DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-02633
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Benjamin R. Dorsey,  Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On November 6, 2015, the Department of Defense  (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DoD Directive
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2,
1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), implemented in
September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a review based on the written
record in lieu of a hearing. The case was assigned to me on August 19, 2016. 
Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), dated February 17,
2016.  Applicant received the FORM on February 24, 2016. Applicant did not submit  a1
response to the FORM. Based on a review of the case file, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
The Government submitted six items for the record.      1
1
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the SOR allegations (1.a through
1.j) under  Guideline F. He did not provide any explanations. 
Applicant is 47 years old. He is divorced and has no children. He has been
employed with his current employer since 2014. (Item 3) He attended a technical school
but did not obtain a degree.  He completed an application for a security clearance on
August 12, 2014. 
Financial
The SOR alleges 10 delinquent debts totaling approximately $70,000,  which
includes a federal and a state tax lien, vehicle repossession, collection accounts and a
medical account. (Items 1, 5 and 6)) In his answer to the SOR, Applicant agreed with
the listed debts but he did not give a further explanation or reasons for the delinquent
accounts. He noted that the state tax lien is the result of a medical bill when he suffered
a heart attack in 2010. (Item 4)
Applicant was unemployed for several periods of time. He was unemployed from
July 2013 to August 2014; April 2013 to June 2013; December 2011 to September
2012; and January 2008 to August 2011 and a few months in 2007. (Item 3) However,
he gave no reason for the delinquent accounts. In addition, he provided no information
or documentation that he is not liable for the accounts. He stated in his security
clearance application that he is making payments on his two tax liens in the amount of
$55 a month, but he provided no evidence to confirm that assertion. The 2011 federal
tax lien ($32,492) and the 2010 state tax lien ($9,026) comprise the bulk of his debt. He
did not submit any documentation that he has paid any delinquent accounts or that he
has a plan for repayment.   
Applicant explained during his investigative interview in late 2014 that he did not
pay income tax from 2004 to 2007. He knew that his car was repossessed ($12,329),
but he claimed no knowledge of the other delinquent accounts. (Item 4) Applicant
stated that his intent is to pay all his debts.
Applicant provided no information concerning financial counseling or information
on his salary. He noted that he has been supported by his girlfriend during his periods
of unemployment. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
2
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An 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 ¶ 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. 
The U.S. Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts
alleged in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a2
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of 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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a7
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
3
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for financial considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an 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.” It also states that “an individual who is
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.
 Applicant incurred delinquent debt in the amount of $70,000. He has two tax
liens, one federal and one state. Consequently, Financial Considerations Disqualifying
Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC
AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply. With such conditions
raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against him and mitigate security
concerns.  
The nature, frequency, and relative recency of Applicant’s financial difficulty 
make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago.” Applicant’s debts remain
unpaid.  He did not provide any documentation; nor did he submit any evidence that he
is not liable for all the debts. Consequently, Financial Considerations Mitigating
Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(a) (the 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) does not
apply.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (the
conditions that resulted in the behavior 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)
does not apply. Applicant provided no reasons that would qualify him for this mitigating
conditions. He has been unemployed over periods of time and suffered a heart attack in
2010, but he noted no nexus between the conditions and his debts. He has been
gainfully employed since 2014. He has not provided any documentation or evidence of
payments or payment plans. He claims he is paying $55 a month on the tax liens but
there is no evidence to support the claims. He intends to pay his debts, but there is no
evidence that he has a plan. I cannot find that he acted responsibly. 
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply. There is no information in the
4
record that he has addressed any delinquent debts. There is no information to show
that he has obtained recent financial counseling.  FC MC AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has
received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications
that the  problem is being resolved, or is under control) does not apply.
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 an 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 a
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
Applicant is a 47-year-old man who is divorced  and has no children. He has had health
concerns and unemployment. He has been employed since 2014, but has not paid
even the smallest debt.
Applicant provided no evidence or documentation concerning payments on the
two tax liens. He intends to pay his debts. A promise to pay in the future is not
sufficient. He does not have a plan in place to pay the debts. He has not provided
mitigation for the financial considerations security concerns.
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-j: Against Applicant
5
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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge
6