1 
 
                                                            
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )   ISCR Case No. 18-00338 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
_________ 
 
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 June 30, 2016. 
(Item 3.) On February 15, 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 March 16, 2018 (Answer), and requested a 
decision on the record without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the 
Government’s written case on April 2, 2018. On April 16, 2018, a complete copy of the 
file of relevant material (FORM) was sent to Applicant, including documents identified as 
Items 1 through 6. He was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material to 
refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s evidence. He received the FORM, but did 
 
2 
 
not send submissions to supplement the record. The case was assigned to me on July 
26, 2018. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant, age 57, is divorced and remarried with one child. He graduated from 
high school in 1978, and attended college courses, but he did not obtain a degree. 
Applicant served in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) on active duty from 1979 to 
1983, receiving an honorable discharge. He has worked in the field of engineering for 
various contractors for a number of years. Applicant has held a security clearance since 
1986. He has worked for his current employer since 2016. (Item 3)  
 
The SOR alleges that Applicant is indebted on a real estate mortgage account in 
foreclosure with a past-due amount of $21,684, with an approximate total loan balance of 
$207,008. (1.a) The SOR continues with 14 delinquent accounts totaling about $116,000. 
He admits the delinquent debts and provides explanations. (Item 2) 
 
Applicant attributes the delinquent debt to a loss of employment. Prior to 2014, he 
and his wife had a combined income of $180,000. His wife lost her job in 2016 and is now 
drawing social security disability in the amount of $24,000 a year. In addition to the loss 
of income, Applicant refers to the business downturn in 2010 in the real estate market. 
He believes his property is impossible to sell and has almost $60,000 negative equity. 
The third reason for the financial issues are identity theft. He referred to a police report in 
2016, but did not provide any documentation. 
 
Applicant’s answer to the SOR speaks generally to the fact that he has contacted 
the creditors as recently as March 2018 to discuss settlement options. In some cases he 
expects a settlement. He also mentions a repayment schedule for one account.  Applicant 
emphasized that he has been addressing SOR allegation 1.a through 1.j only. He notes 
it is very time consuming and he intends in the upcoming weeks to contact the remaining 
creditors to work with them. (SOR 1.k through 1.o) 
 
As to SOR 1.a, Applicant submitted a document from the mortgage lender from 
February 2018, showing he started the process of getting a home loan modification. There 
is no proof that it has been approved or that Applicant is capable of executing any new 
mortgage account.  In his recent investigative interview, Applicant noted that finances are 
tight. (Item 4)The record is devoid of documentary evidence to show that he made efforts 
to sell or rent or refinance the home once the problem started. 
 
Applicant has not provided any documentary evidence showing that he has paid, 
is on a current payment plan, or that he is not responsible for or disputed or otherwise 
resolved any delinquent debts. He stated he has every intention to address and resolve 
his debts. 
 
Applicant submitted three letters of reference. The letters are from civilian 
managers. Each letter praises Applicant ‘s integrity and dedication to work and family. He 
 
3 
 
is an integral part of the team.  His position requires a level of expertise and trust that is 
difficult to find.  
Policies 
 
 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 (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.) 
 
 
 
4 
 
      Analysis 
 
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) 
 
The concern under this guideline 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 . . . .  
 
 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 and credit reports reflect delinquent debts. This establishes 
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 
 
 
5 
 
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 home loan account and other delinquent 
debts are still unresolved. There is no evidence that he has resolved any delinquent debts. 
 
AG ¶ 20(b) is partially established. Applicant’s wife’s unemployment, move to 
another state, real estate downturn, and possible identity theft were beyond his control. 
However, he has not produced any information that he has acted responsibly under the 
situation. He has started to contact creditors to seek settlement. He wants to pay his 
debts, but a promise to pay in the future is not sufficient.   
 
AG ¶ 20(c) and 20(d) are not established. Applicant did not respond to the FORM 
to demonstrate the efforts that have been made to start settlements or a home 
refinancing.  The record is silent as to any financial counseling.  
 
Applicant has not met his burden to mitigate the financial concerns set out in the 
SOR. For these reasons, I find SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.o. 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 all the evidence in the context of 
the whole person, including Applicant’s many years of  military service and letters of 
recommendation and his wife’s unemployment, I conclude that Applicant has not 
mitigated the security concern. 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 – 1.o: Against Applicant 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to continue 
Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is denied. 
 
 
 
 
Noreen A. Lynch 
Administrative Judge