DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-06536
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: David F. Hayes, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
November 30, 2016
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on June 13, 2013. (Item 2.) On February 5, 2015, the Department of Defense
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations) concerning Applicant. (Item 1.) 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 on April 24, 2015, and requested a
decision by an administrative judge without a hearing. (Answer.) (Item 1.) Department
Counsel submitted the Government’s written case (FORM) to Applicant on June 1,
2015. Applicant acknowledged receipt of the FORM on June 27, 2015. He was given 30
days from receipt of the FORM to submit any additional documentation. Applicant did
not submit any additional information within that time. The case was assigned to me on
April 1, 2016. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
1
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 35, and has been employed by a defense contractor since 2012.
(Item 2.) He seeks to obtain a security clearance in connection with his employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he 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, with explanations. Those admissions are
findings of fact.
The SOR lists four delinquent debts (SOR 1.a through 1.d). The total of the debts
alleged in the SOR is approximately $40,072. The existence and amount of all the debts
are supported by Applicant’s statements in Section 26 of his e-QIP (Item 2); and credit
reports dated June 18, 2013; and September 12, 2014. (Items 3 and 4.)
1.a. Applicant admitted that he was indebted for a past-due debt for a credit card
in the amount of $10,100. He stated in his Answer that he was paying this creditor $250
a month on this debt. (Item 1.) No further supporting information was provided. This
debt is not resolved.
1.b. Applicant admitted that he was indebted for a past-due credit card debt in
the amount of $4,958. He also stated in his Answer that he was paying this creditor
$100 a month to resolve the debt. (Item 1.) No further supporting information was
provided. This debt is not resolved.
1.c. Applicant admitted that he was indebted for a judgment to a bank in the
amount of $18,591 since approximately 2009. He states in his e-QIP that this debt
happened because he lost his job “and got backed up on payments.” (Item 2 at Section
26.) In his Answer he stated that this debt is the same account as allegation 1.a, and
that the payments he stated he makes are “why the amount went down from $18,591 to
$10,100.” The credit reports in the record show both the delinquent account and the
judgment. No further supporting information was provided. It is Applicant’s burden to
show that these two debts are one and the same, and he has not met that burden. This
debt is not resolved.
1.d. Applicant admitted that he was indebted for a past-due debt in the amount of
$6,276. He states in his Answer that this creditor “is paid off.” Item 4 shows this debt as
a “paid collection.” This paragraph is found for Applicant.
1.e. Applicant admitted that he was indebted for a past-due debt in the amount of
$147. He also stated in his Answer that this debt “will be paid by the end of the year
[2015].” No further supporting information was provided. This debt is not resolved.
2
Applicant has been gainfully employed since 2012. (Item 2, Section 13A.) He did
not submit any documentary information that shows he had acted in any way to mitigate
the financial issues since 2009. Mere statements in an Answer that he has taken action,
without supporting documentation of some type, is insufficient to show that the alleged
debts have been paid or reduced. In addition, he did not submit a budget, or any other
information concerning his income and expenses. Applicant submitted no evidence that
he has received any financial counseling. Finally, Applicant knew of the Government’s
concerns about his delinquent debts since June 2013, when he filled out his e-QIP.
Applicant provided no evidence concerning the quality of his 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
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
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 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, “The applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
3
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. 
This concern is broader than the possibility that an individual might knowingly
compromise sensitive information in order to raise money. It encompasses concerns
about an individual’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting
sensitive information. An individual who is financially irresponsible may also be
negligent, unconcerned, or irresponsible in handling and safeguarding sensitive
information.1
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
 See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012).1
4
security concerns. Applicant has over $40,000 in past-due debts, which have been due
and owing since 2009. 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. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying
conditions may be mitigated where Athe 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.@
This condition does not apply as Applicant=s financial difficulties have been in existence
for several years and continue seemingly undiminished to date. 
AG ¶ 20(b) states that the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where “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.” According to Applicant, the debt in 1.c was incurred because
he had lost his job. However, he did not submit any evidence to show how he tried to
responsibly adjust his spending or resolve his debts over the following years.
AG ¶ 20(d) states it can be mitigating where, “the individual has initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Other than bald
statements in his Answer, Applicant did not submit any information showing that he has
made any attempt since 2009 to resolve these debts.
In conclusion, looking at Applicant’s entire financial situation at the present time, I
cannot find that “there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control,” as is required by AG ¶ 20(c). Paragraph 1 is found against Applicant.2
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
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
AG ¶¶ 20(e) and 20(f) have no application to this case.2
5
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. Applicant has had financial problems for
several years, which he has not yet resolved. If he is able to successfully resolve his
debts, and show the Government he has done so, Applicant may be eligible for a
security clearance in the future. However, at the present time, Applicant’s conduct with
regard to his finances was not mitigated.
Under AG ¶ 2(a)(3), his conduct is recent and continuing. I cannot find that there
have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I also
cannot find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); or that there is little likelihood of continuation or recurrence (AG ¶
2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
situation. Accordingly, the evidence supports denying his 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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
6
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.
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge
7