Department Counsel submitted ten items in the FORM. Item 10 is inadmissible and will not be considered1
or cited as evidence in this case. It is the summary of an unsworn interview of Applicant conducted by an
interviewer from the Office of Personnel Management on June 20, 2012. The summary was never adopted
1
                                                             
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 12-11189
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
July 27, 2016
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on December 16, 2010. (Item 4.) On March 16, 2015, the Department of
Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) concerning Applicant. The action was taken
under Executive Order (EO) 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 on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on April 30, 2015, (Answer) and
requested a decision by an administrative judge without a hearing. (Item 2.) Department
Counsel submitted the Government’s written case (FORM) to Applicant on September
15, 2015.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the FORM on October 15, 2015. She was1
by Applicant as her own statement, or otherwise certified by her to be accurate. Under EO 10865 Section 5,
and Directive ¶ E3.1.20, this Report of Investigation summary is inadmissible in the absence of an
authenticating witness. Given Applicant’s admissions, it is also cumulative. 
See Item 4, Section 18.2
2
given 30 days from receipt of the FORM to submit any additional documentation.
Applicant did not submit any additional information within that time. The case was
assigned to me on December 21, 2015. Based upon a review of the pleadings and
exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 31, and single. She works for a defense contractor, and seeks to
obtain a security clearance in connection with her employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because she is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable,
untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant
admitted subparagraphs 1.a, b, c, d, g, h, k, and n in the SOR under this paragraph.
Those admissions are findings of fact. She denied the remaining allegations.
The SOR lists fifteen delinquent debts (SOR 1.a through 1.p). The total of the
debts alleged in the SOR is approximately $18,314. The existence and amount of all the
debts are supported by credit reports dated January 15, 2011; two reports dated
January 11, 2012; June 13, 2012; and October 7, 2014. (Items 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.) Some
of the past-due debts have been delinquent since 2010, according to the available credit
reports. 
With regard to her debts in general, Applicant states, “I have a twin sister and we
found our credit report was combined and we are still working to resolve this.”
(Answer.)  Three credit reports, Items 5, 7, and 8, have the names of Applicant and her2
twin sister on them, along with two separate social security numbers. None of the
available credit reports, however, show that Applicant or her sister have notified the
credit reporting agencies of this issue, or that they have disputed any of the debts
because of it.
The current status of the debts is as follows:
1.a. Applicant admitted owing this debt for a repossessed automobile in the
amount of $8,847. She further states in her Answer, “I was young and chose to keep the
apartment I had instead of the car.” No other information was submitted. I find that this
debt is not resolved.
3
1.b. Applicant admitted owing a past-due debt in the amount of $852. No other
information was submitted. I find that this debt is not resolved.
1.c. Applicant admitted owing this past-due debt in the amount of $217. She
stated in her Answer, “Job loss in 2013 and didn’t find full time work until July 2014.” No
further information was received. This debt is not resolved.
1.d. Applicant admitted owing a past-due debt in the amount of $210. She stated
in her Answer, “Job loss in 2013 and didn’t find full time work until July 2014.” No further
information was received. This debt is not resolved.
1.e. Applicant denied owing this past-due debt in the amount of $99. She stated
in her Answer, “I have no idea who [or] what this is.” Support for the existence of this
debt is found in Item 8. No further information was submitted about this debt, and I find
that it is not resolved.
1.f. Applicant denied owing a past-due medical debt in the amount of $615. She
stated in her Answer, “I have no unpaid medical expenses that I know of.” Support for
the existence of this debt is found in Item 7. No further information was received. This
debt is not resolved.
1.g. Applicant admitted owing a past-due mobile telephone bill in the amount of
$450. She stated in her Answer, “Disputing with [mobile telephone company] as account
was not cancelled when requested.” Support for the existence of this debt is found in
Item 8. No further information was received. This debt is not resolved.
1.h. Applicant admitted owing a past-due telephone bill in the amount of $130.
No further information was received. This debt is not resolved.
1.i. Applicant denied owing a past-due mobile telephone bill in the amount of
$827. She stated in her Answer, “does not belong to me.” Support for the existence of
this debt is found in Item 7. No further information was received. This debt is not
resolved.
1.j. Applicant denied owing a past-due debt to W College in the amount of $230.
She stated in her Answer, “this belongs to my twin sister who attended [W College].”
Section 12 of Item 4 shows that Applicant received a bachelor’s degree from a different
college. This allegation is found for Applicant.
1.k. Applicant admitted owing a past-due debt in the amount of $3,669. No
further information was received. This debt is not resolved.
1.l. Applicant denied owing a past-due mobile telephone bill in the amount of
$526. Support for the existence of this debt is found in Item 5. No further information
was received. This debt is not resolved.
4
1.m. Applicant denied owing a past-due mobile telephone bill in the amount of
$297. She stated in her Answer, “I’m with [this mobile telephone company] now and my
account is current.” Support for the existence of this debt is found in Item 5. No further
information was received. This debt is not resolved.
1.n. Applicant admitted owing a past-due debt in the amount of $1,526. She
stated in her Answer, “Family member had account but stopped paying.” No further
information was received. This debt is not resolved.
1.o. Applicant denied owing a past-due medical bill in the amount of $139. She
stated in her Answer, “do not know what this is.” Support for the existence of this debt is
found in Item 5. No further information was received. This debt is not resolved.
1.p. Applicant denied owing a past-due medical bill in the amount of $40. She
stated in her Answer, “no unpaid medical expenses.” Support for the existence of this
debt is found in Item 5. No further information was received. This debt is not resolved.
Applicant submitted no evidence that she has received any financial counseling.
She did not submit a budget, or any other information concerning her income and
expenses. As stated, the record does not show any disputes filed with the credit
reporting companies concerning the debts Applicant states are not hers. 
Applicant provided no evidence concerning the quality of her professional
performance, the level of responsibility her duties entail, or her track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. I was unable
to evaluate her credibility, demeanor, or character in person since she elected to have
her case decided without a hearing.
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  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 to be used as appropriate 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 AG ¶ 2 describing 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.  In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on
5
his or her own common sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the
ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that, “Any 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 ¶ 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance 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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any
determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination 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
Paragraph 1 (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. 
 See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012).3
6
This concern is broader than the possibility that an individual might knowingly
compromise sensitive information in order to raise money. It encompasses concerns
about an individual’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting
sensitive information. An individual who is financially irresponsible may also be
negligent, unconcerned, or irresponsible in handling and safeguarding sensitive
information.3
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant has admitted having over $15,000 in past-due debts, which
have been due and owing for several years. This does not include the debts that she
denied owing, but which remain unresolved. The evidence is sufficient to raise these
potentially disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying
conditions may be mitigated where Athe 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.@
This condition does not apply as Applicant=s financial difficulties have been in existence
for several years and largely continue to date. 
AG ¶ 20(b) states that the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated 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.” Applicant states that she was unemployed from sometime in
2013 until June 2014. However, Applicant did not submit any evidence that would show
she behaved responsibly with regard to her debts. This condition minimally applies to
Applicant’s situation.
AG ¶ 20(d) states it can be mitigating where, “the individual has initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Applicant elected to
submit no information showing that she has paid any of her creditors, no matter how
small.
In conclusion, looking at Applicant’s entire financial situation at the present time, I
cannot find that “there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control,” as is required by AG ¶ 20(c). Paragraph 1 is found against Applicant.
7
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 relevant circumstances. 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. The administrative judge must 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The discussion under
Guideline F, above, applies here as well. Applicant has had financial problems for
several years, which she has not yet resolved. If she is able to successfully resolve her
debts, Applicant may be eligible for a security clearance in the future. However, at the
present time, Applicant’s conduct with regard to her finances is not mitigated.
Under AG ¶ 2(a)(3), her conduct is recent and continuing. I cannot find that there
have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I also
cannot find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); or that there is no likelihood of continuation or recurrence (AG ¶
2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from her financial
situation. Accordingly, the evidence supports denying her request for a security
clearance.
8
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 to 1.i: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.k to 1.p: 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.
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge