1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 15-00201
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Andrew Henderson, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
March 8, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On August 19, 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 for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
On August 28, 2015, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and she
requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge (AJ). The case was assigned to
this AJ on October 21, 2015. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on November 4, 2015,
and the hearing was held as scheduled on December 3, 2015. The Government offered
Exhibits 1 through 5, which were entered into evidence without objection. Applicant
testified on her own behalf and submitted Exhibits A through E, which were also
admitted without objection. At the hearing, the record was left open until December 17,
2015, to allow Applicant to submit additional evidence. Applicant submitted additional
documents, which have been identified and entered into evidence without objection as
2
Exhibits F and G.  DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr) on December 11,
2015. Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and the testimony of Applicant,
eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record as described
above, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of
fact: 
Applicant is 31 years old. She was married in 2005, and she is in the process of
obtaining a divorce. She has one eight-year-old-son. Applicant is enrolled in a
community college, where she is working on the pursuit of a degree in business
administration . Applicant is employed as Computer Support by a defense contractor,
and she is seeking a DoD security clearance in connection with her employment in the
defense sector.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists two allegations (1.a. and 1.b.) regarding financial difficulties,
specifically overdue debts, under Adjudicative Guideline F. Both debts will be discussed
below, in the order they were listed on the SOR. 
1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-off account in the
approximate amount of $4,837. Applicant testified that this bill was for a water softener
system that she and her husband purchased for the home that is the subject of SOR
allegation 1.b., below. Applicant explained that when she and her husband stopped
making the mortgage payments on the house, as reviewed below, they also stopped
making the payments on the water softener system. Applicant engaged the services of
a debt consolidation company (DCC.) She made an arrangement where she would pay
to the DCC $170 a month, which consisted of $140 a month to the creditor and $30 a
month to the DCC. (Tr at 28-36.)  
Exhibit B includes the contract from this DCC, and it shows that they arranged for
Applicant to make 41 monthly payments to the creditor of $140 to resolve this debt.
Exhibit D shows that, by the time of the hearing, Applicant had made 10 monthly
payments of $170, from January 2015 through November 2015, which included $140 a
month to the creditor and $30 a month to the DCC. Exhibit E shows that, as of
September 30, 2015, Applicant had paid $1,530 in total to this DCC for their services
and for the payment of this debt. I find that Applicant  is making a good-faith effort to
resolve this debt. 
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a mortgage account that went to
foreclosure for a deficiency balance of $218,000. Applicant testified that this debt is for a
home that she and her husband purchased in 2007, and in which they both lived until
February 2011, when they separated. She moved out of the house, and her husband
remained in the house. He agreed to continue making the mortgage payments on the
3
house, but in June or July 2011, he was laid off from his job, and he stopped making the
mortgage payments. Applicant testified that she requested from her husband that he
continue making the payments toward the house or that they attempt to work with a
realtor that she knew to have a short sale for the property. Applicant’s husband  refused
all of her requests and the house was ultimately foreclosed.  (Tr at 25-37.)
Applicant testified that after the foreclosure the home was eventually sold, but
she has never been contacted by the bank to inform her that she still owes money to the
bank. She stated that she has reviewed several of her credit reports after the
foreclosure, and they always showed a $0 balance owed to the bank. (Tr at 37-40.) The
Equifax Total View credit Report, dated October 13, 2015, shows that there is a $0
balance owed to this creditor. (Exhibit 5.)   
Mitigation  
Applicant testified that she is not delinquent on any of her current bills (Tr at [?].)
She submitted an extremely detailed Personal Financial Statement (PFS) that shows
her net monthly income is $2,546, her total monthly expenses are $1,430, her monthly
debt payments are $980, and her monthly remainder is $136. Her PFS also shows that
she is not overdue on any of her current debts. (Exhibit F.) Applicant also cited State A
Code of Civil Procedure 580(d) which states that in State A, the state in which
Applicant’s foreclosure took place, a lender cannot get a deficiency judgment after a
non-judicial foreclosure.  (Exhibit G.)  
Applicant submitted three extremely laudatory character letters from individuals
who knew Applicant at her former place of employment, another Government
contractor, where Applicant worked from October 2008 to March 2015. (Exhibit A.)
Applicant was described as “responsible and trustworthy,” and someone “who
demonstrated consistent, exceptional and excellent performance.” Finally, Applicant
submitted two additional letters that commended her on her vigilance and decisive
action by observing and reporting individuals, who appeared to be a potential security
threat to her former employer. (Exhibit A.)  
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. 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
4
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. 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 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).  
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 notes several conditions that could raise security concerns and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness to
5
satisfy debts,” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶  19(c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations,” may raise security concerns. I find that these conditions
are initially applicable to Applicant in this case. 
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(b), it may be mitigating 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.” As
reviewed above, Applicant’s largest debt, the mortgage on her home, became overdue
when she and her husband separated, and despite the fact that he continued to live in
the home after she moved out, he refused to pay the mortgage or to have the house
sold as Applicant had requested of him. Based on the most recent credit report it
appears that she does not owe anything for this house. I also find Applicant has acted
responsibly in attempting to resolve her other overdue debt, as she engaged the
services of a company to help her resolve the debt, and she has been making payments
toward the debt, as per the agreement, for almost a year. I find that this mitigating
condition is applicable and controlling in this case. 
I also find that ¶ 20(d) is applicable, since Applicant has “initiated a good-faith
effort to repay her overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Finally, I find that
Applicant’s overall financial situation is stable and secure, and therefore, I find Guideline
F for 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 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
access to a classified position 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
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on all of the reasons cited
above as to why the mitigating conditions are applicable and controlling, I find that the
6
record evidence leaves me with no significant questions or doubts as to Applicant’s
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance under the whole-person concept. For all
these reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns under the
whole-person concept.
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a.-1.b.: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge