1 
 
                                                              
                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-08883 
  )   
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Andrew Henderson, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Ryan C. Nerney, Esq. 
 
 
October 6, 2017 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge: 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On June 13, 2016, in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 
5220.6, as amended (Directive), the DoD issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons 
(SOR) alleging facts that raise security concerns under Guidelines B and F.1 The SOR 
further informed Applicant that, based on information available to the government, DoD 
adjudicators could not make the preliminary affirmative finding it is clearly consistent 
with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security clearance. 
 
On June 23, 2016, Applicant submitted a written reply to the SOR, and requested 
a decision on the record. (RSOR.) Applicant's Counsel subsequently requested that the 
case be decided after a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned 
to me on February 15, 2017. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 
                                                          
1 I considered the previous Adjudicative Guidelines, effective September 1, 2006, as well as the new 
Adjudicative Guidelines, effective June 8, 2017. My decision would be the same if the case was 
considered under the previous Adjudicative Guidelines, effective September 1, 2006. 
 
2 
 
issued a notice of hearing on February 27, 2017, scheduling the hearing for April 4, 
2017. The hearing was convened as scheduled.  
 
At the hearing, the Government offered Exhibits 1 through 4, which were 
admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and presented Exhibits 
A through DD, which were also admitted without objection. The record was left open 
until April 21, 2017, for receipt of documentation. Documents were submitted and were 
incorrectly marked as Applicant’s Exhibits DD and EE, but have now have been 
correctly marked and entered into evidence without objection as Applicant’s Exhibits EE 
and FF.  
 
Procedural Rulings 
 
 At the hearing, the Government requested I take administrative notice of certain 
facts relating to Colombia. Department Counsel provided a summary of the facts, 
supported by Exhibit 4. The documents provide elaboration and context for the 
summary. I take administrative notice of the facts included in the U.S. Government 
reports. They are limited to matters of general knowledge, not subject to reasonable 
dispute. They are set out in the Findings of Fact. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I 
make the following findings of fact:  
 
Applicant is 46 years old, and he was born in the United States. Applicant was 
married and divorced twice from his first wife. He has been married to his current wife 
since 2011, and they have one child, who is a United States citizen. He earned a 
Bachelor’s degree in Occupational Education in 2009. Applicant served in the United 
States Air Force on active duty from 1989 to May 2011, when he received an Honorable 
Discharge. He has been employed by a United States defense contractor as a Logistics 
Supervisor for six years in Columbia. Applicant seeks a DoD security clearance in 
connection with his employment in the defense sector for a new position where he 
would be employed in the United States. (Tr at 24-28, 49.) 
 
Guideline B - Foreign Influence  
 
 The SOR lists three allegations regarding Foreign Influence, under Adjudicative 
Guideline B:  
 
 1.a. It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s wife is a citizen and resident of 
Colombia. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR. At the hearing, Applicant 
testified that he met his current wife while he was in the military and deployed in 
Colombia. They became married in March 2011. Applicant thereafter returned to the 
United States and retired from military service in May 2011. Applicant then gained 
employment with his current employer, when he again was stationed in Columbia. 
Applicant testified that his wife lives with him in Colombia and is a Colombian citizen, 
 
3 
 
but she has gained her permanent United States residency. Applicant further stated that 
his wife is currently unemployed, but she was never employed by the Colombian 
Government. (Tr at 45-49.)  
 
 1.b. It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s step-daughter is a citizen and 
resident of Colombia. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR. Applicant testified 
that his step-daughter lives with him and his wife in Colombia. She is attending college, 
and studying to be a school teacher. Their goal is that she complete her education and 
then they will sponsor her to move to the United States where she hopes to teach. She 
has never been employed by the Colombian Government. (Tr at 49-51.) 
 
 1.c. It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant’s mother-in-law is a citizen and 
resident of Colombia. Applicant admitted this allegation in his RSOR. He testified that 
he sees his mother-in-law two times a year, and other than that, he has no 
communication with her. (Tr at 51-52.) 
 
 Applicant testified that his entire life he has been loyal to the United States, as 
has been shown by his 21 years of service to the United States Air Force. Applicant 
further testified that his mother and six brothers and sisters are United States citizens 
and residents. (Tr at 54, 74-75 .)  
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations  
 
 The SOR lists ten allegations (1.a. through 1.j.) regarding financial difficulties, 
specifically overdue debts, under Adjudicative Guideline F. All of the SOR allegations 
will be discussed below in the order they were listed on the SOR: 
 
 2.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a judgment filed against him in 
2012 in the amount of $4,991. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR. At the hearing, 
Applicant reiterated that this debt and all of the following debts have been paid: he 
stated that 2.a., 2.c., 2.e., 2.f., 2.h., 2.j., and 2.i. have been paid. (Tr at 37-38.)  
 
2.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a judgment filed against him in 
2011 in the amount of $2,169. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR. At the hearing, 
he testified that he has been making payments on this debt. (Tr at 32-33.) Exhibits E 
and R establish that this debt is being resolved. Applicant submitted post-hearing Exhibit 
EE showing that this debt has been resolved. 
  
 2.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $6,986. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR. As reviewed above, Applicant 
testified that this debt has been paid. (Tr at 37-38.)  
 
2.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $3,651. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR. At the hearing, he testified that he 
has been making payments on this debt. (Tr at 39-40.) Exhibits G and S establish that 
this debt is being resolved.  
            
 
4 
 
2.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $2,634. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR. Applicant testified that this debt 
has been paid. (Tr at 37-38.)  
 
2.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $7,316. Applicant testified that this debt has been paid. (Tr at 37-38.)   
  
2.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $3,431. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR. At the hearing, he testified that he 
has been making payments on this debt. (Tr at 40.) Exhibit U establishes that this debt 
is being resolved. Applicant submitted post-hearing Exhibit FF showing that this debt 
has been resolved. 
   
 2.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount 
of $364. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR. Applicant testified that this debt has 
been paid. (Tr at 37-38.) 
  
 2.i. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a medical account in the amount of 
$157. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR. Applicant testified that this debt has 
been paid. (Tr at 37-38.) 
 
 2.j. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a medical account in the amount of 
$86. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR. Applicant testified that this debt has 
been paid. (Tr at 37-38.) 
 
 Applicant explained that his two marriages and divorces to and from his first wife 
caused a great deal of his financial difficulties. He stated that because his ex-wife did 
not meet her responsibilities according to the divorce decree, not only was he was 
forced to pay for two mortgages, and support himself, but all the debts listed on the 
SOR that his wife was ordered to pay, he ultimately had to resolve himself. He did not 
become aware that his wife was not paying her court ordered debts until the 
investigation began for his security clearance. He indicated that if he had learned earlier 
that the debts were not being resolved, he would have addressed them earlier. (Tr at 
31-37, 42, 58.)  
 
 Applicant testified that he is current with all of his present debts, and after all of 
his expenses, he is left with a monthly remainder of approximately $2,500. He has also 
taken an online course to financial planning course.  (Tr at 42-44.)  
 
Mitigation  
 
 Applicant submitted a number of documents in mitigation. They include: 
documents showing that the debts discussed above have been settled or resolved; a 
Personal Financial Statement showing Applicant's positive monthly remainder; 
Applicant's DD Form 214 showing his positive military history, including his Honorable 
Discharge; and nine very positive character letters; and a packet of other supporting 
documents. (Exhibits A through DD.)  
 
5 
 
Current Status of Columbia 
 
 For nearly 50 years, Colombia has experienced conflict with illegal armed 
groups, including Marxist guerillas and transnational criminal and narcotics trafficking 
organizations. Two Columbian groups have been designated as Foreign Terrorist 
Organizations. In its most recent Travel Warning for Colombia the United States 
Department of State warns U.S. citizens about the dangers of travel to Colombia, and 
specifically the potential for violence by terrorist groups and armed criminal gangs called 
“BACRIMS.” Terrorists and other criminal organizations continues to kidnap and hold 
persons of all nationalities and occupations for ransom. No one is immune from 
kidnapping on the basis of occupation, nationality, or other factors.  
  
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 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, administrative judges apply the guidelines 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), 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. 
 
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.  
 
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 
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 applies 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 
 
6 
 
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 (EO) 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 B, Foreign Influence 
 
 The security concern relating to the guideline for Foreign Influence is set out in 
AG ¶ 6: 
 
Foreign contacts and interests, including, but not limited to, business, 
financial, and property interests, are a national security concern if they 
result in divided allegiance. They may also be a national security concern 
if they create circumstances in which the individual may be manipulated or 
induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a 
way inconsistent with U.S. interests or otherwise made vulnerable to 
pressure or coercion by any foreign interest. Assessment of foreign 
contacts and interests should consider the country in which the foreign 
contact or interest is located, including, but not limited to, considerations 
such as whether it is known to target U.S. citizens to obtain classified or 
sensitive information or is associated with a risk of terrorism. 
 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under 
AG ¶ 7. Because of Applicant's spouse’s connection to Columbia, Disqualifying 
conditions (a), (b), and (d) are potentially applicable in this case:   
 
(a) contact, regardless of method, with a foreign family member, business 
or professional associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or 
resident in a foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of 
foreign exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; 
 
(b) connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that 
create a potential conflict of interest between the individual's obligation to 
protect classified or sensitive information or technology and the 
individual's desire to help a foreign person, group, or country by providing 
that information or technology; 
 
(c) failure to report or fully disclose, when required, association with a 
foreign person, group, government, or country; 
 
 
7 
 
(d) counterintelligence information, whether classified or unclassified, that 
indicates the individual's access to classified information or eligibility for a 
sensitive position may involve unacceptable risk to national security; 
 
(e) shared living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of 
citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign 
inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; 
 
(f) substantial business, financial, or property interests in a foreign country, 
or in any foreign owned or foreign-operated business that could subject 
the individual to a heightened risk of foreign influence or exploitation or 
personal conflict of interest;  
 
(g) unauthorized association with a suspected or known agent, associate, 
or employee of a foreign intelligence entity; 
 
(h) indications that representatives or nationals from a foreign country are 
acting to increase the vulnerability of the individual to possible future 
exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; and  
 
(i) conduct, especially while traveling or residing outside the U.S., that may 
make the individual vulnerable to exploitation, pressure, or coercion by a 
foreign person, group, government, or country.  
 
 AG ¶ 8 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I considered all 
of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 8 including: 
 
(a) the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in 
which these persons are located, or the positions or activities of those 
persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be 
placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign 
individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the 
United States; 
 
(b) there is no conflict of interest, either because the individual’s sense of 
loyalty or obligation to the foreign person, or allegiance to the group, 
government, or country is so minimal, or the individual has such deep and 
longstanding relationships and loyalties in the United States, that the 
individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the 
U.S. interest; 
 
(c) contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual and 
infrequent that there is little likelihood that it could create a risk for foreign 
influence or exploitation; 
 
(d) the foreign contacts and activities are on U.S. Government business or 
are approved by the agency head or designee; 
 
8 
 
 
(e) the individual has promptly complied with existing agency requirements 
regarding the reporting of contacts, requests, or threats from persons, 
groups, or organizations from a foreign country; and 
 
(f) the value or routine nature of the foreign business, financial, or property 
interests is such that they are unlikely to result in a conflict and could not 
be used effectively to influence, manipulate, or pressure the individual. 
 
Because during Applicant’s entire life he has been loyal to the United States, as 
has been shown by his 21 years of service to the United States Air Force, and because 
Applicant’s mother and six brothers and sisters are United States citizens and residents. 
I find that mitigating factor AG ¶ 8(b) is applicable and controlling in this case under 
Guideline B.  
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set 
out in AG ¶ 18: 
 
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 overextended is at 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. 
 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under 
AG ¶ 19. Applicant has had several delinquent debts for several years. The evidence is 
sufficient to raise disqualifying conditions (a) and (c), in this case:   
 
(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; 
 
(d) deceptive or illegal financial practices such as embezzlement, 
employee theft, check fraud, expense account fraud, mortgage fraud, filing 
deceptive loan statements and other intentional financial breaches of trust; 
 
9 
 
 
(e) consistent spending beyond one's means or frivolous or irresponsible 
spending, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant 
negative cash flow, a history of late payments or of non-payment, or other 
negative financial indicators; 
 
(f) failure to file or fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local income 
tax returns or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as 
required; 
 
(g) unexplained affluence, as shown by a lifestyle or standard of living, 
increase in net worth, or money transfers that are inconsistent with known 
legal sources of income; 
 
(h) borrowing money or engaging in significant financial transactions to 
fund gambling or pay gambling debts; and 
 
(i) concealing gambling losses, family conflict, or other problems caused 
by gambling.  
 
 AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I considered 
all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 including: 
 
(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, a death, divorce or separation, 
clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the 
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; 
 
(c) the individual has received or is receiving financial 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; 
 
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the 
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides 
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides 
evidence of actions to resolve the issue; 
 
 
10 
 
(f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income; and 
 
(g) the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax 
authority to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those 
arrangements. 
 
 Applicant attributed his delinquencies to his two divorces from his first wife, and 
unbeknownst to him, her failure to pay the debts she was ordered from the divorce to 
pay. These are circumstances beyond his control. He has established that he acted 
reasonably or responsibly with respect to his debts. Once he became aware of these 
delinquent debts, he began paying all of his debts, and it now appears that he has only 
one delinquent debt outstanding, for which he is making regular payments. I find that he 
has demonstrated that he addressed his debts in a responsible and timely manner. Full 
mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b) has been established. 
 
 Further, there are clear indications that his financial problems have been 
resolved and are under control. Mitigation under AG ¶ 20(d) has also been established. 
 
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(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.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under 
Guidelines B and F in my whole-person analysis. Overall, the record evidence leaves 
me with no significant questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a 
security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the 
Foreign Influence and Financial Considerations security concerns under the whole-
person concept.  
 
 
 
11 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of the Directive, are: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline B:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:    For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.b:    For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.c:    For Applicant 
   
Paragraph 2, Guideline F:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a:    For Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.b:    For Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.c:    For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.d:    For Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.e:    For Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.f:    For Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.g:    For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.h:    For Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.i:    For Applicant 
Subparagraph 2.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. 
 
 
 
 
Martin H. Mogul 
Administrative Judge