1
                                                             
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-02942
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
June 27, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on October 14, 2014.  On November 4, 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 acknowledged receipt of the SOR on November 24, 2015.  He
answered the SOR in writing on November 24, 2015, and requested a hearing before
an Administrative Judge.  The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
received the request soon thereafter, and I received the case assignment on January
19, 2016.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing on January 26, 2016, and I convened the
hearing as scheduled on February 16, 2016.  The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1
2
through 4, which were received without objection.  Applicant testified on his own behalf
and submitted Exhibits (AppXs) A through E, which were received without objection.  I
granted Applicant’s request to keep the record open until March 16, 2016, to submit
additional matters.  He has chosen to submit nothing further.  The record closed on
March 16, 2016.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony,
eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied the factual allegations in the two
Subparagraphs of the SOR.  He also provided additional information to support his
request for eligibility for a security clearance.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Applicant is a 55-year-old high school graduate, with “some college.”  (TR at
page 19 line 14 to page 20 line 1.)  He attributes his alleged financial difficulties to bad
advice from both his attorney and his accountant.  (TR at page 25 line 2 to page 26 line
25.)  He purchased a house as “an investment”; but when the housing market crashed
in 2007~2008, he was advised to “stop paying on both the mortgage and the second”
refinanced mortgage, and “just walk away” from his financial responsibilities vis-a-vis his
house.  (Id.)
1.a.  Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor A on his primary mortgage
in the past-due amount of about $82,105.  His house was sold by “a trustee’s sale,” as
evidenced by a letter from said trustee.  (AppX B.)  He now owes nothing on this debt,
as he recently received an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) “Form 1099-C” from Creditor
A, and Applicant fully intends to declare the discharged debt as income on his 2015
income tax filing.  (TR at page 27 lines11~20, and AppX A.)  This allegation is found for
Applicant.
1.b.  Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor B on his secondary
mortgage in the past-due amount of about $9,487.  This debt appears on the
Government’s October 2015 credit report (CR).  (GX 4 at page 4.)  It does not appear
on the Applicant’s February 2016 CR.  (AppX E.)  It was explained to Applicant in great
detail that just because a past-due debt does not appear on a more recent CR, that fact
does not mean the debt has been satisfied.  (TR at page 29 line 18 to page 33 line 10.)
He assured the undersigned that he would address this issue, and was given one
month to do so.  (Id.)  Applicant has submitted nothing further in this regard.  This
allegation is found against Applicant.
3
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 still 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
5
questions and doubts as to Applicant’s 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
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
Subparagraph 1.a. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b. 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