DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
             
In the matter of: )
)
)
 )     ISCR Case No.15-03568
 )
` )
Applicant for Security Clearance                   )    
Appearances
For Government: Carroll J. Connelley, Esq. Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen, A., Administrative Judge:
On December 13, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant alleging security concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The action was taken
under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry
(February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) implemented in September 2006. Revised Adjudicative
Guidelines were issued on December 10, 2016, and became effective on June 8,
2017.1
In this case, the SOR was issued under Adjudicative Guidelines effective within the Defense Department      1
on September 1, 2006. Revised Adjudicative Guidelines became effective June 8, 2017. My decision and
formal findings under the revised Guideline F would not be different under the 2006 Guidelines.
1
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. The case was
assigned to me on February 15, 2017.  A notice of hearing was issued on March 28,2
scheduling the hearing for August 17, 2017. Government Exhibits (GX) 1-7 were
admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified and submitted Applicant
Exhibits (AX) A-B which were admitted into the record. I kept the record open until
August 31, 2017 so that Applicant could submit additional documentation. However,
she did not submit any additional documents. The transcript was received on August
25, 2017. Based on a review of the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for
access to classified information is denied. 
Findings of Fact
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations at SOR ¶  1.a-1.y. 
She also admitted SOR ¶¶ 2.a-2.b. She also provided an explanation with her
responses.  
Applicant is a 48-year-old associate analyst for a defense contractor. She
divorced twice, but remarried in 2011. She has two adult children and two adult
stepchildren. She graduated from high school and attended several post-secondary
programs, but has not obtained a degree. She has been with her current employer
since 2014.  She completed her security clearance application (SCA)  in March 2014.
(GX 1)
Financial Considerations
The SOR alleges that Applicant has 25 delinquent debts, which total
approximately $21,000.  The delinquent debts include a 2008 judgment, five medical3
accounts, collection accounts, and student loans. (GX  3, 4, 5, and 7)
Applicant was unemployed in 2005 until 2008. She accepted low-paying, part-
time jobs. She was unemployed from December 2009 to November 2011. Her second
husband lost his job as a result of a market downturn. (Tr. 22) Her financial problems
began in 2008, when she divorced. Her second marriage ended in divorce as well, and
the agreement was that he would pay for medical insurance for Applicant and the
children. However, he did not keep his promise. She incurred medical debt and stated
that she paid some accounts, but was in the process of trying to pay the remaining
ones. Applicant disclosed various collection accounts in her SCA and noted that they
were resolved or in a payment plan. (GX 1) In her answer to the SOR, she stated that
the debts occurred before and during divorces. She stated that she has no new debt
and had paid some accounts. (AX B)
The case was originally scheduled for June 16, 2017, but Applicant requested a continuance, which was      2
granted.
Applicant acknowledged that in 2007, a chapter 13 bankruptcy was discharged in the amount of $43,000.      3
2
In her 2014 investigative interview, Applicant did not dispute any of the
delinquent debt. She noted that she intended to pay each account and that the medical
accounts were resolved. (GX 2) She noted that she received unemployment benefits,
but the amount was not sufficient to pay household bills and delinquent debts.  She
noted repayment plans for other debts in the SOR.
As to the medical collection accounts : SOR ¶¶ 1.b, c, g, l, t, v,  and y,  ranging in
time from 2014 to 2015, are the result of Applicant’s second husband not honoring his
agreement to cover her and the children under his health plan. (Tr. 23) She stated that
she did not have the money to pay the bills at the time, and she did not have health
insurance.  The medical bills were not a priority for her. At the hearing, Applicant stated
that all had been paid and that she would submit documentation. (Tr.28) She noted that
SOR ¶¶1.n -1.x were also medical collection accounts. (Tr. 28) Again, she stated that
she had documentation to prove that they were resolved, but did not submit anything
for the record.
As to SOR ¶ 1.a, a collection account in the amount of $2,308, this is the result
of rent that was not paid. She was evicted and believes that the time frame was 2010 or
2011. She stated that she reached out to them when she completed her security
clearance application, but they refused to work with her. (Tr.30) She stated that she
would provide a phone log, but did not submit documentation. 
As to SOR ¶ 1.d, a cable collection account in the amount of $177, Applicant
stated that she paid the amount and would provide documentation. As to SOR ¶ 1.e, a
utility collection account in the amount of $478, she stated that it was paid and would
provide documentation. (Tr. 33) As to 1.i, a phone account in the amount of $1,341,
Applicant stated that it was paid. She did not submit any documentation. As to SOR  ¶
1.h and 1.k, for student loans, Applicant stated that they were resolved for $2,801. (Tr.
35) As to the 2008 judgment in the amount of $2,305, Applicant did not know the status
of the judgment.
Applicant’s most recent credit bureau shows that she has about $60,000 in
student loans that are in deferment status. (GX 7) She had been paying on the student
loans but stopped paying for about four months so that she could help a family
member. (Tr. 38) She stated that she is now paying about $350.
Applicant’s current monthly net income is $2,408. She is currently married and
her spouse earns about $4,400 as net monthly income. (Tr. 42) She has a home in one
state that she rents.  She has a car loan. She has about $6,000 in savings, and she has
a retirement account. (Tr.46)
Applicant has not obtained formal credit counseling. She has health insurance.  I
left the record open so that Applicant could provide some documentation as to what she
is doing about her delinquent debts and to confirm the accounts that she noted were
paid. Applicant did not provide any financial documentation for the record to confirm
payments or payment plans.
3
Applicant submitted seven letters of recommendation from program managers,
colleagues and friends. Each letter attests to the fact that Applicant is honest, reliable
and a valuable asset to her team. (AX A) She is organized, a role model to others, and
is an upstanding citizen. It did not appear that any of the character references were
aware of the security issues at hand in this case. 
Criminal Conduct
SOR ¶ 2.a also alleged that in May 2010, Applicant was charged with identity
theft (felony) and theft (misdemeanor). She pled guilty to identity theft and theft-2nd
degree. She was sentenced to 18 months of probation and 200 hours of community
service. (GX 6)
SOR 2.b alleged that in January 2001, Applicant was charged with three counts
of forgery (felony) and three counts of theft (felony). The charges were dismissed.
Applicant had different reasons for the events. She reported in her investigative
interview that the 2001 incident was a bounced check. (Tr. 48) At the hearing, she
described an event where she was at work and decided to just “play with the checks.”
She wrote various names on the company checks and then put them in a folder. She
stated that she did not issue any checks to herself or try to cash any checks. She
added,” she was young and stupid”. (Tr. 48-50) She stated that she was naive and
hired an attorney and the charges were dismissed. (GX 6) She stated that she could
have had the incident expunged, but she chose not to.
As to the May 2010 incident, Applicant explained that she went to a kitchen
drawer in the house where she was living with her sister-in-law and brother. She
reached in and pulled out a check and paid a bill. She later learned that she pulled out
the wrong checkbook. Her sister-in-law called the police, even though Applicant
explained it was an innocent mistake and would give her the $200. However, her
brother insisted that Applicant be charged. (Tr. 53) She stated that it was more of a
family discord and her brother refused to let it go. Applicant pled guilty and served 18
months probation and completed her community service. (Tr. 55) There are no other
criminal incidences in history. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known
as the “whole-person concept.” An administrative judge must consider all available,
4
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 national security
eligibility 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.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in
the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a preponderance4
of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  5 6
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather
than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
 
Section 7 of EO 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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance7
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt8
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a9
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      4
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      5
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      7
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      8
 Id.      9
5
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
AG ¶ 18 expresses the security concern pertaining to financial considerations:
Failure 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 or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be
caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other
issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling, mental
health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An
individual who is financially over-extended is at a greater risk of having to
engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. 
Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a
security concern insofar as it may result from criminal activity, including
espionage.
AG ¶ 19 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(a) inability to satisfy debts;
(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so;
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; and
The Government produced credible evidence to establish the delinquent debts. 
Consequently, the evidence is sufficient to raise disqualifying conditions ¶¶ 19(a), 19(c)
and 19(b).
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate the security concerns:
(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, clear
victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
6
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem from
a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling
service; and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved
or is under control;
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and
(g) the individual has made arrangement with the appropriate tax authority
to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those
arrangements.
Applicant has encountered many challenges and events beyond her control due
to divorces and unemployment. However, she has ongoing financial problems and has
not presented any evidence that she is resolving any of her delinquent debts. She has
not had formal financial counseling; nor did she present documentation that she has a
clear plan to resolve her debts. She admits that she does not have sufficient income to
do so. AG ¶ 20 (a), (b), (c), and (d) do not apply. She has not met her burden to alleviate
the security concerns under the financial considerations guideline.
Criminal Conduct
The security concern for criminal conduct is set out in AG ¶ 30.
Criminal activity creates doubt about an Applicant’s judgment, reliability,
and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s
ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.
The guideline notes conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 31.
The disqualifying conditions potentially applicable in this case include:
(a) a pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on its own would 
be unlikely to affect a national security eligibility decision, but which
in combination cast doubt on the individual’s judgment, reliability, or
trustworthiness; and
(b) evidence, (including, but not limited to, a credible allegation, an
admission, and matters of criminal record) of criminal conduct, re-
gardless of whether the individual was formally charged,
prosecuted, or convicted.
Applicant admitted the two allegations under the criminal conduct guideline. She
explained what occurred in the 2010 incident and has not had any other occurrences.
The 2001 incident appeared to be the result of a mistake, but due to a family issue.
Applicant pled guilty, served 18 months probation, and completed 200 hours of
community service. 
7
AG ¶ 32 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. The following
is potentially applicable:
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation, including, but not
limited to, the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity
restitution, compliance with the terms of probation, job training or
higher education, good employment record, or constructive community
involvement.
This mitigating condition applies because of the passage of time, completion of
probation, Applicant’ s work record and letters of recommendation, her community
service, and her post-secondary education.
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 an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶2(d).
(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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the
facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
 
Applicant is 48 years old.  She is working diligently to provide for her family. She
is recommended for her good work. She had challenging circumstances with divorce and
unemployment. She has not provided any evidence that she has rectified her financial
situation in any way. She did not submit documentation that she has a plan to remedy
her financial situation. She stated that she paid or is resolving all the debts, but she has
not submitted any evidence to support her assertions. 
8
After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guidelines F and
J, and evaluating all the record evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude
that she has not carried her burden of showing that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information.
As to the security concern under the criminal conduct guideline, Applicant has
mitigated the concern through the passage of time and good work record. She has no
other incidents in her criminal history. 
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:  AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.y:  Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.b: For Applicant
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 a security clearance.
Clearance is denied. 
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH
Administrative Judge
9