1
                                                             
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-06398
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Andrew Henderson, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Ryan C. Nerney, Esquire
May 27, 2016
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on March 27, 2013. (Government Exhibit 1.) On January 28, 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 March 9, 2015 (Answer), and
requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared
to proceed on July 7, 2015. This case was assigned to another administrative judge  on
July 16, 2015. The case was reassigned to me on August 27, 2015. The Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on September 14, 2015. I
convened the hearing as scheduled on October 21, 2015. The Government offered
Government Exhibits 1 through 5, which were admitted without objection. Applicant
testified on his own behalf, called three additional witnesses, and submitted Applicant
2
Exhibits A through Z, also without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the
hearing (Tr.) on October 30, 2015. The record closed on October 21, 2015. Based upon
a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 34, and divorced. He has custody of the two children from his
previous marriage. Applicant is an honorably discharged Air Force veteran. 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
denied all eight of the allegations in the SOR (1.a through 1.h). He also submitted
additional information to support his request for a security clearance.
Applicant married his ex-wife in 2001. Applicant and his ex-wife physically
separated in 2010, and the divorce was finalized in April 2013. During the pendency of
the divorce, Applicant’s ex-wife was very uncooperative. She refused to sign important
documents, and also failed to provide documentation to Applicant during that period. In
addition, Applicant was unemployed or underemployed from August 2011 through June
2012. These facts caused many of his financial problems. (Government Exhibit 1 at
Section 13A; Applicant Exhibits B and U.)
1.a. The Government alleged in this subparagraph that Applicant failed to file
his Federal tax returns for tax years 2011 and 2012. Those tax years were during the
pendency of the divorce. Applicant’s ex-wife refused to give him her W-2 forms until
after the divorce was completed. On the advice of his counsel, Applicant decided not to
file those tax returns separately. Once the divorce was finalized Applicant’s ex-wife
provided the forms. Those tax returns were filed in June 2013. Applicant has filed all
subsequent returns in a timely fashion. (Applicant Exhibits P, X, and Z; Tr. 86-90, 93-
101.)
The SOR lists seven delinquent debts, totaling approximately $10,018. The
existence and amount of the debts is supported by credit reports dated April 9, 2013;
October 16, 2014; and July 6, 2015. (Government Exhibits 3, 4, and 5.) As further
described below, Applicant began working to settle his past-due debts in 2013, which
was before issuance of the SOR. (Tr. 71.)
3
The current status of the debts is as follows:
1.b. Applicant denied that he owed $446 for a past-due credit card debt. This
debt was established by Applicant’s wife without his consent during the time he was in
the Air Force in 2005. The collection agency assigned to this debt went out of business
and Applicant, despite his best efforts, has been unable to pay this debt to another entity.
This includes the original creditor. Applicant filed disputes with the credit reporting
agencies due to the age of the debt, and it was removed from his current credit report.
(Applicant Exhibits X, and Y; Tr. 70-74.) I find Applicant has done everything he
reasonably can to resolve this debt.
1.c. Applicant denied that he owed $6,507 for a repossessed automobile.
Applicant’s ex-wife received the automobile as part of the divorce. She was unable to
maintain payments and the car was repossessed. She has settled this account, and
submitted documentation from the collection agent to that effect. (Applicant Exhibits R,
U, and X; Tr. 74-75.) This debt is resolved.
1.d, 1.g, and 1.h. These three debts are all owed to the county where Applicant
used to live. They are for traffic violations and related fines. Applicant denied that he
owed a total of $2,666 in fines. Applicant arranged a payment plan through his state’s
taxing authority. His first payments were in 2012. Beginning in April 2014 he paid
monthly on these accounts, with his final payment being in July 2015. (Applicant Exhibits
Q, V, and X; Tr. 75-83.) These debts are resolved.
1.e, and 1.f. These two debts, totaling $399, are for medical care provided to
Applicant and his children. Applicant provided documentation showing these debts were
paid in August 2013. (Applicant Exhibit S; Tr. 83-86.) These debts are resolved.
Applicant submitted documentation showing that he paid off, or resolved, other
debts in addition to those identified in the SOR. (Applicant Exhibits I through O; Tr. 102.)
His current financial situation is stable. He is able to pay his monthly debts, and has
resolved his past-due indebtedness. (Applicant Exhibit W; Tr. 18-19, 90-91.)
Mitigation
Applicant’s witnesses and documentation show that he is a respected and
successful employee, and former member of the Air Force. (Applicant Exhibits A, D, E,
and F.)
Applicant Exhibit A contains eleven letters of recommendation for Applicant. They
are from civilian employees of the Air Force, officers and senior non-commissioned
officers of the Air Force, and co-workers. The Chief Executive Officer of Applicant’s
employer wrote one of the letters. This person has known Applicant since 2007, when
they both served in the Air Force together. The writer states, “I do not have any concerns
with [Applicant’s] access to classified information as he personally and professionally
exhibits trustworthy behavior.” The other letters are of a similar tenor.
4
Three witnesses testified for Applicant. One is a senior civilian employee of the Air
Force, the second is a senior non-commissioned officer of the Air Force, and the third
was the commander of the base where Applicant is employed. All three of them viewed
Applicant as an extremely trustworthy and reliable employee. His former commander, a
lieutenant colonel, also served as a professional mentor for Applicant. That witness
stated he trusts Applicant, and made a particular point of the fact that Applicant always
informed him of Applicant’s financial situation, including issues beyond those stated in
the SOR. (Tr. 20-62.)
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 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
5
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.
 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. 
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, based on documentary and testimonial evidence, had
seven delinquent accounts that he formerly could not resolve. In addition, AG ¶ 19(g)
applied because of Applicant’s “failure to file annual Federal . . . income tax returns as
required.” 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), 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.@ In addition, AG ¶
20(b) states that 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.”  
The evidence shows that both of the above mitigating conditions apply to
Applicant. Applicant’s financial problems began when he and his ex-wife separated,
ISCR Case No. 06-12930 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 17, 2008) (quoting ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2-3 (App. Bd.1
Jul. 6, 2006)).
6
during the same time he had an extensive bout of unemployment. After the divorce
became final his ex-wife cooperated with Applicant in filing the two years of tax returns
that were delinquent. Once he was financially able to resolve the debts, he paid six of
them off. Based on the particular facts of this case, I find that he has “initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” as required by AG ¶
20(d).
Regarding the debt is SOR 1.b, Applicant credibly testified that he has attempted
several times to resolve the debt, with no success. Under the particular circumstances of
this case I find that AG ¶ 20(e) applies to this de minimis debt; “the individual has a
reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the
problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or
provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue.”
Applicant has not received financial counseling. However, as shown above, his
current financial situation is stable. I find that “there are clear indications that the problem
is being resolved or is under control,” as required by AG ¶ 20(c). 
Applicant has acted in a way that shows good judgment, beginning work before
issuance of the SOR to resolve his financial situation. As the DOHA Appeal Board has
said, “An applicant is not required to show that [he] has completely paid off [his]
indebtedness, only that [he] has established a reasonable plan to resolve [his] debts and
has taken significant actions to implement that plan.”  Applicant has done that. All of1
these mitigating conditions apply to the facts of this case. Paragraph 1 is found 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 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.      
7
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. While Applicant has had financial problems in the past,
they have been resolved, and he has the knowledge and ability to avoid such problems
in the future. 
Under AG ¶ 2(a)(2), I have considered the facts of Applicant’s debt history. Based
on the record, I find that there have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶
2(a)(6). Accordingly, I find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); and that there is a low likelihood of recurrence (AG
¶ 2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with no questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
situation. Accordingly, the evidence supports granting 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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.h.: 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.
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge