DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-06729
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
March 30, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on June 2, 2014.  On May 13, 2015, 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 (Answer) on June 12, 2015, and
requested an Administrative Determination by an administrative judge.  Department
Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on October 26, 2015.  Applicant
responded to the FORM (Response) on November 17, 2015.  Department Counsel had
no objection, and the Response is entered into evidence.  The case was assigned to me
on December 15, 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
Paragraphs 1.a., and 1.b., of the SOR, with explanations.  He denied the factual
allegations in Paragraphs 1.c., 1.d., and 1.e. of the SOR, also with explanations.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Applicant is a 45 year-old employee of a defense contractor.  (Item 5 at pages 5
and 8~9.)  He has been so employed since March of 2004.  (Item 5 at page 9.)  He is
also a member of the Army Reserve as a Lieutenant Colonel.  (Item 5 at pages 10~11,
and Response at page 1.)  In October of 2007, he reported to active duty (as a then-
Major) for deployment to Iraq.  (Item 4 at page 9.)  His call to active duty was for “400
days,” which extended it through 2008.  (Id.)
1.a. and 1.c.  These appear to be one and the same past-due debt to Creditor A
in the amount of about $5,277.  In August of 2007, pursuant to “the Servicemembers
Civil Relief Act (SCRA),” Applicant asked that his interest payments be reduced to “6%
per annum,” as he expected his “entry into military service . . . [to] materially . . . [affect
his] ability to meet this obligation.”  (Item 4 at page 11, and 50 U.S.C. App. 501 et seq.)
However, this debt, which is now a judgment against Applicant, still appears on an
October 2015 credit report (CR).  (Item 13 at page 1.)  Although he avers “I need to . . .
have the judgment vacated/reversed,” there is no evidence that Applicant has, in fact,
addressed this outstanding judgment.  (Item 4 at page 5.)  In his Response, Applicant
attributes his failure to address this judgment to his “spouse [who] primarily handled the
responsibility of paying our bills.”  (Response at page 1.)  He has also submitted court
documents showing he is divorcing said spouse.  (Response at pages 2~5.)  However,
as Applicant has failed to submit documentation showing he is addressing this
judgment, I find it to be outstanding.
1.b.  This is an alleged past-due debt to Creditor B for an automobile loan in the
amount of about $8,823.  Applicant avers that in 2012, “the engine seized up . . . [and
the automobile was] towed to a local auto repair shop.  The engine was considered a
total loss . . . .  The vehicle return/disposal was handled between . . . [Creditor C] and
the repair shop.”  According to the Government’s most recent October 2015 CR,
“Scheduled Payment[s]” of “$367" are being made towards this debt, and it is not past
due.  (Item 13 at page 2.)  This allegation is found for Applicant.
1.d.  This is an alleged past-due debt to Creditor D in the amount of about
$5,353.  Applicant has received an IRS Form 1099-MISC vis-a-vis this debt; and as
such, Department Counsel admits that “it does not appear that Applicant owes anything
further on this account.”  (Item 4 at page 20, and Form at page 7.)  This allegation is
found for Applicant.
1.e.  Applicant has formally disputed this alleged past-due debt to Creditor E in
the amount of about $466.  This formal dispute is noted on the Government’s most
recent October 2015 CR.  (Item 13 at page2.)  I find that Applicant is making a good-
faith effort to address this debt.
3
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.
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).
4
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 a significant judgment, which
he has not yet formally addressed.
I can find no countervailing Mitigating Condition that is applicable here.  Although
Applicant now attributes his outstanding judgment to his estranged wife’s lack of action,
he has failed to act “responsibly under the circumstances,” as required by
Subparagraph 20(b) with respect to his debt.  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 outstanding
judgment.  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
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.
5
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 a outstanding judgment against him, which 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. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e. For 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.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge