DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-06627
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley,  Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
Based on a review of the case file, eligibility for access to classified information is
denied. Applicant did not provide documentary evidence regarding resolution of his
delinquent debt in the amount of $36,800.
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On May 16, 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 (EO) 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 September 2, 2016. 
Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM), dated January 30,
1
2016.  Applicant received the FORM on February 9, 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.
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the SOR allegations (1.a through
1.q) under  Guideline F, and he provided explanations. 2
Applicant is 34 years old. He is married and has two children. He has been
employed with his current employer since 2011. (Item 3)  He completed an application
for a security clearance on May 8, 2014. 
Financial
The SOR alleges 17 delinquent debts totaling approximately $36,840, which
includes all medical collection accounts. (Items 2, 4 and 5) In his answer to the SOR,
Applicant agreed with the listed debts but he noted that the debts were the result of an
illness suffered by his child. He further explained that the overwhelming debt was
incurred when his child was receiving treatment. The time period for the medical bills is
from 2008 until at least 2013. He also stated that he has paid medical bills when he was
able and has never denied any charge. He has not been able to pay full balances and
thus, the accounts were transferred to collections. He is determined to pay as soon as
he is able. He has no other debts. (Item 2)
Applicant was unemployed on several occasions. He was a stay-at-home parent
from February 2004 until February 2008. He noted on his SF-86, unemployment from
December 2010 to June 2011 and from July 2009 until October 2010. (Item 3) He noted
that he would make payment arrangements. However, he did not submit any
documentary evidence to show what if any payments have already been made or
written payment agreements. 
Applicant explained during his investigative interview in 2014, that he had no
medical insurance after 2000. Some of the medical emergency visits began in 2006.
(Item 5)
Applicant provided no information concerning financial counseling or information
on his salary or that of his wife. He noted that he has medical insurance now and that
he has contacted the collection agencies. Since he did not dispute any of the accounts,
he is liable for them. He also did not present any information concerning payments he
may have already made. He did not update the status of the financial situation by
responding to the FORM.  
The Government submitted five items for the record.      1
 He also submitted with his answer, a letter of recommendation from his FSO who knows about the debts.      2
2
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, 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 a3
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  4 5
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 clearance6
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      3
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      4
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      6
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
3
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt7
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 a8
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.
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 $36,000. He admits that the
debts are for medical collection  accounts. 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)
partially applies. Applicant provided valid reasons for the delinquent debt. His child was
ill and needed a significant amount of treatment. He had no medical insurance at the
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      7
 Id.      8
4
time. He was also unemployed for several periods of time. He has been gainfully
employed since 2014. He has not provided any documentation or evidence of
payments or payment plans. He intends to pay his debts, but there is no evidence that
he has a plan. I cannot find, with the lack of information provided, 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
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 34-year-old man who is married and has children. He incurred medical
bills for a sick child and did not have medical insurance. He experienced periods of
unemployment. However, he has been employed since 2014, but has not provided
documentation that he has paid even the smallest debt.
Applicant provided no evidence or documentation concerning payments or
payment plans. 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.
5
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-q: 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
6