1 
      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case: 15-04210 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
September 30, 2016 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant was alleged to be delinquent on two debts in the total amount of 
$14,238. He has resolved the larger debt and the second, a $186 debt, no longer 
appears on his credit report. His efforts to locate the creditor have been unsuccessful. 
Applicant has acted in good faith and future financial delinquencies are unlikely. 
Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.  
Statement of the Case 
On January 4, 2016, the Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons 
(SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial 
Considerations. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 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 September 1, 2006.  
 
 
2 
 
 
Applicant answered the SOR on February 12, 2016 (Answer), and requested a 
hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on May 23, 2016. 
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on May 
25, 2016, scheduling the hearing for June 20, 2016. The hearing was convened as 
scheduled. The Government offered Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5, which were admitted 
without objection. Applicant offered Exhibit (AE) A, which was admitted without 
objection. Applicant testified. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on July 
5, 2016. The record was left open for Applicant to submit additional exhibits. Applicant 
presented additional exhibits marked AE B through AE D. Department Counsel had no 
objections to AE B through AE D and they were admitted. The record then closed. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is 57 years old. He has been employed with a Government contractor 
for the past 20 years. He is a naturalized U.S. citizen. He possesses a master’s degree. 
He is married and has no children. (Tr. 18-20.) 
 
 The SOR alleged Applicant owes approximately $14,238 on two delinquent 
financial obligations. In his Answer, Applicant admitted SOR ¶ 1.b and denied SOR ¶ 
1.a. His debts are documented in the record credit reports dated September 24, 2014; 
April 16, 2015; December 4, 2015; and May 18, 2016. (GE 2; GE 3; GE 4; GE 5.) After 
a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, I make the 
following findings of fact: 
 
 Applicant was alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a to be indebted on a medical debt in the 
amount of $186, based on a listing in his September 2014 credit report (GE 2). 
Applicant is willing and able to satisfy this debt, but is unable to locate the creditor. This 
debt is not listed on any of his recent credit reports. (Tr. 23; GE 3; GE 4; GE 5; AE A.) 
 
 Applicant was alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b to be indebted to a collection company for a 
bank in the approximate amount of $14,052. This debt was for a delinquent credit card 
account. Applicant stopped paying on this debt in 2009 when his mother passed away. 
He attempted to negotiate with this creditor, but the bank was unwilling to accept a 
settlement that Applicant could afford. Applicant provided documentation from the 
creditor that offered to settle this account for a payment of $6,500. On July 6, 2016, he 
made an electronic payment in that amount to this creditor. This debt is resolved. (AE B; 
Tr. 24-27.) 
 
 Applicant’s credit report, dated June 20, 2016, reflects he has a “good” credit 
score. He has no delinquent debts identified on that credit report. (AE A.) 
  
 Applicant’s supervisor and coworker, who wrote letters on Applicant’s behalf, 
characterize him as a very hardworking, reliable, trustworthy individual, who is focused 
on his duties. Applicant has never committed a security violation. His performance 
 
 
3 
 
 
evaluations reflect he works well with others and is successful in achieving his goals. 
(AE C; AE D.) 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, 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. 
 
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. 
 
 
4 
 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 The security concerns relating to 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.  
 
 AG ¶ 19 describes two conditions that could raise security concerns and may be 
disqualifying in this case:  
 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.  
 
 Applicant accumulated two delinquent debts in the total amount of $14,238. 
These debts established both a history of delinquencies and an inability or unwillingness 
to satisfy his obligations. The evidence raises security concerns under the above 
conditions, thereby shifting the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those 
concerns.  
 
 The guideline includes conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security 
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties. I find the following three provide 
mitigation: 
 
(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;  
 
(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; and 
 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts. 
 
 
 
5 
 
 
 Applicant has made reasonable, good-faith efforts to resolve both of his 
delinquent accounts listed on the SOR. He has settled the larger of the two debts with a 
payment of $6,500, and that debt is resolved. The remaining $186 debt is no longer on 
his credit report, so he cannot dispute it with the credit reporting agencies. He does not 
know who the creditor was or how to contact the creditor. As a result, he is willing but 
presently unable to pay it through no fault of his own. He has reduced his overall debt, 
significantly. His financial problems are under control as evidenced by his current credit 
report, which reflects he has good credit and no delinquent accounts. His two alleged 
delinquencies occurred at or near the time of his mother’s death, and such 
circumstances are unlikely to recur. His remaining small delinquent debt does not cast 
doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. Applicant has 
mitigated the Government’s concerns. 
 
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.  
 
 According to 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 acted responsibly by 
resolving one delinquent debt, and attempting to identify the other creditor. He was 
willing and financially able to resolve that delinquency. His supervisor and coworker 
indicate he is a valuable asset. Overall, the record evidence leaves me without doubt as 
to Applicant’s present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. He met his 
burden to mitigate the security concerns arising under the guideline for financial 
considerations. 
 
 
 
6 
 
 
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 and 1.b:  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. 
                                                   
 
 
Jennifer I. Goldstein 
Administrative Judge