KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant incurred approximately $14,850 in delinquent debt, for which he has no
payment plan in place. He also has two state tax liens totaling approximately $3,000. He has failed
to mitigate the security concerns raised under financial considerations guideline. Applicant’s
eligibility for a security clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-12830.h1
DATE: 04/11/2007
DATE:  April 11, 2007
In re:
-----------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-12830
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
NOREEN A. LYNCH
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Stephanie C. Hess, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant incurred approximately $14,850 in delinquent debt, for which he has no payment
plan in place. He also has two state tax liens totaling approximately $3,000. He has failed to mitigate
the security concerns raised under financial considerations guideline. Applicant's eligibility for a
security clearance is denied.
This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive1
5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified (Directive).
The government submitted six items in support of its contentions.2
I ordered department counsel to provide affirmative evidence that Applicant received the revised guidelines.3
Applicant did receive the revised guidelines and submitted an additional response to the FORM on April 2, 2007.
Department Counsel did not object.
Item 3 (Applicant’s Answer to SOR, dated November 28, 2006) at 1-2.4
Item 4 (Application for Security Clearance (SF 86), dated May 5, 2005) at 1-8.5
 Id.6
Item 3, supra note 3, at 1-2.7
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On October 26, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) stating that it was unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue a security clearance.  The SOR, which is in essence the1
administrative complaint, alleged security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued on December 29, 2005, and implemented by the
Department of Defense effective September 1, 2006. The revised guidelines were provided to
Applicant when the SOR was issued.
On November 28, 2006, Applicant submitted a notarized response to the SOR, and elected
to have his case decided on the record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the
government’s written case on January 24, 2007. Applicant received a complete file of relevant
material (FORM) on January 31, 2007, and was provided the opportunity to file objections and
submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the government’s case.  The case was assigned to2
me on March 22, 2007. Applicant submitted additional information on April 2, 2007.  3
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted all allegations in his SOR response under Guideline F.  The admissions4
are incorporated as findings of fact. After a complete review of the evidence in the record and upon
due consideration, I make the following additional findings of fact:
Applicant is a 43-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He served in the United States
Marine Corps (USMC) from 1986 until 2002. Prior to his active duty, he served in the Marine Corps
Reserve. He received an honorable discharge in July 2002. He maintained a security clearance for
the last ten years of his career. He has worked for his current employer since June 2004. He is
married.   On May 3, 2005, he completed his security clearance (SF 86) application.5 6
Applicant’s seven debts in the SOR total approximately $14,850. The debts in the SOR are
not in dispute.  Two state tax liens are also included totaling more than $3,000. Applicant offered7
Item 6 (Credit Bureau Report, dated January 4, 2007) at 1-2.8
Item 5 (Interrogatories, Answers and Attachments, dated September 11, 2006) at 1-9.9
Id.10
Id.11
Additional Response to Form, dated April 2, 2007 at 1-2.12
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  13
4
no explanation for these debts. Multiple accounts were charged off or placed for collection. Several
of the debts have been in collection since 1998.  8
Applicant has not made any payments on the delinquent accounts.  However, he is paying
on a $2,000 federal tax debt on a monthly basis.  This does not appear on the SOR. Applicant9
provided no evidence of any mitigating conditions involving medical problems or other extenuating
circumstances.  10
Applicant’s monthly net income is $3,421.83. He has monthly expenses of $3,052. He
currently pays $100 a month to the IRS for his debt. Applicant listed a monthly payment to a
furniture company of $254. His monthly net remainder is $15.83. He lists no assets.11
Applicant provided no information concerning his work record. However, he received
various awards while in the military. He affirms his sense of duty for work and his country. He is
sincere in his belief that he should be financially responsible.12
.
POLICIES
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.”   In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding13
Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), the President set out guidelines and
procedures for safeguarding classified information and determining trustworthiness within the
executive branch. 
To be eligible for a security clearance or access to sensitive information, an applicant must
meet the security guidelines contained in the Directive.  The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth
potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline.
Additionally, each security decision must be a fair and impartial commonsense decision based on the
relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole-person concept, along with the adjudicative
process factors listed in ¶ 6.3 of the Directive, and AG ¶ 2(a).
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.14
 Id.15
 Id.16
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.17
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.15.18
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. December 19, 2002).19
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.20
AG ¶ 18.21
5
“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make
an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance.”    An administrative14
judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the available, reliable
information about the person.   An administrative judge should consider the following factors: (1)15
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 voluntariness of participation; (6) the
presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent 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.   16
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in the SOR that
disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information.17
Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate the facts.  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent18
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”  Any doubt as to whether19
access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor
of the national security.  The same rules apply to trustworthiness determinations for access to20
sensitive positions.
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards. The government
has established a prima facie case for disqualification under Guideline F of the revised Adjudicative
Guidelines (AG) most pertinent to the evaluation of the facts in this case.
 
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) The Concern: Failure or inability 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 information. An individual who
is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.21
6
In this matter, the government provided substantial evidence that Applicant accrued seven
delinquent debts with an approximate total balance of $14,850, and has 2 tax liens amounting to
$3,000. He admits they are still outstanding debts. His 2007 credit report confirms the debt.
Consequently, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶19(a), (inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts) and FC DC ¶19 (c), (a history of not meeting financial obligations)
apply. 
With the government’s case established, the burden shifts to Applicant to present evidence of
refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against him. I considered the 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). It does not apply because
he still carries a significant amount of delinquent debt. One collection account is from 2001. Despite
steady employment, he has not made any payments on these debts. 
Applicant  provides no evidence or explanation concerning any mitigating conditions to support
the FC MC AG ¶20 (b), (the conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person's
control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death,
divorce, or separation) and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstance).
FC MC AG ¶20 (c) (The person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/
or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or under control) does not apply. This
recent endeavor in 2007 to contact two creditors does not mitigate years of ignoring the debt. Also, he
indicated he will pay $50 a month to one credit company. A promise to take action in the future is not
sufficient to mitigate the financial considerations concern. All of the debts remain outstanding. He has
no structured plan to resolve these debts. Applicant's financial problems remain.  It is unlikely they will
be resolved in the near future.
FC MC ¶20(d) (The individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts) is not applicable. Applicant has not shown that he established a record of
steady payments or financial stability. He made no attempts to resolve the majority of the delinquent
accounts. His recent $50 payment to one creditor after receiving the SOR is not sufficient to conclude.
that he made a good-faith effort to resolve his debts despite his intentions to do so in the future. 
The issue before me is not whether Applicant is still legally liable for any or all of his
outstanding debts, but whether he has presented sufficient evidence of extenuation, mitigating or
changed circumstances to warrant a favorable security determination. His remaining unpaid debt
constitutes a security concern.  He has been employed with his current employer since June 2004. He
lists other income on his personal financial statement which is presumably his retirement income. His
very low net monthly remainder does raise a doubt about his ability to resolve his outstanding debt.
Applicant has not mitigated the government’s concerns under Guideline F.
Whole Person
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The
objective of the trustworthy determination process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a
person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for assignment to sensitive
7
duties. Indeed, the adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a number of variables in considering
the “whole person” concept. It recognizes that we should view a person by the totality of their acts,
omissions, motivations and other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits, taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful
analysis.
I have considered all the evidence and the “whole person” in evaluating Applicant’s security
clearance determination. He has an Honorable Discharge from the USMC and has various awards.
Even an applicant with a good or even exemplary work history may engage in conduct that has
negative implications or presents doubt about his judgment. Despite steady employment, Applicant
has accrued multiple delinquent accounts. It is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
Applicant a security clearance. Clearance is denied.
.
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
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with national interest to grant Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Clearance is
denied.
8
Noreen A. Lynch
Administrative Judge