1 
 
                                                            
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )   ISCR Case No. 17-04220 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Erin P. Thompson, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
08/29/2018 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge: 
 
This case invokes security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial 
Considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on October 20, 2016. 
(Item 3.) On January 4, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications 
Facility (DOD CAF) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns 
under Guideline F. (Item 1.) The DOD CAF acted 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 (AG) 
implemented by the DOD on June 8, 2017. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR on April 26, 2018 (Answer), and requested a decision 
on the record without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written 
case on May 15, 2018. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was sent 
to Applicant, including documents identified as Items 1 through 8. He was given an 
opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the 
 
2 
 
Government’s evidence. He received the FORM on May 29, 2018, and responded to the 
FORM in a timely manner. The case was assigned to me on August 22, 2018. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant, age 36, is single and has one minor child. He graduated from high 
school in 2000, and received an undergraduate degree in 2004. He has been employed 
with his current employer since June 2005. He completed a security clearance application 
on October 20, 2016. He has held a security clearance since 2006. (Item 3) 
 
The Statement of Reasons (SOR) sets forth security concerns under Guideline F 
(Financial Considerations). It lists eighteen unpaid debts, including student loans, child 
support arrears, charged-off auto loan, collection accounts, and a judgment totaling about 
$118,000. Applicant admits to all allegations. He stated that his wages are being 
garnished for child support. (Item3) 
 
Applicant disclosed his financial problems on his SCA. In late 2014, he loaned a 
friend money for doctor and lawyer bills, but was never repaid. He took out several pay-
day loans. The pay-day loans were automatically deducted from his wages and that 
started a cycle of debt. He used credit cards to pay his bills. He never had sufficient funds 
to pay his bills. His car was repossessed. In his SCA, he stated that he tried to use a 
credit counseling service, but he did not have the money for the monthly fee. (Item 4). 
 
In 2016, Applicant’s financial problems were exacerbated when he was court 
ordered to pay child support for his child who was born in 2014. His wages were 
garnished. He and his girlfriend had an informal agreement and he paid money to the 
mother of the child since the child was born, but later she claimed that was not true. He 
disclosed this to his FSO and on his SCA. (Items 3 and 8) 
 
Applicant told the investigator during his 2017 subject interview that he regrets his 
poor financial decisions that led to these issues. He intends to pay his debts. He confirmed 
that he would file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. (Item 4) He noted that he did not have 
the money for the retainer fee. He also disclosed on his 2016 SCA that he would file for 
bankruptcy. 
 
 At the end of June 2018, Applicant responded to the FORM stating that he had 
retained a bankruptcy attorney. He added that they were in the process of gathering the 
necessary paperwork to file.  
 
Applicant’s monthly gross pay is about $6,000. His child support is $1,200 a month; 
student loan garnishment is $43; and he has two loans from his employer that amount to 
about $400. He has a net monthly remainder of $530.  
 
  Policies 
 
 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 (AG) list 
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in 
evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility. 
 
 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s 
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The entire 
process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context 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, “Any 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. I have not drawn inferences based on mere speculation or 
conjecture.  
 
 Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to 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 seeks access to classified information enters into 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 national security eligibility. 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 or 
sensitive information. Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of EO 10865, “Any 
determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination 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 concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 18: 
 
 
4 
 
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 . . . .  
 
 This concern is broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly 
compromise classified information to raise money. It encompasses concerns about a 
person’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified 
information. A person who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, 
unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. See ISCR 
Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012). 
 
 Applicant’s admissions, corroborated by his credit reports, establish two 
disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability to satisfy debts”), and  
AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”). 
 
 The security concerns raised in the SOR may be mitigated by any of the following 
potentially applicable factors: 
 
AG ¶ 20(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; 
 
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 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; and 
 
AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to 
repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
AG ¶ 20(a) is not established. Applicant’s delinquent debts remain unresolved. 
 
 
5 
 
AG ¶ 20(b) is not established. While Applicant loaned money to a friend, he did not 
receive any of his money. He took out pay-day loans to help his friend. It may have been 
a condition beyond his control that he was not repaid, but he did not act responsibly. He 
borrowed money and put himself in debt to give money to a friend. This was not good 
judgment. 
 
AG ¶ 20(c) and 20(d) are not established. Applicant presented no documentary 
evidence of progress in resolving his debts or that his intention to file Chapter 13 
bankruptcy since 2016 has actually occurred. He tried to consolidate his debts but did not 
have sufficient income. While filing for bankruptcy is a legitimate means to resolve his 
debts, he has promised to do so since 2016 and reaffirmed the intention during his 2017 
interview. He responded to the FORM with the name of a bankruptcy attorney, but 
provided no filing date. They were still gathering paperwork. He has not provided sufficient 
documentation concerning the bankruptcy. His wages are garnished for child support, but 
that is only one part of this financial picture. His financial problems are not under control., 
and he has not established good-faith efforts to resolve his debts.  
 
Applicant failed to meet his burden to mitigate the financial concerns set out in the 
SOR. For these reasons, I find SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.r. against Applicant. 
 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether the granting or continuing 
of national security eligibility is clearly consistent with the interests of national security 
must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
applicable guidelines, each of which is to be evaluated in the context of the whole person. 
An 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. 
 
 I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis, 
and I have considered the factors in AG ¶ 2(d). After weighing the disqualifying and 
mitigating conditions under Guideline F and evaluating the scant evidence he provided in 
the context of the whole person, I conclude that Applicant has not mitigated the security 
concerns raised by his financial indebtedness. He intends to use bankruptcy to resolve 
his debts, but he has had that intention since 2016; the Chapter 13 is still not filed. 
Accordingly, Applicant has not carried his burden of showing that it is clearly consistent 
with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
6 
 
 
     Formal Findings 
 
I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a-r:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
     Conclusion 
 
I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant 
Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is denied. 
 
 
 
 
Noreen A. Lynch 
Administrative Judge