DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-11202
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Adrienne Strzelczyk, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
June 21, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on May 17, 2012.  On June 10, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for
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 after September 1, 2006.
Applicant answered the SOR in writing, without submitting any supporting
documentation, on August 7, 2015, and requested an Administrative Determination by
an administrative judge.  Department Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material
(FORM) on September 8, 2015.  Applicant responded to the FORM (Response), with
only written argument, on October 26, 2015.  Department Counsel had no objection.
The case was assigned to me on January 19, 2016.  Based upon a review of the
pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
The allegations will be discussed chronologically, and not as they appear on the SOR.
1
2
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in
Paragraphs 1.a., 1.b., and 1.d.~1.k. of the SOR, with only explanations, and no
supporting documentation.  He denied the factual allegation in Paragraph 1.c. the SOR,
again with only explanation.
Applicant is a 54-year-old employee of a federal contractor.  (Item 2 at pages 5
and 11.)  He seeks a security clearance in conjunction with his position as a “Multi
Discipline System” engineer, and has been so employed since 1984.  (Item 2 at page
11.)
1.j. and 1.k.   In December of 2007 and again in December of 2010, Applicant1
admits misusing his company issued credit card, although he avers that allegation 1.j.
only involved a $10 clerical error.  The Government does not dispute Applicant’s
explanation as to the 2010 alleged misuse; and as such, allegation 1.j. is found for
Applicant.  However, allegation 1.k. is found against Applicant.
1.i.  Applicant admits that he is indebted to the Federal Government for
delinquent taxes in the amount of about $4,338 for tax year 2009.  He avers that he is
“currently on a monthly payment plan to pay” this debt, but has offered nothing in
support of his bare averment.  This allegation is found against Applicant.
1.g.  Applicant admits that his 2009 Chapter 13 Bankruptcy was dismissed in
2010.  He disputes that he had a late trustee payment, but has offered nothing in
support of his bare averment.  This allegation is found against Applicant.
1.f.  Applicant admits that his 2010 Chapter 13 Bankruptcy was dismissed in
2012.  He attributes this dismissal to the malfeasance of his bankruptcy attorney, but
has offered nothing in support of this bare averment.  This allegation is found against
Applicant.
1.h.  Applicant admits that his wages were garnished in 2012, in the amount of
about $380, to pay delinquent state taxes.  This state tax debt is paid; and as such, this
allegation is found for Applicant.
1.b.~1.e.  Applicant filed for the protection of another Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in
August of 2015.  This is evidenced by that bankruptcy petition.  (Item 8, the first three
pages.)  This petition was approved, and Applicant was ordered to make monthly
trustee payments of $3,863 beginning in September of 2015.  (Item 8 at page 13.)
While this approved petition appears to cover those past-due debts alleged in
subparagraphs 1.b.~1.e., Applicant has submitted nothing other than his bare averment
that he is making these payments.  This averment is suspect, at best, in light of
Applicant’s two prior failed Chapter 13 Bankruptcies.  These allegations are found
against Applicant.
3
1.a.  Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor A in the amount of about
$3,238.  As he has offered nothing further of substance in this regard, other the general
bare averments in his Response, this allegation is found against Applicant.
Policies
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 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.  (AG Paragraph 2.)  The administrative judge’s
over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision.
According to AG Paragraph 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
Paragraph 2(b) requires that “[a]ny 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 Paragraph E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR.  Under Directive Paragraph 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 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).
4
Analysis
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG Paragraph 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
Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially
disqualifying.  Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations@ may raise security concerns.  Applicant has significant past-due debt, which
he has failed to demonstrate he has resolved.  I can find no countervailing Mitigating
Condition that is applicable here.  Financial Considerations are 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 circumstances.  Under AG Paragraph 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 should also consider the nine adjudicative process
factors listed at AG Paragraph 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 all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and
mitigating conditions surrounding this case.  The record evidence leaves me with
questions and doubts as to his eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.
Applicant has failed to fully respond to the Government’s concerns; and as such, has
failed to address the alleged past-due debts.  For this reason, I conclude Applicant has
5
not mitigated the security concerns under the whole-person concept arising from his
Financial Considerations.
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.g. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k. 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.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge