1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 15-01265
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Andrew Henderson, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
August 24, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
 
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On September 19, 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 for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
On October 14, 2015, Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and he
requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge (AJ). The case was first assigned
to another AJ on January 7, 2016. Because of scheduling issues, the case was then
assigned to this AJ on January 11, 2016. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on January
11, 2016, and the hearing was held as scheduled on January 26, 2016. 
At the hearing, the Government offered Exhibits 1 through 5, which were
received without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits
A through D, which were also admitted without objection. At the hearing, the record was
kept open until February 12, 2016, to allow Applicant to submit additional
2
documentation. Several post-hearing documents were received, which have been
identified and entered into evidence without objection as Exhibits E through H. DOHA
received the transcript of the hearing (Tr) on February 3, 2016. Based upon a review of
the pleadings, exhibits, and the testimony of Applicant, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including
Applicant's RSOR, the admitted documents, and the testimony of Applicant, and upon
due consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of fact: 
Applicant is 41 years old. He is married, and he has three children.  Applicant
served in the United States Navy from 1995 until 2004, when he received an Honorable
discharge. Applicant is a high school graduate with one year of college. He is employed
by his current employer, a defense contractor, for whom he has worked since 2007. He
is seeking a DoD security clearance in connection with his employment in the defense
sector.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists 13 allegations (1.a. through 1.m.) regarding financial difficulties,
specifically overdue debts under Adjudicative Guideline F. All of the SOR debts will be
discussed below in the same order as they were listed on the SOR:
1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount
of $127. At the hearing, Applicant testified that this medical debt has not been paid. (Tr
at 27.) I find that this debt has not been resolved or reduced. 
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount
of $389. Applicant testified that this medical debt has not been paid. (Tr at 27-28.) I find
that this debt has not been resolved or reduced. 
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount
of $569.  Applicant testified that this medical debt has not been paid. (Tr at 28-29.) I find
that this debt has not been resolved or reduced. 
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount
of $347. Applicant testified that this debt has been paid. He had no documents to
establish that the debt was paid so the record was left open to give him an opportunity
to show he has paid the debt. (Tr at 29-30.) No documents were received regarding this
debt.  I do not find that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount
of $154. Applicant testified that this medical debt has not been paid. (Tr at 30.) I find
that this debt has not been resolved or reduced. 
3
1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent collection account in
the amount of $119. Applicant testified that this medical debt has not been paid. (Tr at
30.)  I find that this debt has not been resolved or reduced. 
1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount
of $28. Applicant testified that this medical debt has not been paid. (Tr at 30.) I find that
this debt has not been resolved or reduced. 
1.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount
of $28,648. Applicant testified that this debt for a car loan that he co-signed for his
mother has been paid. He had not been aware that his mother had defaulted on the
loan until he met with a Government investigator. (Tr at 30-33.) Exhibits A through D
establish that a debt to this creditor was paid. However, during questioning by
Department Counsel, it was pointed out to Applicant that the debt discussed on Exhibits
A through D appears to be a different debt than this debt listed on the SOR as 1.h. (Tr
at 47-52.) Exhibits 4 and 5 establish that this debt is still outstanding. Therefore, I do not
find that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 
1.i. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount
of $179. Applicant testified that this medical debt has not been paid. (Tr at 35.) I find
that this debt has not been resolved or reduced. 
1.j. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount
of $150. Applicant testified that this medical debt has not been paid. (Tr at 35.) I find
that this debt has not been resolved or reduced. 
1.k. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount
of $542. Applicant testified that this medical debt has not been paid. (Tr at 35.) I find
that this debt has not been resolved or reduced. 
1.l. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount
of $125. Applicant testified that this medical debt has not been paid. (Tr at 35-36.) I find
that this debt has not been resolved or reduced. 
1.m. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the
amount of $10,522, with a total balance of $352,481. Applicant testified that he is no
longer delinquent on this account. He explained that his mother now lives in this house,
and she is making the payments for the mortgage. He had no documents to establish
that the debt was no longer delinquent so the record was left open to give him an
opportunity to show that this debt is current. (Tr at 36-38.) No documents were received
regarding this debt. I do not find that this debt has been resolved or reduced.  
Applicant testified that he was having difficulty after leaving the service so his
wife took on the responsibility for paying the bills. She fell behind, but since she was
afraid to tell Applicant that she was not able to pay all of the bills, he was unaware that
they had delinquent accounts. During his testimony, he conceded that he should have
checked to make sure the bills were being paid, but he trusted that she was taking care
4
of the financial issues, and if there was a problem she would let him know. Applicant
testified that he did not become aware of all of their delinquent accounts until he met
with the Government investigator. Finally, he averred that in the future he would be the
one responsible for paying the bills. (Tr at 39-43.) 
Applicant was asked why he had not resolved any of these debts, some of which
were rather small, since he had known about the debts at least since the SOR was
issued on September 19, 2015, if not when he first met with the Government
investigator on June 10, 2014. Applicant stated that he planned to pay off all of his
debts after he and his wife received their tax refund. (Tr at 52-45.) 
Mitigation
Applicant submitted several post-hearing exhibits. Exhibit F is a Personal
Financial Statement prepared by Applicant after the hearing. It shows that he and his
wife currently earn a net monthly salary of $6,900. Applicant’s expenses total $4,475,
leaving Applicant and his wife with a monthly net remainder of $2,425. With this much of
a monthly remainder it becomes more difficult to determine why Applicant failed to
resolve or even reduce any of the delinquent debts listed on the SOR, especially when
some of the debts were so small.
Applicant also submitted a letter in which he stated that he and his wife have
made an appointment to meet with a credit counseling service on February 19, 2016.
(Exhibit E.) Applicant also included a summary of evaluations that he has received from
his current employer. It shows that in his most current review Applicant received
“Achieves Expectations,” but in the previous four reviews, he received a rating of
“Exceeds Expectations.” (Exhibit G .) Finally, Applicant’s wife submitted a letter in which
she wrote that she and her husband are now “in a good place [and] confident that we
can fix our finances with the proper help and guidance; therefore we have made an
appointment with a financial advisor.” (Exhibit H.)  
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 ¶ 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.
5
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 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 ¶ 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 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 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. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts,” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶  19(c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations,” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
6
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt several years ago.
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(b), it may be mitigating 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.” Since so
many of Applicant’s debts were the result of medical bills, I find this mitigating condition
is potentially applicable in this case. However, based on Applicant’s failure to resolve his
debts, even the extremely small ones, I do not find that Applicant has acted responsibly
under the circumstances. While he now plans to receive financial counseling, there is no
explanation as to why he and his wife had not attempted to receive counseling when he
first became aware of their delinquent debts. Therefore, I find this mitigating condition is
not applicable in this case. 
AG ¶ 20(d) is also not applicable, as Applicant has not “initiated a good-faith
effort to repay his overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Finally, I do not find
that any other mitigating condition is applicable in this case. Therefore, I find Guideline
F 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. The administrative judge should 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.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for
access to a classified position must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon
careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on all of the reasons cited
above as to why the disqualifying conditions apply, and the mitigating conditions do not
apply, I find that the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance under the whole-person
7
concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security
concerns under the whole-person concept.
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. through 1.m.: 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.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge