DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-01149
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Chris Morin, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
August 5, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on July 28, 2014.  On August 22, 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 (Answer) on September 30, 2015, and
requested an Administrative Determination by an administrative judge.  Department
Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on November 30, 2015.  Applicant
responded to the FORM (Response) on January 16, 2016.  Department Counsel had no
objection, and the documents are entered into evidence.  The case was assigned to me
on February 19, 2016.  Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for
access to classified information is granted.
2
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in all four
Paragraphs of the SOR, with explanations.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Applicant is 46 years old, and is employed by a federal contractor as a “Financial
Audit Support Analyst.”  (Item 3 at pages 5 and 18.)
1.a.  Although Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor A, he disputes the
amount alleged.  He has been disputing this alleged $21,577 debt, since at least June
of 2014, more than a year prior to the issuance of the SOR.  This is evidenced by
correspondence with the successor creditor to this debt.  (Answer at pages 8~12, and
Response at Exhibits A~C.)  However, in an abundance of caution, Applicant has been
making monthly payments of $100 towards this debt since September of 2015, as
evidenced by correspondence with the successor creditor to this debt.  (Response at
Exhibit D.)  I find that Applicant is making a good-faith effort to address this alleged
past-due debt.
1.b., 1.c. and 1.d.  Although Applicant initially admitted that he was indebted to
Creditor B on three past-due debts, he has now successfully disputed two of these three
debts, allegations 1.b. and 1.c.  This is evidenced by them not appearing on the
Government’s August 2015 credit report (Item 5), and by them being eliminated from
Applicant’s September 2015 credit report (Answer at page 13).
As to 1.d., the third debt to Creditor B, in the amount of $1,414, delinquent since
2013, Applicant has been making monthly payments of $75 towards this debt
(Response at Exhibit E); and as such, it does not appear as past due on the
Government’s August 2015 credit report (Item 5 at page 3).  I find that Applicant has
made a good-faith effort to address these alleged past-due debts.
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.
3
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
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 two conditions that could raise security concerns.  Under
Subparagraphs 19(a) and 19(c) an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and “a
history of not meeting financial obligations.” may raise security concerns.  Applicant had
two delinquent past-due debts.  However, under Subparagraph 20 (d), it may also be
mitigating where “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
4
otherwise resolve debts.”  Applicant has successfully disputed two of the four alleged
past-due debts; and as to the other two admitted debts, Applicant is making a good-faith
effort to address both through monthly payments.  Financial Considerations is found for
Applicant.
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 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 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
his 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
Subparagraphs 1.a.~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