1 
 
                                
                       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
    
           
             
 
                            
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 18-02158 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Andrew Henderson, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
May 22, 2019 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on December 20, 2017. 
(Item 2.) On September 12, 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 September 25, 2018 (Answer), and requested a 
decision on the record without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the 
Government’s written case on October 18, 2018. Soon thereafter, 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 on 
October 29, 2018, and on November 8, 2018, submitted a Response. Items 1 through 6, 
and Applicant’s Response are admitted into evidence. The case was assigned to me on 
February 6, 2019. 
 
2 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant, age 56, is divorced. (Item 2 at page 7, and Response at page 4.) He 
attributes his financial difficulties to a 2013 divorce, which resulted in the loss of his former 
spouse’s income. (Answer at page 1, and Response at page 1.) In his Answer Applicant 
admitted all five of the alleged past-due debts. 
 
Guideline F - Financial Considerations 
 
 1.a. Applicant admits a “short sale” of his house, which had a loan balance of about 
$850,000, for $795,000. (Answer at page 1, and Response at pages 1 and 3.) As he has 
offered nothing further as to the $55,000 delinquency, this allegation is found against 
Applicant. 
 
 1.b. Applicant admits a charged-off “home equity line” debt in the amount of about 
$97,000. (Answer at page 1.) As he has offered nothing further as to this admitted 
delinquency, this allegation is also found against Applicant. 
 
 1.c.~1.e. Applicant admits three additional past-due debts totaling in excess of 
$714. As he has offered nothing further as to these admitted delinquencies, these 
allegations are found against Applicant. 
   
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.  
 
 
3 
 
 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 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: 
 
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”).  
 
4 
 
 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. 
 
AG ¶ 20(b) is not established. While Applicant’s divorce and loss of his former 
spouse’s income were conditions beyond his control, he has not acted responsibly to 
address the resulting debts. 
 
AG ¶ 20(c) and 20(d) are not established. Applicant’s Response to the FORM does 
not demonstrate his efforts to resolve his delinquencies. The record is silent as to his 
current ability to address his delinquent debts. His financial problems are not under 
control.  
 
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.e. 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 
 
5 
 
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, I conclude that has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his 
financial indebtedness. 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. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.e: Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to continue 
Applicant’s national security eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is 
denied. 
 
 
 
 
Richard A. Cefola 
Administrative Judge