1
        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-04138
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Andrew Henderson, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Arran S. Treadway, Esquire
September 21, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on July 15, 2014.  On December 16, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F
for 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 after September 1, 2006.
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on December 29, 2015.  He
answered the SOR in writing on February 10, 2016, and requested a hearing before an
Administrative Judge (AJ).  The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
received the request soon thereafter, and it was assigned to another AJ on April 19,
2016.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing on May 3, 2016.  I received the case
assignment on May 24, 2016, and I convened the hearing that same day.  The
Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 5, which were received without objection.
2
Applicant testified on his own behalf, as did two Navy lieutenants and his Facility
Security Officer (FSO).   He submitted Exhibits (AppXs) A through C, which were
received without objection.  DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on June 2,
2016.  I granted Applicant’s request to keep the record open until June 24, 2016, to
submit additional matters.  On June 9, 2016, he submitted Exhibits D and E, which were
received without objection.  The record closed on June 24, 2016.  Based upon a review
of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is
granted.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in all the
Subparagraphs of the SOR, with explanations.  He also provided additional information
to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Applicant is a 48-year-old retired Navy “E-6 Aviation Electronics Mate,” (TR at
page 51 lines 1~5, and GX 1 at page 5.)  He is a “Federal Contractor,” employed as a
“Technical Systems Representative.”  (GX 1 at page 12.)  He attributes his current
financial difficulties to a long, drawn-out divorce.  (TR at page 22 line 14 to page 29 line
22.)  In October of 2015, prior to the issuance of the SOR, Applicant hired a debt
management corporation (DMC) to address his past-due indebtedness.  (TR at page 43
line 24 to page 50 line 11, and AppX B.)  Since his enrollment with the DMC, he has
greatly reduced his past-due indebtedness, and it is anticipated the “remaining balances
will be settled in full [in] the next 24-30 months,” as of May 12, 2016.  (AppX B.)
1.a.  Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor A in the amount of about
$10,777.  He was unable to make car payments; and as a result, he “surrendered” his
vehicle back to Creditor A.  (TR at page 21 line 15 to page 22 line 13.)  Through his
DMC, he is making a good-faith effort to address this past-due debt, as evidenced by
documentation from his DMC.  (AppXs A and B.)
1.b.  Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor B in the amount of about
$1,629.  (TR at page 29 line 23 to page 30 line 15, and at page 37 lines 5~14.)  Through
his DMC, he is making a good-faith effort to address this past-due debt, as evidenced
by documentation from his DMC.  (AppXs A and B.)
1.c.  Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor C in the amount of about
$614.  (TR at page 30 line 20 to page 32 line 2.)  Through his DMC, he is making a
good-faith effort to address this past-due cell phone debt, as evidenced by
documentation from his DMC.  (AppXs A and B.)
1.d.  Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor D in the amount of about
$79.  He avers, credibly, that this very-small electric bill has been paid, an averment
3
accepted by Department Counsel.  (TR at page 32 lines 3~16, and  to page 59 lines
4~13.)
1.e. and 1.i.  These admitted debts are one and the same debt to Creditor E in
the amount of about $10,629.  (TR at page 32 line 17 to page 43 line 13, and at page 42
lines 7~24.)  Through his DMC, Applicant has settled this debt for $4,913, and is making
monthly payments towards this settlement, as evidenced by documentation from his
DMC.  (AppXs A and B.)  I find that Applicant is making a good-faith effort to address
this debt.
1.f. and 1.j.  These admitted debts are one and the same debt to Creditor F in the
amount of about $11,139.  (TR at page 32 line 17 to page 43 line 13, and at page 42
lines 7~24.)  Through his DMC, Applicant has settled this debt for $5,458, and is making
monthly payments towards this settlement, as evidenced by documentation from his
DMC.  (AppXs A and B.)  I find that Applicant is making a good-faith effort to address
this debt.
1.g.  Applicant admits that he was indebted to Creditor G in the amount of about
$173.  Through his DMC, he is making a good-faith effort to address this past-due debt.
(TR at page 38 line17 to page 39 line 14, and at page 60 line 14 to page 61 line 7.)
1.h.  Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor H in the amount of about
$315.  (TR at page 39 line 15 to page 40 line 16.)  Through his DMC, he is making a
good-faith effort to address this past-due debt, as evidenced by documentation from his
DMC.  (AppXs A and B.)
1.i. and 1.j.  These allegations have already been discussed, above.
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 and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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 the adjudicative process.  The administrative judge’s over-arching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision.  According to AG
Paragraph 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.
4
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.
Paragraph 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.  Likewise, I have avoided drawing
inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive Paragraph E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to
establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR.  Under Directive Paragraph E3.1.15,
the 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 applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a
favorable security 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.  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.
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.”  See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).
Analysis
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in Paragraph 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.
The guideline notes conditions that could raise security concerns.  Under
Subparagraphs 19(a) and 19(c) an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” and “a
5
history of not meeting financial obligations” may raise security concerns.  Applicant has
had substantial past-due indebtedness.  However, I find a countervailing Mitigating
Condition that is applicable here.  Under Subparagraph 20(b), it may be mitigating
where “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the
person’s control (e.g., . . . divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly
under the circumstances.”  Applicant’s alleged past-due indebtedness can be attributed
to his drawn-out divorce.  Through his DMC, except for a $79 debt he has paid,
Applicant has now addressed all of the alleged past-due debts.  Financial
Considerations is found for Applicant.  
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of Applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances.  Under Paragraph 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 should also consider the nine adjudicative process
factors listed at AG Paragraph 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 all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and
mitigating conditions surrounding this case.  Applicant is highly respected in the work
place.  (TR at page 63 line 12 to page 75 line 14.)  The record evidence leaves me
without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security
clearance.  For this reason, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns
arising from his Financial Considerations, under the whole-person concept.
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b. For Applicant
6
Subparagraph 1.c. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j. 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.
_________________
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge