1
                                                             
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 14-04662
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Stephanie C. Hess, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 24, 2016
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on February 10, 2014. (Item 5.) On January 8, 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 February 5, 2015, and requested a
decision by an administrative judge without a hearing. (Items 3 and 4.) Department
Counsel submitted the Government’s written case (FORM) to Applicant on August 14,
2015. Applicant acknowledged receipt of the FORM August 25, 2015. He was given 30
days from receipt of the FORM to submit any additional documentation. Applicant did
not submit any additional information within that time. The case was assigned to me on
November 10, 2015. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for
access to classified information is denied.
The June 29, 2015 credit report shows an additional three past-due debts: a medical debt of $319; an1
additional past-due debt to Portfolio Recovery in the amount of $556; and a past-due debt to Midland Funding
in the amount of $5,709. (Item 6 at 1, 2, and 5.) These debts will be considered in determining whether
Applicant has mitigated the allegations, and under the whole-person concept, further discussed below.
Applicant and his first wife divorced in 2009. (Item 5 at Section 17.)2
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 53, and married to his second wife. 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 all the allegations in the SOR under this paragraph. (Item 3.) Those
admissions are findings of fact.
The SOR lists eight delinquent debts (SOR 1.a through 1.h). The total amount of
the debts alleged in the SOR is approximately $24,163. The existence and amount of all
the debts is supported by credit reports dated February 22, 2014; December 31, 2014;
and June 29, 2015. (Items 8, 7, and 6.) The debts have been delinquent since at least
2011, according to the available credit reports.  The debts range in amount from1
$11,560 (1.a) to $50 (1.h).
Applicant attached a statement to his Answer. He says:
I am working very hard to recovery [sic] from the hole of debt I have fallen
into. For the past few years I have used my tax return to help push down
the debt. This year, again, I will use my return to push down the debt. I will
be paying off about three quarters of the debt. I have been put into this
position by my x-wife.  As hard as I try to pull up and get out of debt, more2
late fees compound my struggle to get back on my feet. (Item 3 at 3.)
Applicant has been continuously and gainfully employed without break since
January 1999. (Item 3, Section 13A.) Applicant did not submit a budget, or any other
information concerning his income and expenses. Applicant submitted no evidence that
he has received any financial counseling, contacted any of the creditors listed in the
SOR, or made any payments to them. The credit reports show that Applicant made a
payment arrangement with one creditor. (Item 6 at 6.) I find that Applicant has not
documented any effort to reduce or resolve any of the debts he admits to owing, despite
knowing of the Government’s concerns for some time.
Applicant provided no evidence concerning the quality of his professional
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect
3
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. I was unable
to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or character in person since he elected to have his
case decided without a hearing. 
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 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, “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
certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk
of compromise of classified information.
 See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012).3
4
 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. 
This concern is broader than the possibility that an individual might knowingly
compromise sensitive information in order to raise money. It encompasses concerns
about an individual’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting
sensitive information. An individual who is financially irresponsible may also be
negligent, unconcerned, or irresponsible in handling and safeguarding sensitive
information.3
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 over $24,000 in past-due debts, which have been due
and owing for several 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
conditions 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.@
This condition does not apply as Applicant=s financial difficulties have been in existence
for several years and continue to date. 
5
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.” Applicant stated that his divorce in 2009 precipitated his
financial difficulties. He also submitted that he has continuing financial responsibilities
for his ex-wife. This mitigating condition has some application in this case, but it is not
controlling.
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.” There is no evidence
in the record to show that he has done so with regard to any of his creditors listed in the
SOR. He has not paid any of those debts, not even the smallest for $50. He also has
over $6,000 in additional past-due debt, which is not alleged in the SOR. This mitigating
condition does not apply in this case.
In conclusion, looking at Applicant’s entire financial situation at the present time, I
cannot find 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
Guideline F, above, applies here as well. Applicant has had financial problems for
several years, which he has not yet resolved. If he is able to successfully resolve his
debts, Applicant may be eligible for a security clearance in the future. However, at the
present time, Applicant’s conduct with regard to his finances was not mitigated.
6
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 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. 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 ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.h: 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