1 
 
 
 
               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
    )    ISCR Case No. 17-02580 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Benjamin R. Dorsey, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
Curry, Marc E., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant’s contention that he had either satisfied or was in the process of satisfying 
his delinquent debts was insufficient to meet his burden of proof, absent any substantiating 
evidence. Clearance is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On August 10, 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, explaining why it was unable to find it 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant security clearance eligibility. 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 Security Executive Agent Directive 4, effective June 8, 2017. 
 
On August 18, 2017, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting all of the allegations 
except subparagraph 1.b. He requested a hearing, whereupon the case was assigned to 
me on March 15, 2018. On May 7, 2018, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
 
2 
 
issued a notice of hearing, scheduling Applicant’s case for June 4, 2018. The hearing was 
held as scheduled. I received three Government exhibits (GE 1 – GE 3) and two Applicant 
exhibits (AE A - AE B). At the close of the hearing, I left the record open until July 2, 2018, 
for Applicant to submit additional documents. He did not submit any additional evidence. 
The transcript (Tr.) was received on June 4, 2018. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is a 29-year old single man with one child, a toddler, with whom he shares 
custody with the mother. Applicant is a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, enlisting in 2007 
and serving through his honorable discharge in 2015. While enlisted, he served in a 
combat theater from October 2009 through the summer of 2010.  He is currently working 
on an undergraduate degree in business management and cyber security. He has been 
working in the defense contracting industry since leaving the Marine Corps. (GE 1 at 12) 
He works in the field of communications. (Tr. 15) He has held a security clearance since 
2006. (Tr. 19)  
 
 While in the Marines, Applicant financially overextended himself helping family 
members, particularly his aunt and her mentally handicapped son. (Tr. 33) His financial 
problems were exacerbated by a ten-month unemployment period after he was discharged 
from the Marines. (Tr. 19) By the date of the SOR, Applicant had incurred approximately 
$12,500 of delinquent debt.  
 
 SOR subparagraph 1.a, totaling $5,285, is a debt owed to a credit union. Applicant 
contends that he has reduced this delinquency by approximately $1,580 through $100 
monthly payments, beginning in June 2017. He provided no documentary, substantiating 
evidence. Similarly, he provided no documentary evidence substantiating that he had 
satisfied subparagraph 1.c, totaling $572. 
 
 Applicant denies subparagraph 1.b, totaling $1,056, but provided no evidence 
setting forth the basis of his denial, or documenting any steps taken to resolve the issue. 
Applicant contends that he will begin satisfying subparagraph 1.d, totaling approximately 
$5,000, once he finishes satisfying subparagraph 1.a.   
 
 Applicant maintains a budget. He started a new job less than a month before the 
hearing. His salary is $87,000 annually, an amount $26,000 per year higher than his 
previous job. He is depositing the increased salary into his 401(k) account each pay period. 
(Tr. 22) 
 
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 
3 
 
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. 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. 
 
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. 
 
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 
that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. 
Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, 
rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of Executive 
Order 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.” See also EO 
12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive 
information). 
 
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(a).1  
                                                 
1 The factors under AG ¶ 2(a) 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 
 
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 or sensitive information.  
 
Applicant’s ongoing financial problems trigger the application of AG ¶ 19(a), “inability to 
satisfy debt,” 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;  
 
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;  
 
AG ¶ 20(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to 
repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and 
 
AG ¶ 20(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.  
 
 Applicant’s financial problems did not occur as the result of foolish or irresponsible 
spending. Instead, his financial problems began when he overextended himself trying to 
help extended family members, and they were further exacerbated when he was 
unemployed for ten months after leaving the Marines. The first prong of AG ¶ 20(b), “the 
conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . 
.” is applicable. 
 
 Applicant demonstrated staunch commitment to family and country by helping 
relatives in need, and serving honorably in the Marines. Nevertheless, he still has the 
burden of proof to produce evidence that he has mitigated the security concern, such as 
5 
 
receipts of satisfied debts or ongoing payments. The evidence that he produced at the 
hearing did not meet this threshold, and he did not take advantage of the opportunity 
provided when I extended the record to submit additional evidence. Under these 
conditions, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that the second prong of AG ¶ 20(b), 
or any of the remaining mitigating conditions apply.  
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 I evaluated the whole-person factors in my analysis of the disqualifying and 
mitigating conditions under the financial considerations guideline. I conclude that Applicant 
has failed to carry the burden. 
 
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.d:   Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a 
security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Marc E. Curry 
 Administrative Judge