The Statement of Reasons erroneously lists the caption as ISCR Case No. 12-0841.1
1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 12-108411
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Although Applicant’s financial problems were caused by circumstances beyond
his control, he failed to provide evidence documenting what progress, if any, he has
made in addressing them. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On September 24, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing
security concerns 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 Directive 5220.6, Defense
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the DOD on
Applicant did not object to the admissibility of any of these Items, therefore, I have considered all of them in2
this Decision.
2
 
September 1, 2006. On October 19, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR, denying all of
the allegations, and requesting a decision without a hearing. 
On November 30, 2015, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant
Materials (FORM).  Applicant received the FORM on December 10, 2015. He did not2
submit a response. On March 1, 2016, the case was assigned to me.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 63-year-old married man with two adult children. He has a high
school diploma, and has earned several vocational degrees over the years. In 2010, he
earned a bachelor’s degree. Since 1994, Applicant has worked for a federal contractor.
Currently, he is a supervisor. He has had a security clearance since 2002. (Item 5 at 30)
Applicant has approximately $40,000 of delinquent debt. He began falling behind
on his debts after his wife was laid off in 2006. (Item 8 at 1) She has been unable to
obtain steady income since then, and her employment problems have been
compounded by chronic health problems.
SOR subparagraph 1.a is a $22,776 loan. He is behind more than six months on
his monthly payments. Applicant contends that SOR subparagraphs 1.a and 1.c are
duplicates. He contends that he has negotiated an agreement with the creditor under
which it has agreed to accept a one-time $500 payment and successive $250 monthly
payments. (Item 4 at 2) Applicant provided no corroborating evidence either of this
agreement or of his contention that this debt is a duplicate of SOR subparagraph 1.c.
Applicant contends that SOR subparagraph 1.b, a debt totaling $9,767, was
cancelled in 2014, and reported to the Internal Revenue Service to be filed with his
income tax returns for that year. He provided no corroborating evidence. Applicant
denies SOR subparagraph 1.d, but does not provide any evidence substantiating the
basis of the dispute.
Policies
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 together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. 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.
3
 
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.” 
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
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline,“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.”
(AG ¶ 18) Applicant’s history of financial problems triggers the application of AG ¶ 19(a),
“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting
financial obligations.” 
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:
(b) 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;
(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; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debt; and
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the case of the problem and provides documented
proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of
actions to resolve the issue.
Applicant’s financial problems began in 2006 after his wife, whose income they
needed to help make ends meet, lost her job. She has yet to regain full-time
employment, as a subsequent chronic illness has compounded her ability to work.
Applicant, however, provided no documentary evidence supporting either the steps that
4
 
he has allegedly taken to address his delinquent debts, or to substantiate the basis of
the debt that he disputes. Under these circumstances, none of the mitigating conditions
apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows: 
(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.
Circumstances beyond Applicant’s control contributed to his financial problems.
However, he provided no supporting evidence documenting steps taken to get his
financial problems under control. This failure to provide documentary evidence, compels
me to conclude that he has not mitigated the security concern.
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-1.d: 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.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge
5