Item 2.1
Item 1.2
1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-01782
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant paid off his secured real estate loans, including the judgment debt of
concern, after his county government bought his home in an eminent domain
proceeding. Resulting security concerns were mitigated. Based on a review of the
pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-86) on November 14,
2012.  On September 25, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications1
Facility (DoD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing
security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).  The action was taken2
under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry
(February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense
Item 1.3
Department Counsel submitted six Items in support of the SOR allegations.4
Items 2 and 3.5
Item 3 at 1, 3; Item 5 at 8, 10; Item 6 at 18.6
Item 3 at 3; Item 4 at 5; Item 5 at 1; Item 6 at 4.7
2
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines that came into effect in the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted a written response to the SOR on November 2, 2015, and
requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record
without a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on3
December 14, 2015. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was4
received by Applicant on December 17, 2015, and he was afforded an opportunity to file
objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of
his receipt of the FORM. Applicant submitted no additional material in response to the
FORM, made no objection to the admissibility of any of the Items contained therein, and
did not request an extension of time. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) assigned the case to me on March 1, 2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 41 years old. He has worked for a defense contractor since May
2000. He has held a security clearance since 2002, but has not served in the military.
He is a high school graduate, is married, and has two children ages 15 and 13.  5
In his response to the SOR, Applicant denied the allegation in SOR ¶ 1.a
because he had paid the judgment debt in full in January 2011. The account in question
was a $20,000 home equity line of credit (HELOC) that Applicant opened in 2005, when
he and his wife bought their home with a $432,000 first mortgage loan from the same
major bank.  6
In early 2010, Applicant negotiated for a HELOC modification with his lender, and
was told by telephone that his lower interest rate and monthly payments had been
approved. He made seven months of reduced payments under this new plan, then
received a notice of foreclosure due to non-payment. When he inquired, he was
informed that his reduced rates had not actually been approved, and that the seven
months of payments at that rate had been placed in a separate account and not applied
toward his HELOC. He was advised that in order to bring the loan current, he would
have to pay the difference for the seven months he made reduced payments, and pay a
$2,000 penalty. In October 2010, the bank obtained the judgment for $28,585 that is
alleged in the SOR and reported on the three record credit reports.  7
Item 3 at 1; Item 4 at 1, 2; Item 4 at 8, 10; Item 5 at 17, 18.8
3
In November 2010, Applicant’s county government completed eminent domain
proceedings and purchased his home and the surrounding 30 acres of land for a
planned light rail construction project. As part of the purchase agreement, Applicant was
given a five-year lease that is renewable, on a year-to-year basis after November 2015,
until the light rail project is built. The lease authorizes Applicant to live on the property
rent free but requires him to properly maintain it, which he has done. Applicant used the
proceeds of this purchase to pay off his first mortgage loan and the HELOC judgment.
The record credit reports still show that the October 2010 judgment was entered against
him, but also reflect that he paid the underlying debt in full and the account has a zero
balance.  8
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 (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used 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
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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 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 ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he 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.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny 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.”
4
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns under the guideline for financial considerations are set out
in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:      
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. 
Department Counsel asserted that the record evidence raised security concerns
under two Guideline F DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.
Applicant’s explanation that the judgment debt that his lender obtained against
him was paid after his county government bought his house is corroborated by the three
record credit reports. This debt formed the sole allegation supporting possible financial
security concerns, and it was resolved by January 2011, shortly after the judgment was
filed. There is no substantial evidence to support the allegation that the 2010 judgment
remains unpaid, so neither of these DCs was established. No other Guideline F DC was
established either. Accordingly, no discussion of mitigating conditions is necessary.
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 relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):
5
 (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.   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s explanation for his
conduct leading up to the HELOC judgment is reasonable, and reflects no serious doubt
on his trustworthiness or reliability. The confusion surrounding the renegotiation of his
HELOC payment rates was a one-time event, and took place while the county’s eminent
domain proceedings to purchase the property were imminent. He promptly paid off all
loans secured by the property, including the judgment in question, more than four years
before the SOR was issued. The potential for pressure, coercion, and duress from his
financial situation is nonexistent, and  recurrence of similar circumstances is unlikely.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with no doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility
and suitability for a security clearance. He fully met his burden to mitigate the security
concerns arising from the alleged financial considerations.
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
Subparagraph 1.a: 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.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge