1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
          )       ISCR Case No. 12-08577
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Nicole A. Smith,  Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On August 13, 2015, the Department of Defense  (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant 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 hearing before an
administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on December 2, 2015. A notice of
hearing was issued on December 15, 2015, scheduling the hearing for January 28,
2016. Government Exhibits (GX) 1-4 were admitted into evidence without objection.
Applicant testified, but did not submit exhibits at the hearing.  I kept the record open until
February 16, 2016, and one exhibit (AX A) was entered into the record without objection.
An Order to Vacate the March 9, 2016,decision was issued due to documents timely sent by Applicant that      1
were not forwarded to me from the Government. The additional documents are now entered into the record
for consideration as AX B-G.
2
The transcript was received on February 8, 2016.  Based on a review of the pleadings,1
testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted and denied the SOR allegations
under Guideline F. She provided explanations for each alleged debt.
 
Applicant is 49 years old. She graduated from high school and attended college
obtaining her undergraduate degree. Applicant is single and has no children. She
completed a security clearance application in 2012. (GX 1) Applicant has held a security
clearance, but it is not clear for what period of time. She is sponsored for a clearance by
a former employer.
Applicant’s work as a contractor has been sporadic. Her last full time position
ended in 2013. She believes her full time earnings were about $95,000. (Tr. 36)
Contracts were promised for a certain period of time, but ended much sooner and she
had no work. She has worked part time for the last five years in a retail store, earning an
hourly wage. (Tr. 29) She has continued to seek full time employment. She blames the
downturn in the  economy for her problems. (GX 2) She states that she had no financial
problems before 2008. She had gainful employment from 1996 until 2008. (Tr. 66)
Applicant also had a sick uncle who she helped out financially. When he died she
also had to help with funeral expenses.
The SOR alleges 18 delinquent debts, which consist of a delinquent mortgage,
past due medical bills, and past due consumer debts. Applicant ‘s debts originated about
2012. She has provided no documentation to show that any accounts have been
resolved.
As to SOR allegation 1.a, Applicant called the bank about the past due account
on her mortgage loan in the amount of $29,363, when her funds were getting low due to
her unemployment and underemployment. She applied for a modification in 2009.
However, she was already delinquent in her payments. She sought help from a
congressman and was told to apply for a HUD program. She explained that while she
waited, her delinquency increased with the mortgage. She has not made any payments
since 2013. She states that because she has no income, she cannot begin another
modification program. (Tr. 48) She still lives in the house.
Applicant submitted the potential conditional loan commitment from 2011 to show
that she had indeed tried to contact the lender. (AX G) They had originally sent her the
packet for another borrower. She was in constant contact with them via emails. It
appears from the documents submitted that her last email was in 2012. However, the
A telephone conference call was held on May 5, 2016 to ascertain that the documents that Department      2
Counsel did not forward before the record closed in the first decision were correct and that no new documents
were included. Applicant maintained that she still had no loan modification in place.
3
loan modification could not be maintained due to her unemployment, and remains in that
status today. Applicant will not be approved for a loan modification until she has a letter
stating that she has a full-time employment and an offer letter stating her income.  (Tr.2
82)
As to SOR allegation 1.b, Applicant admits the debt but she disputes the amount.
The collection account for a wireless company is approximately $2,897. She believes
this is the result of a phone that was stolen from her in 2008. (Tr. 50) She stated that
she has not made any attempts to resolve the bill because she does not have the funds.
As to the SOR allegation in 1.c, Applicant at first stated that she did not know who
the creditor was. It is a collection account in the amount of $1,007. The credit report
identifies the debt as a local retail company. (GX 3) Applicant states that she does not
owe them that amount of money. She disputes the bill. 
As to the SOR allegation in 1.d for a charged off account in the amount of $782,
she has not paid the amount. Applicant attributes the nonpayment to unemployment
issues. (Tr. 53)
As to the SOR allegation in 1.e for a collection account in the amount of $247,
she believes it is for a cable company. She has made no efforts to resolve the debt,
although she admits that she owes the debt.
Several SOR allegations relate to medical accounts that were the result of an
automobile accident. Allegations 1.f ($181), 1.g ($162), 1.m ($25), 1.n ($25), 1.p ($462),
and 1.q ($256) are affiliated with a 2013 auto insurance claim. Applicant has not paid the
debts because she believes the insurance company is responsible. She has not
communicated with the doctors or the insurance company and the bills are unresolved.
(Tr. 57)
As to the SOR allegation in 1.h in the amount of $2,350, the 2010 judgment was
filed by Applicant’s home owners association. She notified the attorney for the
association and stated that she had no income to pay the monthly dues. (Tr. 58)
As to the SOR allegation in 1.i, for a collection account in the amount of $366,
Applicant has no idea what the account is. She has not researched the debt.
As to the SOR allegation in 1.j, a charged off account in the amount of $1,697,
she admits having an account with the company, but believes that she owed them no
more than $500. She reiterated that none of her credit card bills were more than $500,
and denies owing this amount. (Tr. 58)
4
As to the SOR allegation in 1.k for a collection account in the amount of $1,512,
Applicant believes she has had some communications with them but has not made any
payments. (Tr. 59)
The SOR allegation in 1.l in the amount of $2,971, Applicant denies that she
owes the amount. She refers to the phones that were stolen. She has not had any
communication with them. Applicant believes that the allegation in 1.o is a duplicate of
the account in 1.j. She did not produce any documentation to support her belief. 
As to the SOR allegation in 1.r for $1,249 (medical account), she admits the debt
but has not resolved it. (Tr. 62)
Applicant emphasized that the debts are not the result of an inability to live within
her means or poor self-control. She stated that her priority has been her mortgage and
student loans. She states that due to the inconsistent job employment, she has not had
money to pay these bills. When she worked, she saved money and used it to pay her
mortgage. Her last mortgage payment was in 2013. She states that she  paid her utility
bills as well. As for the remainder, they have not been paid.
Applicant has not obtained financial counseling. It is not clear how much she
earns at this time from her part-time job. She has no savings. She is adamant that she
intends to pay her debts. She also believes that she should be granted a clearance
based on her excellent references. (Tr. 94)
A former employer wrote a letter of recommendation for Applicant. She states that
Applicant is honest and has contributed to the team mission. She also knows that
Applicant has helped family members with financial support. (AX A) 
Applicant submitted a letter of recommendation from a friend who has known her
for 37 years. She describes Applicant as positive, progressive, intelligent, and
trustworthy. She has no hesitation in recommending her for a security clearance. (AX B)
The Director of Faith Formation for a catholic church states that Applicant has
been a volunteer for the past two years. She is also a substitute catechist for several
years. Applicant is described as enthusiastic and energetic. She shares her time willingly
with students. (AX C)
A former colleague describes Applicant as a professional who is valuable to
government clients. She has excellent communication skills. She is respected by her co-
workers. (AX D)
Another colleague states that she has known Applicant for twelve years. He has
worked with her on a variety of projects. At one point he was Applicant’s supervisor. He
states that she has impeccable character and dependability. (AX E)
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      3
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      4
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
5
Applicant submitted a letter from a fellow undergraduate student. He describes
her as having good character and respect for authority. She has a sense of
responsibility. He supports her for a security clearance. (AX F)
.
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
by Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a3
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  4 5
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.
 
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      6
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      7
 Id.      8
6
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 clearance6
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt7
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 a8
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.
Applicant’s credit reports confirm delinquent debt, a past-due mortgage account,
judgments, and collection accounts. 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 difficulties
make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago.” Applicant still has unresolved
financial issues concerning the home loan mortgage. She has not produced any
evidence that she has resolved any of the debts in the SOR. Her delinquent debts are
unresolved.  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.
7
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) does not apply. Applicant was unemployed or
underemployed over the years. She helped some family members financially. Applicant
has not made any payments for about two years on her mortgage loan. She has not
addressed any of the delinquent debts alleged in the SOR. She presented
documentation concerning a 2011 potential loan modification in the past.  However, this
modification is not in place due to her lack of full-time employment. She has not shown
attempts to settle debts or make small payments. There is also no documentation
concerning the medical accounts and the insurance claim. She did not act responsibly
under the circumstances, with the possible exception of the mortgage loan.   
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) has no application. When Applicant was fully
employed in 2012 to 2013 and earning a salary, she did not make any efforts to pay
some bills. She has no financial plan in place.  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.
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
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 the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
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 49 years old. She is single and has no children. She has had sporadic
employment as a contractor since 2008. She made efforts to find work and has taken a
part-time job where she has worked for the past five years. Her unemployment and
underemployment contributed to her financial problems. She submitted excellent letters
8
of recommendation.  Despite the fact that she has provided some documentation from
2011 concerning a potential loan modification, it is not in place. She has not paid on her
mortgage loan for several years. She admits that she has not resolved any delinquent
debts on the SOR. She has not officially disputed any debts. She has no plan in place to
resolve her debts.
Applicant did not persuade me that she refuted or mitigated the Government’s
case concerning the financial considerations security concerns. She has not carried her
burden of proof. Any doubts must be resolved in the Government’s favor. 
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 : AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1r: 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