The Government submitted seven items for the record.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-01102
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On September 27, 2015, the Department of Defense  (DOD) issued a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) 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 review based on the written
record in lieu of a hearing. The case was assigned to me on May 20, 2016. Department
Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), dated January 30, 2016.1
Applicant received the FORM on February 11, 2016. Applicant did not respond to the
FORM. Based on a review of the case file, eligibility for access to classified information
is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the SOR allegation under
Guideline F (1.a) and denied the others with provided explanations. (Item 2) 
Applicant is 46 years old. He is married and has three children. He received his
associate’s degree in 2002, and attended undergraduate courses until 2005. He served
in the United States Air Force (USAF) from 1991 until 2011 on active duty and received
an honorable discharge. Applicant completed his most recent security clearance
application in 2012 and has been employed as a federal contractor since 2011.  He has
held a security clearance since 1991. (Item 3)
The SOR alleges five delinquent debts, including three collection accounts, a
past-due mortgage account, and a wage garnishment totaling over $50,000. Applicant
admitted that he is in debt to the bank for the mortgage account in the amount of
$27,032, with a total balance of $265,298. He explained in his answer to the SOR that
he was denied for a modification. He further noted that he remodeled the house and is
seeking a realtor for the property. He stated that he has coordinated his actions with the
bank. (Item 2) He did not provide any evidence to show that this account is resolved.
His latest credit report reflects the delinquency. (Item 7)
Applicant did not provide any documentation concerning any payments or
payment plans addressing the other debts. In his 2012 investigative interview, he stated
that he did not know of the accounts and had no intention of paying them because he
does not owe anything. (Item 5)
As to the SOR allegation 1.b, Applicant denied the debt listed as a garnishment
for a government debt in the amount of $24,978. He stated that he had a loan in 2005
after hurricane Katrina in 2005. He stated that he was on active duty and deployed and
the account was sent to collection. He stated that he spoke to an attorney and the
account was removed from the collections department. (Item 2) In his credit report,
dated 2015, and entry for a government debt lists a government loan in the amount of
$24,978, with a comment that states “paid by garnishment.”
As to the SOR allegation 1.c, Applicant denied he owed a debt for the amount
indicated of $610. He stated he closed the account in 2007 and paid it in full. It stated
that he had contacted several collection agencies over the validity of the debt and it had
been removed from his credit report. (Item 2) He did not provide any evidence to
support his claims.
As to the SOR allegation 1.d, Applicant denied he owed the amount of $1,504 in
collection. He stated that he closed the account in 1999, but he paid it in full. He stated
that it must have been sold to another collection agency. (SOR 2) It is still noted on his
credit report as delinquent since 2012.
3
As to the SOR allegation 1.e, for a collection phone account in the amount of
$427, Applicant denied that the account was his responsibility. He stated that he rented
a house in 2003 and the prior occupant did not settle the account. He contacted the
company and closed the account. He stated that he paid what he owed and has tried to
have it removed from his credit report.  (Item 2) The latest credit report lists that the
account is unpaid. (Item 7)
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant expressed frustrations about the background
investigations. He noted that he has had a clearance for almost 25 years and he feels
that the insignificant financial concerns pale in comparison to his service to his country
and other public officials. 
Applicant did not supplement the record with any documentation to support his
claims concerning his financial issues. There was no information in the file supporting
any financial counseling. He did not list any circumstances that occurred beyond his
control to cause any financial problems.
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
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
4
by Department Counsel. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a preponderance of2
evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
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.
 
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 clearance5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
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 a7
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
5
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.
Here the Government introduced credible evidence showing Applicant has
incurred considerable delinquent debt. His admission to the past-due mortgage in the
amount of $27,032 is sufficient to invoke two disqualifying conditions. 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 him and mitigate security concerns.  
Applicant has not provided any documentation to show that he has resolved any
SOR debts. He still has a significant amount of delinquent debt. 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 merit application.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (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 provided no explanation in his answer to show that he
suffered any circumstances beyond his control, nor has he produced documentation
that he is resolving his debts or has a plan in place. He has not acted responsibly.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) has no application. He has not provided any
documentation that he has resolved his debts, although he claimed that he has. There
is no  information that he has received financial counseling. 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), however, 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
6
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 46 years old. He has held a security clearance for almost 25 years. He
served in the USAF and received an honorable discharge.  There is nothing in the
record concerning any criminal behavior. He was on active duty and served many
years. However, he has not provided any evidence that he has paid any SOR debts or
is in a position to pay them. His credit reports do reflect many accounts that are current
and paid as agreed, but he has not carried his burden in this case. Moreover, given the
fact that none of the debts in the SOR have been resolved or in a repayment plan, I
have doubts that there are clear indications that his financial problems have been
resolved. He has not mitigated the security concerns under the financial considerations
guideline.
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 F:                       AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-.e: 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