Item 3.1
Item 1.2
1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-01856
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant incurred more than $20,000 in delinquent mortgage, car loan, and
consumer debts from 2009 to present, despite continuous employment in her current
position. She demonstrated neither sufficient explanation for these debts, nor changes
to avoid recurring financial problems. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated.
Based on a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-86) on October 23,
2012.  On September 18, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications1
Facility (DoD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing
security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).  The action was taken2
Item 2.3
Department Counsel submitted five Items in support of the SOR allegations.4
Item 3.5
Item 2.6
Item 4 at 1.7
Item 5 at 6.8
2
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 that came into effect in the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted a written response to the SOR on October 29, 2015, and
requested that her case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record
without a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on3
January 15, 2016. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was4
received by Applicant on February 3, 2016, and she was afforded an opportunity to file
objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of
her receipt of the FORM. Applicant submitted no additional material in response to the
FORM during the time provided, did not object to its consideration, and did not request
additional time to respond. I received the case assignment on August 22, 2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 44 years old. She has worked for a defense contractor as a business
operations specialist since June 2005, before which she was employed for ten years as
an executive assistant to the manager of a major-chain hotel. She earned a high school
diploma in 1991. She has never served in the military or held a security clearance. She
has been married since 1998, and has two teenage children.  5
In her response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all four SOR allegations
concerning her delinquent debts, without further explanation. Her admissions are
incorporated in the following findings.6
SOR ¶ 1.a alleged that Applicant was delinquent in the amount of $11,915 on her
home mortgage loan, which had an outstanding balance of $405,291. These figures
were based on her credit report dated February 3, 2015, which showed her last
payment to have been in August 2014, and a monthly payment amount of $2,383.  Her7
November 10, 2012 credit report showed her to be delinquent in the amount of $20,246
on this loan, on which foreclosure proceedings had been initiated with an outstanding
balance of $400,176.  Applicant disclosed her mortgage delinquency in Section 26 of8
Item 3 at 27-28.The only deceased relatives that Applicant reported in this SF-86 were her parents-in-law.9
Item 3 at 15-21.
Item 4 at 2; Item 5 at 6.10
Item 2; Item 4 at 2; Item 5 at 5.11
3
her 2012 SF-86, and said that she was going through the lender’s Loan Assistance
Program to seek a loan modification. She also said that the reason for this financial
issue was the death of a co-borrower, without further elaboration as to the identity or
loan involvement of that person.  Applicant provided no subsequent information9
concerning the status of this debt, other than to admit the SOR allegation in Item 2.
SOR ¶ 1.b alleged Applicant’s delinquent $7,583 debt for an auto loan that she
opened in May 2006, and which was placed for collection after she stopped making
payments in late 2009. Other than admitting the debt, Applicant provided no further
information about it.10
SOR ¶¶ 1.c and 1.d alleged a charged-off $701 credit card debt that became
delinquent in 2009, and a $94 telecommunications debt that was placed for collection in
2012. Applicant admitted the truth of these allegations without further explanation.11
Applicant provided no evidence establishing her current income or household
budget. She offered no evidence of financial counseling, of savings or retirement
investments, or of other indicators of financial responsibility. The record lacks any
evidence concerning the quality of Applicant’s professional performance, the level of
responsibility her duties entail, or her track record with respect to handling sensitive
information and observation of security procedures. I was unable to evaluate her
credibility, demeanor, or character in person since she elected to have her case decided
without a hearing.  
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 (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used 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
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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.
4
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 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 ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he 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.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny 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.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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. 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.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns under the guideline for financial considerations are set out
in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:      
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. 
Department Counsel asserted, and the record evidence established, security
concerns under two Guideline F DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.
5
Applicant accrued more than $20,000 in delinquent debt, starting in 2009. These
delinquencies arose despite her continuous employment during that time, and she
offered no evidence of ability or willingness to resolve them. Her pattern and history of
financial irresponsibility raise security concerns under DCs 19(a) and (c), and shift the
burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those concerns. 
The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:
(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; 
(b) 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;
(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; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.
Applicant stated that her mortgage problems arose due to the death of a co-
borrower, but provided neither details nor corroboration to establish who that was or
how the death affected her ability to pay the mortgage debt. She provided no evidence
of recent payments toward, or an effective plan to resolve, her delinquent debts that
exceed $20,000. She did not demonstrate that delinquent indebtedness is unlikely to
recur, that the debts arose from unexpected conditions, or that her financial situation is
under control. Department Counsel pointed out the absence of such updated
information in the FORM. Applicant chose not to address those concerns by filing
additional information in response thereto. Accordingly, the record is insufficient to
establish mitigation under any of the foregoing conditions.  
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
6
conduct and all relevant 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.   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is an accountable
and experienced adult. She provided no reason that she should not be considered
responsible for the choices and conduct that caused the financial problems set forth in
the SOR. Her delinquent debts arose over the past seven years and she enjoyed
continuous employment in her current position throughout that period. 
Applicant offered no evidence of financial counseling, rehabilitation, better
judgment, or responsible conduct in other areas of her life that could mitigate resulting
security concerns. The potential for pressure, coercion, and duress from her financial
situation remains undiminished, and the likelihood of continuation or recurrence is
substantial. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with substantial doubt as to Applicant’s
present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. She did not meet her burden to
mitigate the security concerns arising from her financial considerations.
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
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against 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.
                                              
DAVID M. WHITE
Administrative Judge