Item 2.1
Item 1.2
1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-03225
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Rhett Petcher, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant defaulted on two mortgage loans and incurred more than $4,700 in
delinquent medical debts over the past eight years despite continuous employment. He
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 July 15, 2014.1
On December 1, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility
(DoD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security
concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).  The action was taken under2
Item 1.3
Department Counsel submitted six Items in support of the SOR allegations. Item 3 is the summary of an4
interview from the OPM Report of Investigation. It was neither attested to nor adopted by Applicant, and no
witness authenticated the document. Accordingly, it is inadmissible per Directive ¶ E3.1.20 and will not be
considered in determining Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. There is no relevant information
contained in Item 3 that would reasonably support mitigation of the unresolved debts alleged in the SOR, and
the relevant adverse information is cumulative with the information contained in Items 4 through 6. 
After reviewing Applicant’s response to the SOR and the record evidence, Department Counsel determined5
that the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.n through 1.ee were incorrectly attributed to Applicant and withdrew them
in Section III of the FORM.
Item 2.6
Item 1. As noted above, Department Counsel withdrew the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.n. through 1.ee, in7
apparent agreement that those debts were erroneously attributed to Applicant.
Item 1.8
2
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 December 20, 2015, and
requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record
without a hearing.  Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on3
January 26, 2016. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM)  was4
received by Applicant on February 11, 2016, and he was afforded an opportunity to file
objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of
his receipt of the FORM.  Applicant submitted no additional material in response to the5
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 May 12, 2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 60 years old. He has worked for a major defense contractor since
1978, and currently serves in a design engineering management position. He earned a
bachelor’s degree in 1983. He never served in the military. He has held a security
clearance during his current employment and is seeking to renew it. He remarried his
first wife in 2013, shortly after divorcing his second wife. He has three adult children.  6
In his response to the SOR, Applicant denied the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b,
1.e, 1.g, 1.l, and 1.n through 1.ee, but provided no evidence to corroborate statements
that the debts involved were either resolved or not his responsibility.  Applicant admitted7
the remaining SOR allegations, and his admissions are incorporated in the following
findings.8
Item 1; Item 2; Item 5; Item 6. 9
Item 1; Item 4; Item 5; Item 6.10
3
SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b allege the $71,504 charge off of the second mortgage loan
on Applicant’s former residence, and the $164,483 total loan balance on the first
mortgage account in foreclosure on that home. When Applicant and his second wife
encountered marital difficulties and separated, he stopped making payments toward the
mortgages on their home and it went into foreclosure in late 2010. After it was sold, both
mortgage holders were paid and now reported zero balances due on Applicant’s record
credit reports. These debts are resolved.  9
The remaining allegations, in SOR ¶¶ 1.c through 1.m, describe 11 medical debts
ranging from $31 to $3,261, one or more of which became delinquent during each of the
years from 2008 through 2014. The total delinquent amount of these debts is $4,786.
Applicant denied three of these allegations, claiming that he paid those providers in full
after each visit but providing no supporting documentation. He admitted the remaining
eight allegations with uncorroborated assertions that he had made payment plans or
would fulfill the debts. There is no evidence in any of the record credit reports indicating
that any of these debts has been resolved, although the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.f, 1.j,
and 1.k do not appear on the most recent report. Applicant provided no documentation
concerning the status of any of these debts, which remain unresolved with no indication
that they were incurred under circumstances beyond Applicant’s control.10
Applicant provided no evidence establishing his current income or household
budget. He 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 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
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
4
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.
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. 
5
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.
Applicant’s former mortgage debts were resolved when his home was sold in
foreclosure proceedings after he voluntarily stopped making payments toward those
loans. However, his unwillingness to satisfy those debts remains a significant part of his
history of not meeting his financial obligations. He also incurred eleven delinquent
medical debts over the past eight years that total almost $4,800. These delinquencies
arose despite his continuous employment during that time, and he offered no evidence
of ability or willingness to resolve them. His 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 incurred numerous delinquent medical debts over the past eight years
that remain unresolved. He also chose to stop making his mortgage payments during
his separation and divorce proceedings with his second wife, leading to foreclosure. He
did not demonstrate that delinquent indebtedness is unlikely to recur, that the debts
6
arose from unexpected conditions, or that his financial situation is under control.
Applicant demonstrated neither the ability, nor any effort, to investigate or resolve any of
the alleged medical delinquencies. 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. Defaulting on his mortgage loans
under these circumstances was not a good-faith resolution of those debts. 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
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, who is responsible for the voluntary choices and conduct that
caused the financial problems underlying the security concerns expressed in the SOR.
His delinquent medical debts arose over the past eight years and he voluntarily
defaulted on two mortgage loans in 2010. He enjoyed continuous employment
throughout that period. He offered insufficient evidence of financial counseling,
rehabilitation, better judgment, or responsible conduct in other areas of his life to offset
resulting security concerns. The potential for pressure, coercion, and duress from his
financial situation remains undiminished. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with
substantial doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility and suitability for a security
clearance. He did not meet his burden to mitigate the security concerns arising from his
financial considerations.
7
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.m: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.n through 1.ee: Withdrawn by Dept. Counsel
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