1Department Counsel submitted six items in the FORM. Item 6 is inadmissible and will not be considered or
cited as evidence in this case. It is the summary of an unsworn interview of Applicant conducted by an
interviewer from the Office of Personnel Management on March 7, 2014. The summary  was never adopted
by Applicant as his own statement, or otherwise certified by him to be accurate. Under Executive Order 10865
1
                                                             
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-05094
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
September 19, 2016
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on February 9, 2014. (Item 3.) On December 9, 2014, the Department of
Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) concerning Applicant. (Item 1.) 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 on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on September 28, 2015, and requested a
decision by an administrative judge without a hearing. (Item 2.) Department Counsel
submitted the Government’s written case (FORM) to Applicant on November 16, 2015.1
Section 5, and Directive ¶ E3.1.20, this Report of Investigation summary is inadmissible in the absence of an
authenticating witness. In addition, any relevant information is cumulative with Applicant’s statements in his
answer (Item 2), and the information contained in Items 3 through 5. 
2
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the FORM on November 19, 2015. He was given 30
days from receipt of the FORM to submit any additional documentation. Applicant did
not submit any additional information within that time. 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 denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 50, and divorced since 2005. He has two children. He is employed by
a defense contractor and seeks to obtain a security clearance in connection with his
employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable,
untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant
admitted allegations 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.f, 1.h, 1.i, and 1.k. Those admissions are
findings of fact. He denied the remaining allegations.
The SOR lists twelve delinquent debts (SOR 1.a through 1.l). The total of the
debts alleged in the SOR is approximately $34,935. Applicant admits to approximately
$32,952 of the alleged debts. The existence and amount of all the debts is supported by
Applicant’s statements in Section 26 of his e-QIP (Item 3), and credit reports dated
February 25, 2014; and September 16, 2014. (Items 5, 4.)
1.a. Applicant admitted that he was indebted for a past-due payment on an
automobile loan in the amount of $867. He stated in his answer that the account was
current. He goes on to state, “I am the owner yet someone else is responsible for the
monthly payments.” (Item 2.) No further information was provided to support this
statement. Applicant did not prove that this debt is resolved.
1.b. Applicant admitted that he was indebted for a past-due debt on an
automobile that was repossessed in 2010 in the amount of $17,181. No further
information was provided. This debt is not resolved.
1.c. Applicant admitted that he was indebted for past-due debt on an automobile
that was repossessed in the amount of $12,246. No further information was provided.
This debt is not resolved.
1.d. Applicant admitted that he owed a past-due credit card debt in the amount of
$750. No further information was provided. This debt is not resolved.
2Applicant provided with his answer a copy of a letter addressed to this creditor dated July 14, 2015. (Item 2.)
In that letter Applicant proposes a payment arrangement for an account with a different account number than
that in this allegation and allegation 1.l., which is with the same creditor.
3See footnote 2.
3
1.e. Applicant denied owing a creditor $600 for a past-due account, stating in his
answer, “I am unaware of the debt totally.” (Item 2.) Supporting information on this debt
is found in both Items 3 and 4 of the FORM. As stated, Applicant elected not to respond
to the FORM. This debt is not resolved.
1.f. Applicant admitted that he was indebted for a past-due account in the amount
of $580. He stated in his answer that he was “working with the outside collection agency
to resolve the debt.” (Item 2.) No further information was provided to support this
statement. Applicant did not prove that this debt is resolved.
1.g. Applicant denied owing a creditor $511 for a past-due account stating in his
answer, “I am unaware of the debt totally.” (Item 2.) Supporting information on this debt
is found in both Items 4 and 5 of the FORM. As stated, Applicant elected not to respond
to the FORM. This debt is not resolved.
1.h. Applicant admitted that he owed a past-due cell phone debt in the amount of
$502. No further information was provided. This debt is not resolved.
1.i. Applicant admitted that he owed a past-due debt to a creditor in the amount
of $469. He provided a copy of a letter dated July 7, 2015, which he had sent to this
creditor proposing a payment arrangement. No information was provided by Applicant
showing that the creditor had accepted the proposal. Applicant did not prove that this
debt is resolved.
1.j. Applicant denied owing a creditor $430 for a past-due account stating in his
answer, “I am unaware of this account.” (Item 2.) Supporting information on this debt is
found in both Items 4 and 5 of the FORM. He also admits having an unpaid past-due
debt with this creditor in Section 26 of his e-QIP. (Item 3.) As stated, Applicant elected
not to respond to the FORM. This debt is not resolved.2
1.k. Applicant admitted owing a past-due debt to this creditor in the amount of
$357. He states in his answer that the debt was “paid off October 2014, shows paid in
full on current credit report.” (Item 2.) Applicant elected not to submit the credit report, or
any other information supporting this statement. Applicant did not prove that this debt is
resolved. 
1.l. Applicant denied owing a creditor $442 for a past-due account, stating in his
answer, “I am unaware of this debt totally.” (Item 2.) Supporting information on this debt
is found in Item 5 of the FORM. He also admits having an unpaid past-due debt with this
creditor in Section 26 of his e-QIP. (Item 3.) As stated, Applicant elected not to respond
to the FORM. This debt is not resolved.3
4
Applicant has been gainfully employed by his current employer since February
2006. (Item 3, Section 13A.) Concerning the reasons for his financial issues he stated, “I
fell behind with making monthly payments due to divorce and child support payments
monthly.” (Item 2.) However, he did not show that he had acted in any way to mitigate
the financial issues for several years. In addition, he did not submit a budget, or any
other information concerning his income and expenses. Applicant submitted no
evidence that he has received any financial counseling. His failure to provide any
documentation supporting his assertions that some of these delinquencies had been or
were being resolved was pointed out by Department Counsel in the FORM, but
Applicant elected not to submit anything in response. Finally, Applicant knew of the
Government’s concerns about his delinquent debts since February 2014, and evidently
made little or no attempt to resolve the debts since then.
Applicant provided no evidence concerning the quality of his professional
performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. I was unable
to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or character in person since he elected to have his
case decided without a hearing. 
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  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 to be used as appropriate 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 AG ¶ 2 describing 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.  In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on
his or her own common sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the
ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that, “Any 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.
4 See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012).
5
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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and 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
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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any
determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination 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
Paragraph 1 (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. 
This concern is broader than the possibility that an individual might knowingly
compromise sensitive information in order to raise money. It encompasses concerns
about an individual’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting
sensitive information. An individual who is financially irresponsible may also be
negligent, unconcerned, or irresponsible in handling and safeguarding sensitive
information.4
6
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant has over $34,000 in past-due debts, which have been due
and owing for several years. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially
disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying
conditions may be mitigated where Athe 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.@
This condition does not apply as Applicant=s financial difficulties have been in existence
for several years and continue seemingly undiminished to date. 
AG ¶ 20(b) states that the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated 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.” According to Applicant, these issues were connected to his
child support payments after getting divorced in 2005. However, he did not submit any
evidence to show how he tried to responsibly adjust his spending or resolve his debts
over the following years.
AG ¶ 20(d) states it can be mitigating where, “the individual has initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Applicant states in his
answer (Item 2) that he is resolving some of the debts set forth in the SOR. However,
despite being informed of his opportunity to submit a documentary response to the
FORM, Applicant elected not to submit any documentary evidence to support the
statements in Item 2.
Applicant denied allegations 1.e, 1.g, 1.j, and 1.l, stating that he had no
knowledge of those debts. However, he did not provide any evidence showing that he
had disputed the debts. AG ¶ 20(e) requires “documented proof to substantiate the
basis of the dispute or . . . evidence of actions to resolve the issue.” Neither exists in
this case. This mitigating condition does not apply.
In conclusion, looking at Applicant’s entire financial situation at the present time, I
cannot find that “there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control,” as is required by AG ¶ 20(c). Paragraph 1 is found 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 relevant circumstances. Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination
of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense
7
judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person
concept. The administrative judge must 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The discussion under
Guideline F, above, applies here as well. Applicant has had financial problems for
several years, which he has not yet resolved. If he is able to successfully resolve his
debts, Applicant may be eligible for a security clearance in the future. However, at the
present time, Applicant’s conduct with regard to his finances was not mitigated.
Under AG ¶ 2(a)(3), his conduct is recent and continuing. I cannot find that there
have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I also
cannot find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); or that there is little likelihood of continuation or recurrence (AG ¶
2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
situation. Accordingly, the evidence supports denying his request for a security
clearance.
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.g: Against Applicant
8
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.
_________________
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge