exhibits 4, 5, 6, and 7.)1
According to Applicant, his current financial difficulties began in 2002, when he
lost his job and was unemployed for two years. It took him many years to come close to
regaining the annual income he had before the job loss. (Applicant Exhibit D; Tr. 24.)  
1.a. Applicant admitted that he owed $11,043 for a delinquent credit card debt.
Applicant stated that he had paid this debt in 2015. Government Exhibit 6 at page 4
states, “Account paid for less than full balance.” This credit report also states that the
last payment was in April 2015. (Tr. 26, 34-36, 38-39.) This debt is resolved.
1.b. Applicant admitted that he owed bank 3 $24,047 for a past-due credit card
account. Government Exhibit 6 at page 4 indicates that the last payment on this account
was in April 2010. Applicant was asked how many times he had talked to this creditor or
their agent. He stated, “Roughly two to three. Not a lot.” No agreement had been made
as to a payment arrangement. (Tr. 36-41, 45, 49-50, 57-61.) This debt is not resolved.
3
Applicant indicated in his financial spreadsheet that he had approximately $2,000
per month available to pay off bills. Yet, he also testified that he had somewhere
between $1,000 and $3000 in his checking account at any one time and no
investments. (Applicant Exhibit A; Tr. 51, 62-63.) Applicant took a financial counseling
course on August 18, 2015. (Appellant Exhibit C; Tr. 41-42.)
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
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
4
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 has a considerable amount of debt that he has either been
unable or unwilling to pay for many years. The evidence is sufficient to raise these
potentially disqualifying conditions. 
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ AG ¶ 20(b)
states that the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where “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.” Under
AG ¶ 20(c) it may be mitigating where “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.” Also, AG ¶ 20(d) states it can be mitigating where, “the
individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts.” 
See ISCR Case No. 06-12930 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 17, 2008) (quoting ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2-3 (App.2
Bd. Jul. 6, 2006)).
5
Applicant=s financial difficulties have been in existence since at least 2010, if not
before. I have considered the fact of Applicant’s loss of employment in 2002, and it’s
impact on his finances. I have also looked at the fact that he has paid off a considerable
amount of his past-due indebtedness over the last two years, albeit a lot of it through a
garnishment. However, Applicant presented insufficient evidence to show that he has
acted responsibly with regard to all of his significant indebtedness. He has resolved the
debt set forth in allegation 1.a, which is found for him. He has also recently received
credit counseling. However, he has not made any progress whatsoever on the
significant debt set forth in allegation 1.b. He acknowledged the fact that his contacts
with that creditor, or its agent, have been few and far between and have not resulted in
any agreement. Also of concern is the fact that Applicant indicates that he should have
approximately $2,000 per month available to pay down his debt, yet he has very little
money in his bank account. Given the state of the record I cannot find that Applicant has
“established a reasonable plan to resolve [his] debts and has taken significant actions to
implement that plan.”2
Given the state of the record, I cannot find that he has acted responsibly with
regard to all of his debts, or that he has initiated a good-faith effort to repay or resolve
them. In conclusion, looking at Applicant’s entire financial situation at the present time,
the evidence does not support a finding that “there are clear indications that the problem
is being resolved or is under control,” as is required by AG ¶ 20(c). Paragraph 1 is found
against Applicant.
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
6
Guideline F, above, applies here as well. Applicant has had financial problems for
several years, which have not been completely resolved. These problems are not
confined to the debts set forth in the SOR. Two major debts had to be resolved through
judicial means, which resulted in judgments against Applicant. He does not yet have a
history of paying his debts, there is minimal evidence that he can create and maintain a
stable budget, and there is insufficient evidence at this time to show that he is now
trustworthy and reliable. Applicant’s conduct with regard to his finances was not
mitigated.
Under AG ¶ 2(a)(3), his conduct is recent and continuing. I cannot find that there
have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I also
cannot find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); or that there is little to no likelihood of continuation or recurrence
(AG ¶ 2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance at this time. For all these
reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his
financial situation. Accordingly, the evidence supports denying 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 section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: 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.
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge