1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 12-01601
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
June 27, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On August 19, 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD)  issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F  for Applicant. (Item
1.) 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 after September 1, 2006. 
 
On September 12, 2015, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and he
requested that his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. (Item 1.)
On October 27, 2015, Department Counsel issued the Department's written case. A
complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant on
November 4, 2015. In the FORM, Department Counsel offered six documentary
exhibits. (Items 1-6.) Applicant was given the opportunity to file objections and submit
material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. A response was due by December 10,
2015. Applicant submitted additional evidence, which has been identified and entered
into evidence as Items A through G. The case was assigned to this Administrative
2
Judge on January 5, 2016. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility
for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including
Applicant's RSOR and the FORM, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make
the following findings of fact: 
Applicant is 46 years old, and he is married and has 4 children. He earned a
Bachelor’s degree in 1994. Applicant has been employed since 2010 as a Computer
Operator by his current employer,  a defense contractor, and he seeks a DoD security
clearance in connection with his employment in the defense sector. (Items 2, F.)
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists five allegations (1.a. through 1.e.) regarding financial difficulties,
specifically delinquent debts, under Adjudicative Guideline F. The allegations will be
discussed below in the same order as they were listed on the SOR:
1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a collection account in the amount
of $518.  In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this SOR allegation. In his Post-FORM letter,
Applicant wrote that this debt had been paid off. Applicant also included a letter from the
creditor indicating that they would accept three monthly payments of $104.48 to settle
this debt. (Item A.) Item E shows that the creditor made an arrangement with Applicant
to debit electronically $104.48 from Applicant’s account on September 11, 2015, for this
debt.
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a judgement filed against Applicant
in April 2009, in the amount of $14,892.  In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this SOR
allegation, and he wrote that he was unable to negotiate at this time. (Item 1.) In his
Post-FORM letter, Applicant wrote that this judgment debt had been placed with a law
firm that informed Applicant a portion of his wages would be garnished bi-weekly for the
next six months. (Item A.) Items F and G show that $357.73 was deducted from the
paycheck of Applicant on November 29, 2015.  No evidence was introduced to establish
the total amount that has been deducted from Applicant’s pay or how much is still owing
on this debt. 
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a collection account in the amount
of $2,506. In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this SOR allegation. (Item 1.) In his Post-
FORM letter, Applicant wrote that he is currently on a payment schedule for this debt to
pay $156.25 a month until this debt is resolved. (Item A.) Item E shows that Applicant
has made one payment of $163.75 on September 14, 2015, and two payments of
$156.25 on October 14, 2015, and November 17, 2015, toward this debt.
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a collection account in the amount
of $5,649. In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this SOR allegation. (Item 1.) In his Post-
3
FORM letter, Applicant wrote that he is currently on a payment schedule for this debt to
pay $187.90 a month until this debt is resolved. (Item A.) Item D shows that Applicant
has made three payments of $187.90 on September 28, 2015; October 26, 2015; and
November 23, 2015; and three additional payments of $104.48.
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a collection account in the amount
of $3,677.  In his RSOR, Applicant admitted this SOR allegation. (Item 1.) In his Post-
FORM letter, Applicant wrote that he is currently on a payment schedule for this debt to
pay $155 a month until this debt is resolved. (Item A.) Item C shows that Applicant has
made two payments of $155 on October 26, 2015, and November 23, 2015, toward this
debt.
Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on July 26, 2011, and he explained each of his delinquent debts, writing, “In Year
2008, had difficulty paying bills due to being laid off at 2  job due to company file [sic]nd
bankruptcy.” (Item 2.) As reviewed above, Applicant began working at his present
employment in 2010, but he gave no explanation for why he did not begin attempting to
resolve his debts until  2015, after the SOR was issued. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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 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.
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. 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 applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
4
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security
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. 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.
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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
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 and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts,” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations,” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt several years ago.  
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(b), it may be mitigating 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.” As reviewed
above, some of Applicant’s financial difficulties occurred as a result of his periods of
unemployment. However, since Applicant has been employed by his current employer
since 2010, and only began making payments toward the SOR debts after the SOR was
5
issued in 2015, I find that Applicant has not acted responsibly. Accordingly, I find that this
mitigating condition is not applicable in this case. 
¶ 20(d) is now applicable but not controlling, since Applicant has begun taking
action to “initiate a good-faith effort to repay his overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts,” because even though he has been working at his present employment since
2010, he did not begin this process until after the SOR was issued in 2015. To be
applicable and controlling in the future, Applicant must establish a consistent history of
continuing to resolve these delinquent past debts and not become past due on his
present debts. At this time, I find Guideline F 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 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on all of the reasons cited above
as to why the mitigating conditions are not applicable at this time, I find that the record
evidence leaves me with significant questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and
suitability for a security clearance under the whole-person concept. For all these
reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the whole-
person concept. 
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. - 1.e.: Against  Applicant
6
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.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge