DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 )       ISCR Case No. 18-01126
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Andrew H. Henderson,  Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On May 11, 2018, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations). The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG), implemented in June 2017. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested an administrative
determination. Department Counsel submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM)
dated June 22, 2018.  Applicant received the FORM on July 13, 2019. He did not1
submit an additional response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on October
11, 2018. Based on a review of the case file, submissions, and exhibits, eligibility for
access to classified information is denied.
The Government submitted five items for the record.      1
1
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations in the SOR (1.a-1.o)
under Guideline F, without explanation.
Applicant is 53 years old. He obtained his high school diploma in 1984. He never
married, but has two children from a significant relationship. He has worked for his
current employer since 2017. He reports no military service. Applicant has not held a
security clearance. He completed his security clearance application (SCA) in 2018.
(Item 2)
The SOR alleges that Applicant has 15 delinquent consumer debts, which total
about $103,000.  (Items 3, 4, and 5) The delinquent accounts are either charged off or
in collection. He disclosed the delinquent debts in his 2018 security clearance
application. (Item 2)
During his November 2017 investigative interview, Applicant explained that he
was unemployed from April 2016 to April 2017 recovering from injuries. (Item 3) He
supported himself with disability benefits. He told the investigator that he had no
information or documentation concerning the accounts that are delinquent. He is trying
to resolve his debts and is in the process of building his savings to start payment plans.
He stated that the debt was an isolated event and he has no intention to incur
delinquent debts in the future. (Item 3)
Applicant volunteered during that interview that some of these delinquent
accounts are from 2011. He stated that the accounts became delinquent in 2014 as a
result of financial hardship due to medical bills, funeral bills, home improvement, and
automobile repairs. (Item 3) In his SCA, Applicant disclosed that he had many credit
card bills to pay, but his earnings did not allow for him to pay the bills. (Item 2) He
further explained that he would look for a financial advisor to help him consolidate his
debt so that he could pay on an affordable monthly basis.
Applicant did not submit any documentation to support any mitigation for the
SOR debts. He did not submit a response to the FORM. There is no information in the
record as to how Applicant developed the debts or a nexus between the unemployment
and the substantial delinquencies. Some debts predate the unemployment. He offered
no real plan as to how he would address the delinquent debts. Applicant did not meet
his burden of proof in this case to mitigate the security concerns under the financial
considerations guideline.
   Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
2
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible
rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(a), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables
known as the “whole-person concept.” An 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. 
The U.S. Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts
alleged in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a2
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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 classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of 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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
3
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a7
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern 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 judgement, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
questions about an individuals’ reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to
protect classified or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be
caused or exacerbated by, and thus be a possible indicator of, other
issues of personnel security concerns such as excessive gambling,
mental health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or
dependence. An individual who is financially overextended is at a 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 Government provided credible evidence that Applicant has 15 delinquent
consumer debts which total about $103,00. Consequently, Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a), (b), and (c), and apply. With such
conditions raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against him and mitigate
security concerns.  
 Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) 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) does not apply. Applicant provided no information
that would allow this MC. There is no explanation from Applicant concerning the
delinquent debt. None of the mitigating conditions apply in this case.
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 an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d): 
 Id.      7
4
(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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors.
Applicant is 53 years old. He has worked for his current employer since 2017. He did
not provide sufficient evidence as to how he acquired the delinquent debts or how he
will address them. A promise to pay in the future is not sufficient mitigation.  
He has not met his burden of proof in this case. I have doubts about his
judgment and reliability. Any doubts must be resolved in favor of the Government.
Applicant failed to meet his burden in this case. He did not mitigate the security
concerns under the financial considerations guideline.
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.o: Against Applicant
 Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is  not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH
Administrative Judge
5
6