1
                                                             
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-00805
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
July 21, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on May 21, 2012.  On October 16, 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 4, 2015.  She
answered the SOR in writing on November 21, 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
through 5, which were received without objection.  Applicant testified on her own behalf
2
and submitted Exhibits (AppXs) A and B, which were received without objection.  I
granted Applicant’s request to keep the record open until March 16, 2016, to submit
additional matters.  On February 26, 2016, she submitted Exhibit C, which was received
without objection.  The record closed on March 16, 2016.  Based upon a review of the
pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is
granted.
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied the factual allegations in all the
Subparagraphs of the SOR. .
Guideline F -Financial Considerations
Applicant is a 50 year old employee of a government contractor.  (TR at page 19
lines 12~19, at page 20 line 18 to page 22 line 19, and GX 1 at pages 5 and 10.)  She
was divorced, after “seven years” of marriage, in May of 2012.  (TR at page 19 line 20
to page 20 line 2, and AppX A.)  All of the alleged past-due debts are related to her
divorce.
1.a.  Applicant denies that she is indebted to Creditor A in the amount of about
$14,274.  Pursuant to her divorce degree, her former spouse was awarded their
residence.  (TR at page 25 line 13 to page 27 line 18, and AppX A at page 7.)  Pursuant
to a quitclaim deed, he also assumed the debt vis-a-vis the property.  (Id.)  He later
defaulted on the mortgage, and Creditor A sold by the property by a “short sale.”
Creditor A has not sought any monies from Appellant.  (TR at page 25 line 13 to page
27 line 18, and AppX A at page 7.)  This allegation is found for Applicant.
1.b.  Applicant initially denied that she was indebted to Creditor B in the amount
of about $169.  She later discovered that this was her debt, and not that of her former
husband.  (TR at page 27 line 19 to page 28 line 5.)  She paid this debt in January of
2015, as evidenced by a check drawn to Creditor B.  (AppX B at page 1.)  This
allegation is found for Applicant.
1.c.  Applicant also initially denied that she was indebted to Creditor C in the
amount of about $134.  She later discovered that this was her debt, and not that of her
former husband.  (TR at page 28 lines 6~11.)  She paid this debt in January of 2015, as
evidenced by a check drawn to Creditor C.  (AppX B at page 2.)  This allegation is found
for Applicant.
1.d.  Applicant denies that she is indebted to Creditor D in the amount of about
$5,591.  Pursuant to her divorce degree, her former spouse was also awarded their
furniture.  (TR at page 28 line 20 to page 30 line 1, and AppX A at page 7.)  He paid
$3,000 towards this debt, but later defaulted on the payments.  This is corroborated by a
statement from her former spouse.  (AppX C at page 3.)  In theory, although Applicant
may be technically responsible for the post-divorce financial shortcoming of her former
3
spouse, I find this alleged debt to be de minmis when compared to the overall alleged
past-due indebtedness.  This allegation is found for 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.  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.
Paragraph 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 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
4
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 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 had difficulty meeting her
financial obligations.  However, I find two countervailing Mitigating Conditions that are
applicable here.  Under Subparagraph 20(b), it may be mitigating where “the conditions
that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g. . . .
divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.”
Applicant’s alleged past-due indebtedness is directly attributed to her 2012 divorce.
Under Subparagraph 20(d), it may also be mitigating where “the individual initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.”  Applicant has
addressed all of the alleged past-due debts.  Two she has paid, and the other two were
those of her former spouse.
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances.  Under 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
5
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.  Applicant is well respected in the workplace
and the community.  (AppX C at pages 1 and 2.)  The record evidence leaves me
without questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security
clearance.  For this reason, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns
arising from her Financial Considerations, under the whole-person concept.
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d. For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge