1 
 
 
 
               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
   )    ISCR Case No. 16-03138 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
Curry, Marc E., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant failed to mitigate the financial consideration security concerns.  Clearance 
is denied.  
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On January 30, 2017, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications 
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the 
security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations, and explaining why it was 
unable to find it clearly consistent with the national interest to grant security clearance 
eligibility for him. The DOD CAF took the action under Executive Order (EO) 10865, 
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; 
DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program 
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines for 
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG) effective within the DOD on 
September 1, 2006. 
 
On February 16, 2017, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting all of the allegations, 
and requested a decision based on the written record instead of a hearing. On March 9, 
 
2 
 
2017, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM). Applicant 
received the FORM on March 22, 2017, and did not respond. The case was assigned to 
me on October 1, 2017.  
 
While this case was pending a decision, Security Executive Agent Directive 4 was 
issued establishing National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) applicable to all covered 
individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or 
eligibility to hold a sensitive position. The AG supersede the adjudicative guidelines 
implemented in September 2006 and are effective for any adjudication made on or after 
June 8, 2017. Accordingly, I have adjudicated Applicant’s security clearance eligibility 
under the new AG.1 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
  Applicant is a 40-year-old married man with two children ages, 14 and 7. He and his 
spouse have been separated since 2009. (Item 3 at 20)  He is a Navy veteran, serving 
from 1997 to 2001 when he received an honorable discharge. (Item 3 at 17) He earned an 
associate’s degree in 2006, and he has taken some college courses. Since 2008, he has 
worked for a defense contractor as a computer support technician. (Item 3 at 12) 
 
 Applicant admits that he has incurred $24,000 of outstanding, delinquent debt, 
including a $1,174 state income tax delinquency. He attributes some of his debts to his 
marital separation, a lack of health insurance, and a separation from a girlfriend with whom 
he had been cohabiting. (Item 3 at 32-38) He failed to provide any explanation for the 
current status of his delinquencies. 
  
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  emphasizing 
that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 
U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 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 required to be considered 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 overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and 
commonsense decision. The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable 
information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a 
decision. 
 
                                                 
1 Application of the AGs that were in effect as of the issuance of the SOR would not change my decision in this 
case. 
3 
 
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 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. 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 applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant 
has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision. 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the totality 
of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative 
process factors in AG ¶ 2(d).2  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 The security concerns about financial considerations are set forth 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. . . . .  
 
 Applicant’s delinquencies trigger the application of disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 
19(a), “inability to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial 
obligations.”  
 
 The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable:  
 
AG ¶ 20(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;  
                                                 
2 The factors under AG ¶ 2(d) are as follows: 
 
(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. 
 
4 
 
 
AG ¶ 20(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; and 
 
AG ¶ 20(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to 
repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
 Applicant’s failure to provide any explanation for why he incurred delinquent debts, 
and his failure to provide any documentary evidence about the current status of his debts, 
render all of the mitigating conditions inapplicable. Applicant failed to mitigate the financial 
considerations security concerns. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 In Applicant’s answer, he mentioned that a separation from a woman with whom he 
had been cohabiting, and later, his separation from his ex-wife, together with some medical 
problems, may have contributed to his financial problems. However, he did not elaborate. 
Under these circumstances, my evaluation of the whole-person concept does not change 
the conclusion reached in my evaluation of the relevant disqualifying and mitigating 
conditions. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
Formal findings for 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.n:     Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the security interests of the United States to grant Applicant eligibility 
for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Marc E. Curry 
Administrative Judge