DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 15-02522
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Aubrey De Angelis, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
November 17, 2016
______________
Decision
______________
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on June 16, 2014.  On February 26, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines
F and E 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 March 18, 2016.  He answered
the SOR in writing (Answer) on April 4, 2016, and requested a hearing before an
Administrative Judge.  The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) received
the request soon thereafter, and I received the case assignment on May 23, 2016. 
DOHA issued a notice of hearing on May 25, 2016, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on June 23, 2016.  The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 7,
1
which were received without objection.  Applicant testified on his own behalf and
submitted Exhibits (AppXs) A through C, which were received without objection.  DOHA
received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on July 1, 2016.  I granted Applicant’s
request to keep the record open until July 22, 2016, to submit additional matters.  On
July 21, 2016, he submitted Exhibit D, which was received without objection.  The
record closed on July 22, 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 denied the factual allegations in all the
Subparagraphs of the SOR.  He also provided additional information to support his
request for eligibility for a security clearance.
Guideline F - Financial Considerations
Applicant is a 38-year-old “Warehouse Specialist.”  (GX 1 at pages 5 and 9.)  He
served honorably in the U.S. Navy from 1996~2001.  (TR at page 29 lines 6~13, and
AppX A the last page.)  He has a college degree in business management.  (TR at page
29 lines 14~20.)  He has been married since January of 2011, and has a 16-year-old
“daughter from a previous relationship.”  (TR at page 29 line 21 to page 30 line 4.)
He attributes his past financial difficulties vis-a-vis his student loans
(Subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.b.), to being unemployed or underemployed after his college
graduation, until his present employment in about June of 2014.  (TR at page 33 lines
2~11, and GX 1 at page 10.)
1.a. and 1.b.  Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor A, for student
loans, in the alleged past-due amount of about $10,712.  Because of his tenuous
employment situation prior to June of 2014, Applicant thought his student loans were
deferred.  (TR at page 41 lines 1~23.)  He was unaware of their delinquency until
confronted by a government investigator in July of 2014.  (GX 3.)  Applicant’s credibility
is attested to by those who know him who work in law enforcement, and by those who
know him in the community.  (AppX D at pages 1~6.)  These student loan debts were
consolidated, settled for $4,600, and paid in March of 2016, as evidenced by banking
documents, correspondence with a debt consolidation organization specializing in
student loans, and by correspondence with the U.S. Department of Education.  (TR at
page 63 line 2 to page 64 line 9, at page 68 lines 7~25, at page 74 line 11 to page 75
line 8, Answer at page 5, AppX A at pages 1~6, 10 and 11, and AppX C.)  I find that
Applicant has made a good-faith effort to address these alleged past-due debts.
1.c.  Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor C, for a credit card, in the
alleged past-due amount of about $285.  Unbeknownst to Applicant, his spouse added
his name to her credit card.  (TR at page 75 line 9 to page 77 line 16.)  As a result,
Creditor C has “Deleted . . . [Applicant] as an authorized user from the credit bureau
report,” and it does not appear on the Government’s most recent May 2016 credit
2
report.  (AppX A at page 13, and GX 7.)  I find that Applicant has made a good-faith
effort to address this alleged past-due debt.
1.d.  Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor D, for satellite television
(TV) service, in the alleged past-due amount of about $651.  Applicant was the victim of
identity theft; and as such, protested the validity of this debt to Creditor D.  (TR at page
77 line 17 to page 79 line 9.)  This dispute was successful, and Creditor D avers “it has
been determined that . . . [Applicant] will not be held responsible or liable for the billing
on this account.”  (AppX A at page 8.)  I find that Applicant has made a good-faith effort
to address this alleged past-due debt.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
2.a.  Applicant denies that he deliberately failed to disclose the before-mentioned
student loans, and the alleged satellite television service debt, in answer to Section 26:
Financial Record: Delinquency Involving Routine Accounts, on his June 2014 e-
QIP.  (GX 1 at page 34.)  I find that he testified credibly that he was unaware of the
student loans delinquencies, thinking their payment was deferred.  Furthermore, he was
clearly the subject of identity thief vis-a-vis the TV debt; and as such, had no knowledge
of the fraudulent debt.1  This allegation is found for Applicant.
2.b.  Applicant denies that he deliberately failed to disclose a December 2000
charge for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) of Alcohol/Drugs, in answer to the second
part of Section 22: Police Record, on his June 2014 e-QIP.  (GX 1 at page 31.)  I find
that he testified credibly that, in light of the first part of Section 22, he thought he only
had to go back to “the past seven (7) years” in his disclosures.  (TR at page 81 line 7
to page 87 line 3.)  (He was admittedly charged with a DUI 13 plus years prior to
executing his e-QIP.)  Applicant’s credibility is attested to by those who know him who
work in law enforcement, and by those who know him in the community.  (AppX D at
pages 1~6.)  This allegation is found for Applicant.
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
1Failure to disclose his wife’s debt in Subparagraph 1.c. is not alleged in this allegation.
3
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. 
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 the applicant or proven by Department
Counsel. . . .”  The applicant 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.  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 adverse 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
4
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate
funds. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns.  Under
Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially
disqualifying.  Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations@ may raise security concerns.  Applicant had significant past-due student
loans.  The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions,
requiring a closer examination.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties.  Subparagraph 20(b) applies where “the
conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s
control (e.g. loss of employment . . . .), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances.”  Applicant’s past-due student loans were directly attributable to his
unemployment or underemployment until he was hired in his current position. 
Subparagraph 20(c) applies where “there are clear indications that the problem is being
resolved or is under control.”  Subparagraph 20(d) applies where the evidence shows
“the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts.@  Applicant is current with his student loans.  Financial Considerations are
found for Applicant.
Guideline E - Personal Conduct
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in
Paragraph 15: “Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information.”
Disqualifying Condition Subparagraph 16(a) applies where there is a “deliberate
omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security
questionnaire . . . or similar form used to conduct investigations . . . .”  I find no wilful
falsification here.  Applicant did not intentionally falsify his e-QIP.
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 circumstances.  Under AG 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):
5
(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.  Those who know him who work in law
enforcement, and those who know him in the community, speak most highly of
Applicant.  (AppX D at pages 1~6.)  The record evidence leaves me without questions
or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.  For these
reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his
alleged Financial Considerations and Personal Conduct.
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
Subparagraphs 1.a.~1.d.: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a. and 2.b.: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
_________________
Richard A. Cefola
Administrative Judge
6