1 
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
 DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
) ISCR Case No. 18-00593 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Mary M. Foreman, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
Gregg A. Cervi, Administrative Judge 
This case involves 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 22, 2016. On 
March 14, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD 
CAF) sent him a statement of reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline 
F.1 Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing.
The case was assigned to me on June 18, 2018. The Defense Office of Hearings 
and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on August 1, 2018, scheduling the 
1 The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; and DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel 
Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive). The Adjudicative 
Guidelines (AG) were revised effective June 8, 2017, and apply herein. 
01/28/2019
 
2 
 
hearing for August 30, 2018. The hearing was convened as scheduled. Government 
Exhibits (GE) 1 through 4 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified, 
and Applicant Exhibit (AE) A was admitted without objection. DOHA received the hearing 
transcript (Tr.) on September 10, 2018. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant is a 41-year-old technician, employed full time by a defense contractor 
since September 2016, and part time as a student intern from August 2015 to September 
2016. He was unemployed from 2008 to 2015. He received a bachelor’s degree in 2016. 
He married in 1998 and divorced in 2000; again in 2004 and divorced in 2012; and finally 
remarried in 2017. He has four children and two stepchildren. He served on active duty 
in the U.S. Air Force from 1995 to 1999 and from 2000 to 2005. He was honorably 
discharged both times.  Applicant held a security clearance while in the military. 
 
The SOR alleges Applicant is delinquent on child support, education loans, and a 
medical account totaling approximately $64,000. The SOR allegations are supported by 
substantial evidence. Applicant admitted the SOR allegations. 
 
Applicant’s financial problems began when his second spouse divorced him. He 
was a full-time student and was not working. From 2012 to 2016, Applicant made no 
payments for child support. He restarted payments in 2017 via a garnishment from his 
paycheck. He believes he still owes about $39,000. (SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b) 
 
Applicant owes about $17,000 plus interest in unpaid student loans. He believes 
they are now in default. Applicant has insufficient income to pay his student loans. He has 
not contacted the government creditor to arrange a repayment plan. (SOR ¶¶ 1.c to 1.e.) 
 
Applicant owes approximately $782 on a medical bill incurred while he was a 
student. He paid about half of the debt before stopping payments in 2014 because of 
insufficient income. (SOR ¶ 1.e) 
 
Applicant admitted that he lives paycheck to paycheck, and has no net remainder 
after paying monthly expenses. He and his spouse owe on credit cards, rental 
agreements, and vehicle loans, one of which is a title loan. He describes himself as 
incredibly lazy when it comes to financial matters and paying bills. He has not sought 
financial counseling. 
 
Law and Policies 
 
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 
484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to 
“control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an 
individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The 
President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants 
eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly 
 
3 
 
consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 2. 
 
National security eligibility is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria 
contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. 
Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies 
these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative 
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An 
administrative judge must consider a person’s stability, trustworthiness, reliability, 
discretion, character, honesty, and judgment. AG ¶ 1(b). 
 
The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with 
access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and 
endures throughout off-duty hours. 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. 
 
Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in 
no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865  
§ 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant 
has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have 
established for issuing a clearance. 
 
Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the 
personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from 
being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of 
establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. “Substantial 
evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington 
Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a 
nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed 
therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 12-01295 at 3 
(App. Bd. Jan. 20, 2015). 
 
Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial 
evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the 
facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, 
and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 
02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). 
 
An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent 
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01- 
20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if 
they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see, AG ¶ 1(d). 
 
 
 
4 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
The security 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. . . .  
 
The relevant disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 include: 
 
(a) inability to satisfy debts; and 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
Applicant’s admissions and the documentary evidence in the record supporting the 
SOR allegations are sufficient to establish the disqualifying conditions above. 
 
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially relevant: 
 
(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; 
 
(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; 
 
(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; 
 
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and 
 
(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. 
 
5 
 
Applicant has a history of inability to pay debts owed. Although he has been 
working full-time with his current employer since 2016, he has not shown a willingness or 
financial ability to address delinquent debts, except for involuntary garnishment payments 
for his child support arrearage. He allowed his childsupport obligations to default over a 
number of years, and has only begun to address them through a garnishment. Although 
it is being resolved now, Applicant’s lack of financial responsibility with regard to this debt 
in particular, is concerning. He showed an inability or unwillingness to engage his student 
loan and medical debt creditors, and described himself as incredibly lazy with financial 
matters. He has not sought financial counseling, and has not disputed his debts or the 
amounts owed. 
 
Overall, I find that Applicant has continued his long-standing financial 
irresponsibility, and has not adequately addressed his delinquent debts and showed 
financial responsibility expected of security clearance applicants. I find that his financial 
status is not under control and that similar problems are likely to recur. No mitigating 
conditions fully apply. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under AG ¶¶ 2(a), 2(c), and 2(d), the ultimate determination of whether to grant 
national security eligibility must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the 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 the applicant’s conduct and all relevant 
circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process 
factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d).2 Although adverse information concerning a single criterion 
may not be sufficient for an unfavorable eligibility determination, the individual may be 
found ineligible if available information reflects a recent or recurring pattern of 
questionable judgment, irresponsibility, or unstable behavior. AG ¶ 2(e). 
 
I considered all of the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of 
all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my findings of 
fact and comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis. Applicant’s military 
service and difficulties with personal relationships do not overcome his history of financial 
irresponsibility. 
 
Accordingly, I conclude Applicant has not carried his burden of showing that it is 
clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to grant him 
eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
                                                     
2 (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. 
 
6 
 
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 to 1.e:     Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national security interests of the 
United States to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance 
is denied. 
 
 
_______________________ 
Gregg A. Cervi 
Administrative Judge