1
                                                             
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 15-02390
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
September 9, 2016
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on October 22, 2014. (Item 4.)  On October 25, 2015, the Department of
Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) regarding Applicant. 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, with supporting documentation, on
November 4, 2015, and requested a decision by an administrative judge without a
hearing. (Item 2.) Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case
Department Counsel submitted seven Items in support of the SOR allegations. Normally Item 7 would be1
inadmissible. It is the summary of an unsworn interview of Applicant conducted by an interviewer from the
Office of Personnel Management on December 26, 2014. It was never adopted by Applicant as her own
statement, or otherwise certified by her to be accurate. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.20, this Report of Investigation
summary is inadmissible in the absence of an authenticating witness. However, in reviewing Applicant Exhibit
A, it appears that Applicant addressed some of the topics discussed in that interview. Accordingly, I find that
Applicant has waived her right not to have Item 7 considered in this particular case.
2
(FORM) to Applicant on December 16, 2015.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the1
FORM on December 29, 2015. She was given 30 days from receipt of the FORM to
submit any additional documentation. Applicant submitted additional information on or
before January 14, 2016. Department Counsel had no objection to my considering the
documents, and they are admitted collectively as Applicant Exhibit A. The case was
assigned to me on February 4, 2016. Based upon a review of the pleadings and
exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 28 and single. She is employed by a defense contractor, and seeks
to obtain a security clearance in connection with her employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because she is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable,
untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant
admitted all the allegations in the SOR (1.a through 1.f). She also submitted additional
information to support her request for a security clearance.
The SOR lists six delinquent debts (1.a through 1.f), totaling approximately
$25,625. The existence and amount of the debts is supported by admissions in Item 4;
or by credit reports dated November 4, 2014; and February 19, 2015. (Items 5 and 6.)
The current status of the debts is as follows:
1.a. Applicant admitted that she owed a collection agent $4,325 for a past-due
account 19183225467304. She submitted evidence showing that she paid this debt on
November 10, 2015. (Applicant Exhibit A at 10.) This debt is resolved.
1.b. Applicant admitted that she owed a past-due medical debt in the amount
of $706. She submitted documentation with her answer to the SOR showing that she
paid the debt on October 26, 2015. (Item 2 at 3-4.) This debt is resolved.
1.c. Applicant admitted that she was indebted for a bank credit card in the
amount of $2,667 on account 60191832254647304. Applicant stated that this debt was
purchased by the creditor in 1.a. The account number is the same as the account
alleged in 1.a, except for the addition of the first two digits. (Answer at 3.) In addition,
3
the entry for this debt in Items 5 and 6 states, “Account transferred or sold.” Applicant
has submitted sufficient evidence to show that this debt is the same as the debt set forth
in 1.a, which is resolved. 
1.d. Applicant admitted that she was indebted for a repossessed automobile
debt in the original amount of $17,737. According to Applicant, the car was in her name,
but she let her ex-boyfriend take the car after they broke up as long as he made the
payments. This occurred after she lost her job in October 2014 and could no longer
make payments herself. Instead, he illegally sold the car and left Applicant with the
debt. Applicant attempted to get the police to help her resolve this matter, but that was
unsuccessful. Eventually, she authorized the finance company to repossess the car.
Once the car was auctioned the amount Applicant continues to owe is $11,723.
Applicant states that she is in contact with the finance company in order to resolve this
debt with a payment plan she can afford now that she is gainfully employed. (Item 2 at
3; Item 7 at 5; Applicant Exhibit A at 2-3.) This debt is not currently resolved.
1.e. Applicant admitted owing a city $6.00 for unpaid tickets. Applicant
provided proof that she paid this debt on February 14, 2015. (Item 2 at 5.) This debt is
resolved.
1.f. Applicant admitted owing a collection agent $204 for a past-due debt.
Applicant provided proof she paid this debt on May 15, 2015. (Item 2 at 6.) This debt is
resolved. 
Applicant supplied information showing that her current financial situation is
stable. She is gainfully employed with a good income, and was able to qualify for a debt
consolidation loan in 2015. As of the date the record closed Applicant had made her first
two payments on the consolidation loan in a timely manner. (Applicant Exhibit A at 1, 5-
9.)
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
4
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 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, “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. 
5
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, by her own admission, and supported by the documentary
evidence, had six delinquent accounts that she formerly could not resolve. 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. AG ¶ 20(a) states that it may be mitigating
where “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.” Applicant has successfully paid or
resolved all but one of the debts set forth in the SOR. She also has qualified for a debt
consolidation loan in the last year, showing that her financial situation is now stable.
Indeed, taking out the loan allowed Applicant to “lower the overall amount of interest I
was incurring as well as have a single fixed payment amount with a reasonable time
frame to pay off the debt.” (Applicant Exhibit A at 4.)
Applicant continues to owe the debt set forth in allegation 1.d. However, the
amount is much less then alleged in the SOR. In addition, Applicant is not ignoring the
debt but is attempting to negotiate a reasonable payment arrangement with the creditor.
With regard to this debt I find that AG ¶ 20(b) applies, “the conditions that resulted in the
financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g, loss of employment, . .
., or a death, divorce, or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances.”
Based on all of the above circumstances, I find that Applicant has “initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” as required by
AG ¶ 20(d). I also find that “there are clear indications that the problem is being
resolved or is under control,” as required by AG ¶ 20(c). Since all four of these
mitigating conditions were established by the facts of this case, Guideline F is found for
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
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
6
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. While Applicant has had financial problems in
the past, almost all have been resolved, and she has the knowledge and ability to avoid
such problems in the future. She is working in good faith to resolve the remaining debt,
which arose when her ex-boyfriend stole her car, with the creditor.
Under AG ¶ 2(a)(2), I have considered the facts of Applicant’s debt history.
Based on the record, I find that there have been permanent behavioral changes under
AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); and that there is a low likelihood of recurrence
(AG ¶ 2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with no questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from her financial
situation. Accordingly, the evidence supports granting her 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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.f: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge