DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-02027
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
August 16, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on February 28, 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 answered the SOR in writing (Answer) on November 30, 2015, and
requested an Administrative Determination by an administrative judge.  Department
Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on January 29, 2016.  Applicant
responded to the FORM (Response) on February 11, 2016.  Department Counsel had
no objection, and the documents are entered into evidence.  The case was assigned to
me on March 15, 2016.  Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for
access to classified information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in all the
Paragraphs of the SOR, with explanations.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Applicant is a 45-year-old “Account Manager,” who has worked for a government
contractor since January of 2008.  (Item 3 at pages 5 and 13.)  She attributes much her
financial difficulties to her “now deceased ex-husband being diagnosed with cancer
resulting in high medical expenses for his treatment.”  (Answer at page 1.)
1.a. and 1.t.  Applicant admits that she is indebted to Creditor A for a past-due
medical debt in the amount of about $360.  She successfully disputed the two
allegations as being one and the same debt, but has also offered documentation
showing it is still past due.  (Response at page 2, and Response Item (RITEM) 2 at
page 4.)  This allegation is found against Applicant.
1.b.  Applicant admits that she is indebted to Creditor B for a past-due medical
debt in the amount of about $148.  She avers here, and reiterates through out her
Response the following: “I do not understand that I am still responsible for the debt even
though it does not show on my credit report.”  (Response at page 2.)  The fact that a
delinquent account does not appear on a credit report does not indicate it has been
forgiven.  The creditor may have written it off as a business loss, or sold it to another
successor creditor at a discount.  This does not mean that the creditor or successor
creditor would not happily accept payment of the outstanding debt.  She also offers
documentation showing this debt is still past due vis-a-vis a successor creditor to this
debt.  (Response at page 2, and RItem 2 at page 4.)  This allegation is found against
Applicant.
1.c. and 1.f.  Applicant admits that she is indebted to Creditor C for a past-due
medical debt in the amount of about $1,379.  She successfully disputed the two
allegations as being one and the same debt, but has also offered documentation
showing it is still past due.  (Response at page 2, and RItem 2 at page 3.)  This
allegation is found against Applicant.
1.d.  Applicant admits that she is indebted to Creditor D for a past-due medical
debt in the amount of about $131.  She avers that she “paid” this debt, but does not
offer documentation in support of her averment.  (Response at page 2.)  However,
Applicant does offer documentation showing this debt is still past due vis-a-vis a
successor creditor to this debt.  (Response at page 2, and RItem 2 at page 3.)  This
allegation is found against Applicant.
1.e.  Applicant admits that she is indebted to Creditor E for a past-due debt in the
amount of about $1,740, and offers nothing further in this regard.  (Response at page
2.)  This allegation is found against Applicant.
1.f.  This allegation has already been discussed, above.
3
1.g. and 1.o.  Applicant admits that she is indebted to Creditor G for a past-due
debt in the amount of about $982.  She successfully disputed the two allegations as
being one and the same debt, but has also offered documentation showing it is still past
due.  (Response at page 3, and RItem 2 at page 3.)  This allegation is found against
Applicant.
1.h.  Applicant admits that she is indebted to Creditor H for a past-due medical
debt in the amount of about $616, and offers nothing further in this regard.  (Response
at page 3.)  This allegation is found against Applicant.
1.i. and 1.j.  Applicant admits that she is indebted to Creditor I for a past-due debt
in the amount of about $431.  She successfully disputed the two allegations as being
one and the same debt, but has offered nothing further in this regard.  (Response at
page 3, and RItem 3.)  This allegation is found against Applicant.
1.k.  Applicant admits that she is indebted to Creditor K for a past-due debt in the
amount of about $392, and offers nothing further in this regard.  (Response at page 3.)
This allegation is found against Applicant.
1.l.  Although Applicant initially admitted this $274 medical debt, she has
successfully disputed it, as evidenced by supporting documentation.  (Response at
page 3, and RItem 8.)  This allegation is found for Applicant.
1.m.  Although Applicant initially admitted this $106 cell phone debt, she has paid
it, as evidenced by supporting documentation.  (Response at page 3, and RItem 7.)
This allegation is found for Applicant.
1.n.  Although Applicant initially admitted this $76 medical debt, she has
successfully disputed it, as evidenced by supporting documentation.  (Response at
page 3, and RItem 8.)  This allegation is found for Applicant.
1.o.  This allegation has already been discussed, above.
1.p.  Although Applicant initially admitted this $466 county debt, she has
successfully disputed it, and it does not appear on the Government’s most recent
September 2015 credit report..  (Response at page 4.)  This allegation is found for
Applicant.
1.q.  Applicant admits that she is indebted to Creditor Q for a past-due debt in the
amount of about $11,662, and offers nothing further in this regard.  (Response at page
4.)  This allegation is found against Applicant.
1.r.  Applicant admits that she is indebted to Creditor R for a past-due medical
debt in the amount of about $2,918, and offers nothing further in this regard.  (Response
at page 4.)  This allegation is found against Applicant.
1.s.  Applicant admits that she is indebted to Creditor S for a past-due medical
debt in the amount of about $1,127, and offers nothing further in this regard.  (Response
at page 4.)  This allegation is found against Applicant.
4
1.t.  This allegation has already been discussed, above.
1.u.  Applicant admits that she is indebted to Creditor U for a past-due debt in the
amount of about $275, and offers nothing further in this regard.  (Response at page 4.)
This allegation is found against Applicant.
1.v.  Applicant admits that she is indebted to Creditor V for a past-due medical
debt in the amount of about $244, and offers nothing further in this regard.  (Response
at page 4.)  This allegation is found against Applicant.
1.w.  Although Applicant initially admitted this $50 collection debt, she has
successfully disputed it, and it does not appear on the Government’s most recent
September 2015 credit report..  (Response at page 4.)  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.  (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 clearance decision.
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.  This
5
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 adverse 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 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 significant past-due debt, which
she has not yet resolved.  Both disqualifying conditions were established by the
evidence.
I can find no countervailing Mitigating Condition that is applicable here.  Although
Applicant attributes her past-due debt, in part, to her former husband’s cancer, she has
failed to act “responsibly under the circumstances,” as required by Subparagraph 20(b)
with respect to her very significant past-due debts.  Furthermore, Subparagraph 20(d)
requires that “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.”  Applicant has yet to credibly address 14 admitted past-due
debts.  Accordingly, Applicant has not met her burden of persuasion.
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
6
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
questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.
Applicant has significant past-due indebtedness that she has yet to address.  She is a
mature individual who is accountable for her financial choices.  No evidence was
presented to support findings of rehabilitation, permanent behavioral changes, or
diminished potential for pressure or duress.  For these reasons, I conclude Applicant
has not mitigated the security concerns under the whole-person concept arising from
her 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
Subparagraphs 1.a.~1.k. Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.l.~1.n. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p. For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.q.~1.v. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.w. For Applicant
7
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