1
      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
   DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
In the matter of: )
)
   )    ISCR Case No. 15-06108
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace Garcia, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On October 17, 2015, the Department of Defense  (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant 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 hearing before an
administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on April 11, 2016. A notice of
hearing was issued on June 8, 2016, scheduling the hearing for July 19, 2016.
Government Exhibits (GX) 1-6 were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant
testified, and submitted Applicant Exhibits (AX) A-B at the hearing, which were entered
into the record without objection. The transcript was received on July 27, 2016. Based
on a review of the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
2
Findings of Fact
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the SOR allegations under
Guideline F and provided an explanation for the debts.
 
Applicant is 58 years old. She was divorced in 1996, and has two adult children
as a result of her marriage. She has been with her current employer since 2004. She
attended community college on two separate occasions in 2010 and 2013. (GX 2) She
completed a security clearance application in 2014. (GX 1) She has held a security
clearance since 2005. (GX 1)
The SOR alleges nine delinquent debts for an approximate total of $30,000.
Included in the delinquent debts are eight collection accounts and a Chapter 7
bankruptcy that was discharged in 2002. (GX 5) Applicant attributes the 2002 bankruptcy
to unemployment from 2001 until 2002. (GX 6) The amount discharged in bankruptcy
was about $14,000. (Tr. 18)
Applicant explained that she has not paid any of the debts listed in the SOR. She
also acknowledged in her investigative interview that she owes about $5,000 in back
rent to an apartment complex because her then significant other asked her to rent a
larger apartment so that they could live together with his two children. (Tr. 27) About one
month after renting the larger apartment, he lost his job and could not contribute to the
rent. Applicant supported him and his children until 2014. (Tr. 24) Applicant moved out
of the apartment and is living with her daughter. Her friend and his children stayed in the
apartment. She admits that she is responsible but does not have the money to pay. She
intends to pay all her debts when she is financially able to do so. (Tr. 13)
Applicant emphasized that she came to the hearing to defend her moral character
and to state for the record that she is not someone who lives above her means. (Tr. 13)
Although she has been with the same employer for many years, she had a pay cut due
to a transfer to another department. (Tr. 34) Applicant had planned to file for bankruptcy
in 2015, but she does not have the money to engage a lawyer. (Tr. 32) She plans to
save money so that she can afford an attorney to file for bankruptcy in the future. (Tr.
33) Applicant added that she probably could pay the smaller debts listed on the SOR,
but she had to buy a used car. An amount of $500 was taken from her paycheck each
month and she had little money left. (Tr. 33)
As to SOR allegation 1.a, a collection account in the amount of $13,683 for a
2008 vehicle, Applicant tried to arrange a payment plan, but she could not afford a
monthly payment. At the time she had two cars, one of which she wanted to sell.
As to SOR allegation 1.b, in the amount of $11,231 for a collection account that
was also for a vehicle, that Applicant could not afford to make payments. She had hoped
to sell one car but that did not occur. (Tr.50) 
As to SOR allegation 1.c, a charged-off account in the amount of $885 that was
the result of a 2013 loan that remains delinquent. (Tr. 29) She stated that she started to
3
pay because the original amount was $1,000. She had no documentation or evidence to
show any payments.
As to SOR allegation 1.d, in the amount of $513, Applicant does not recognize
the account.  Also, SOR allegation 1.h for $61 is not known to Applicant. (Tr. 30)
As to SOR allegation 1.e, in the amount of $295 for a phone account, Applicant
has not addressed the debt.
As to SOR 1.f, in the amount of $139 for a phone account, Applicant has not
addressed the debt.
As to SOR 1.g, in the amount of $84 for a cable company, Applicant has not paid
the debt. (Tr. 32)
As to SOR allegation 1.i in the amount of $3,813, this is a student loan. She
stated that her state tax refund was intercepted for the loan. She believes the amount
was about $590. She has not made any other payments on the loan. (Tr. 31)
Applicant works about 48 hours in a two-week period. She earns about $27.40 an
hour. She took a seasonal part time job in December. (Tr. 37) Before this year, she
worked full time (2014) earning about net monthly $2,400. She was stressed due to her
dad’s death and trying to take care of her mother. (Tr. 38) She provided some financial
support to her mother. She states that she has nothing left at the end of the month. (Tr.
40) She has obtained some credit counseling. (Tr. 43) 
Applicant submitted two letters as character references. Applicant’s pastor
advised that he has known her for 20 years and attests to her high moral character, as
well as her reputation for honesty and integrity in the community. She is an example to
both church members and residents in the community. (AX A)
Applicant’s ex-husband wrote that he has known her for 40 years. He stated that
she is a mature individual who has never violated any laws. She has appropriate
judgment and integrity. Applicant volunteers in the community and provides food and
clothing to the homeless. (AX B)  
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
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,
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      1
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      2
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      3
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      4
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
 Id.      6
4
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 a1
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  2 3
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 clearance4
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt5
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 a6
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
5
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.
The Government produced credible evidence that Applicant incurred delinquent
debt from collection accounts, student loan, and vehicle repossessions, and a 2002
bankruptcy.  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 her and mitigate security concerns.  
The nature, frequency, and relative recency of Applicant’s financial difficulties
make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago.” Applicant’s financial difficulties
occurred in the past nine years.  She has not addressed any of the SOR debts. She still
has a significant amount of delinquent debt. 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.
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) partially applies. Applicant had no idea that her
friend would lose his job and not be able to pay his share of rent for the larger
apartment. However, she has not paid any of the SOR debts or made any payment
arrangements. She said she could pay some of the smaller debts but has not done so.
There were some circumstances beyond her control, but she was not proactive on the
financial issues until the issue of her security clearance arose.  
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) has no application. Applicant has not produced any
evidence that she has paid any of the debts on the SOR. She claimed that she had
made a few payments on some, but there is no documentation to substantiate her claim.
She intends to pay the small bills but has not done so. A promise to pay in the future is
not sufficient mitigation.  FC MC AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has received or is receiving
6
counseling for the problem) has some application, but there are not  clear indications
that the  problem is being resolved, or is under control.
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 59 years old. She has been with her current employer since 2005. She is
divorced and has two adult children. She has held a security clearance without incident
for years. She stopped working full time in 2013 due to stress. She aided her mother
after her father died. She submitted excellent character references. She could not
foresee that her friend would lose his job and not contribute to the rent.  She had some
early unemployment and filed for a bankruptcy in 2002, which was discharged.
Applicant admits that she has not paid or resolved any of the debts alleged in the
SOR. She did not even make an attempt to pay the very small ones. She states that she
does not have the ability to pay her bills and is living check to check. She decided to
work part time in 2014 and that has resulted in a lower pay. She does not need to have
paid all her delinquent debts, but she has not presented any track record of payments or
progress. She was on notice about the debts during her investigative interview, and
stated that she would try to resolve them. She now plans to file for bankruptcy, but does
not have the money for filing. Thus, it is unclear when the petition may be filed. Applicant
had a 2002 bankruptcy, which along with present delinquent debts shows a pattern of
financial difficulties. She also acknowledged that she owes $5,000 to the apartment
complex that is not listed on the SOR, which also has not been paid.
7
   Applicant has not presented sufficient information to carry her burden of proof in
this case. She has not mitigated the financial considerations security concern. Any
doubts must be resolved in favor of the Government.
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.j 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge