KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant mitigated financial security concerns relating to delinquent debts and his
Chapter 13 bankruptcy discharged in 2000. He was in bankruptcy process since 1997, and incurred
additional debt that became delinquent during a one year period of unemployment in 2002 after the
bankruptcy was completed. Clearance is granted. 
CASENO: 06-17919.h1
DATE: 03/30/2007
DATE:  March 30, 2007
In Re:
----------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-17919
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CHARLES D. ABLARD
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant mitigated financial security concerns relating to delinquent debts and his Chapter
13 bankruptcy discharged in 2000. He was in bankruptcy process since 1997, and incurred additional
2
debt that became delinquent during a one year period of unemployment in 2002 after the bankruptcy
was completed. Clearance is granted. 
STATEMENT OF CASE
On August 29, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, as amended and
modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the
preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. DOHA recommended the case be
referred to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued,
denied, or revoked.
On November 6, 2006, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations and requested a hearing.
The case was assigned to me on January 8, 2007. A notice of hearing was issued on January 10,
2007, for a hearing on January 26, 2007, and held that day. The government offered in evidence six
exhibits and Applicant offered seven. All were admitted. The transcript was received on February
5, 2007. The record was left open until March 2,2007, for the submission of additional materials.
Two post-hearing submissions were received and admitted without objection. The first consisted of
seven items and the second of three. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the specifics of all of the SOR allegations relating to bankruptcy and eight
delinquent debts of almost $10,000. After a complete review of the record, I make the following
additional findings of fact:
Applicant is a 45-year-old employee of a defense contractor where he has been employed
since December 2004 as a security guard. In 1997 he filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy and after a
number of payments under a plan for $9,000 in debts, his bankruptcy was converted to Chapter 7 in
April 1999, and discharged in March 2000 (Exh. F). Since then he was unemployed for almost a year
in 2002 during which time other debts accumulated and became delinquent leading to this matter.
Applicant was divorced in 2002 and remarried in 2003. His annual salary is $26,000 and his
wife’s is $35,000. They work for the same government contractor. He has four children two of whom
are adults by his first wife and two small children by his second wife. 
The following is an analysis of the delinquent debts alleged in the SOR and their current
status:
3
1. Par. 1.a.: Bankruptcy filed in 1997 and discharged in 2000. 
2. Par. 1.b: Tax lien for $167 filed in 1998. Exh. B indicates that there is no outstanding tax
lien. 
3. Par. 1.c.: Credit card debt of $1,823. Payments of $60 per month made over a year
reducing debt to $800 (Exh. G and Exhs. B and C of Second Post-Hearing Submission). 
4. Par. 1.d.:Card debt for $4,021. Settled for less and payments made of $50 per month (Exh.
E). 
5. Par. 1.e.:Credit card debt of $1,883. Applicant erroneously believed it was included in
bankruptcy but is now paid under a settlement agreement (Exhs. B and C. of Second Post
Hearing Submission). 
6. Par. 1.f.: Credit card debt of $1,089. Government stipulated debt has been paid (Exh. C).
7. Par. 1.g.:Credit card debt of $628. Paid in full (Exh. D). 
8. Par. 1.h.:Account for $56 dental bill and government stipulated that it had been paid (Tr.
50).
Applicant is well regarded by his company for his work as a well-motivated, competent
performer who meets objectives (Exhs. F, Second Post Hearing Submission). He is active in his
church and tithes regularly. He wife and he have a budget plan to which they adhere. He does not
now have a credit card. He and his wife have rental payments with a housing facility that bases the
payments on their income. He has modest auto payments. He recently received a $5,000 tax refund
which permits him to settle in full the remaining accounts on which he is making payment. 
Applicant served on active duty with the Army for ten years and was discharged as an E 5.
He hoped to stay in the Army but was discharged for unsatisfactory performance. 
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 occupy a position that will give that person access to such information.” Id. at 527.
An evaluation of whether the applicant meets the security guidelines includes consideration
of the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances
surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and
maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence
of rehabilitation and other 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.
4
Directive, ¶ E2.2.1. Security clearances are granted only when “it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to do so.” Executive Order No. 10865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).
Initially, the Government must establish, by something less than a preponderance of the
evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or professional history of the applicant which
disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information
See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The applicant then bears the burden of demonstrating it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance. “Any doubt as to
whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved
in favor of the national security.” Directive, ¶ E2.2.2. “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.
CONCLUSIONS
Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate
adjudicative factors, I conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR:
Applicant’s delinquent debts prompted the allegation of security concerns under Guideline
F since an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds. (E2.A6.1.1.) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying
include a history of not meeting financial obligations (E2.A6.1.2.1.), and evidence of inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts. (E2.A6.1.2.3.) Mitigating Conditions (MC) might include the fact that
the person has initiated a good faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.
(E2.A6.1.3.6.)
While Applicant had one bankruptcy that was discharged seven years ago, he incurred other
debts because of his unemployment. He now has changed his practices regarding budgeting and does
not use credit cards, which led to his recent problems. He is a responsible family man. 
Mitigating conditions apply since the problems have now been resolved to the satisfaction
of nearly all the creditors with the ability to resolve those that remain through payment programs in
effect. An applicant is not required to prove that all delinquent debts are resolved to be granted a
security clearance, but only that efforts be made to resolve the debts and to show that the matters are
being diligently pursued with an ability to resolve them. From the documentation submitted by
Applicant, I have no difficulty in making that determination. 
In all adjudications the protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Persons
who have access to classified information have an overriding responsibility for the security concerns
of the nation. The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense
assessment of a person’s trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information. 
After considering all the evidence in its totality, I conclude that a security clearance should
be granted.
5
FORMAL FINDINGS 
Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows:
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h.: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or renew a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is granted.
Charles D. Ablard 
Administrative Judge