KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant is 52 years old and has been employed as a logistics technician for a defense
contractor since June 2004. She has two outstanding federal tax liens totaling $11,121. There is an
outstanding delinquent debt to a hospital for a $3,482. She proffered evidence of payment of these
debts. Applicant has mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 06-17707.h1
DATE: 05/31/2007
DATE:  May 31, 2007
In re:
---------------------  
SSN:  ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-17707
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JACQUELINE T. WILLIAMS
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Emilio Jaksetic, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant is 52 years old and has been employed as a logistics technician for a defense
contractor since June 2004. She has two outstanding federal tax liens totaling $11,121. There is an
2
outstanding delinquent debt to a hospital for a $3,482. She proffered evidence of payment of these
debts. Applicant has mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is granted.
Ex. 1 (Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing, dated August 15, 2005).1
Pursuant to Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as2
amended, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program  (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive).
Ex. E (Letter from Applicant, dated March 27, 2007); Ex. F (Payment Statement); Ex. G (Hospital payment);3
Ex. H (Hospital payment); Ex. I (Copy of scheduled payment). 
Tr. 63.4
Tr. 27.5
3
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 15, 2005, Applicant executed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP).  On October 23, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)1
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)  detailing the basis for its decision–security concerns raised2
under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued
on December 29, 2005, and implemented by the Department of Defense for SORs issued after
September 1, 2006. The revised guidelines were provided to Applicant when the SOR was issued.
On December 21, 2006, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations and requested a hearing.
The case was assigned to me on February 21, 2007. A Notice of Hearing was issued on February 28,
2007, scheduling the hearing for March 14, 2007. The hearing was conducted as scheduled. At the
hearing, the Government submitted four exhibits (Exs. 1-4) and Applicant submitted four exhibits
(Exs. A-D), all of which were admitted into the record without objection. The record was left open
until March 28, 2007 to give Applicant time to submit additional documents. By memorandum dated
March 27, 2007, the Government forwarded five additional documents submitted by Applicant,
without objection. These documents were identified as Exs. E-I  and admitted. The transcript (Tr.)3
was received on March 27, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted all the factual allegations pertaining to financial considerations under
Guideline F cited in the SOR, subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d. Those admissions are incorporated
herein as findings of fact. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and
upon due consideration of same, I make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is 52 years old and has worked as a logistics technician for a defense contractor
since June 2004. She was married in June 1983 and divorced in May 2002. She has a grown adult
daughter, as well as an adult stepdaughter that Applicant raised from the age of six.  Applicant is a4
high school graduate and attended a community college from February 2003 to April 2003.  Her5
Tr. 30.6
Tr. 30.7
Bankruptcy Case No. 01-18010 (Case docket and list of creditors).8
Tr. 49-50.9
Tr. 33.10
Tr. 34.11
Tr. 38.12
Tr. 38; Ex. B (Letter from IRS re: installment agreement, dated January 5, 2007, and other related documents).13
She had been paying the IRS $32.50 through a payroll deduction.  See Ex. B, supra, at 2. 
Ex. B, supra, note 10, at 3-5.14
Tr. 39.15
Tr. 39.16
Tr. 54.17
4
annual salary is approximately $36,000.  In June 2006, she started a part-time job at a retail6
department store, and works one to two days a week, at a rate of $7 per hour.7
On June 20, 2001, Applicant filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, with total assets of $7,950 and total
liabilities of $52,701. This bankruptcy was discharged on October 1, 2001.  Prior to the bankruptcy,8
she did not have health insurance. She has severe asthma and was often in and out of the hospital.9
Her hospital bills accumulated, along with other debts, and led her to file bankruptcy.
In 2002, Applicant lost her full-time job that she had worked at for 12 years. A year of10
unemployment followed, which included unemployment insurance.  During this year, Applicant had11
asthma, sleep apnea, and was hospitalized for her extreme weight. She then had gastric bypass
surgery.
Applicant is indebted to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on a federal tax lien in the
approximate amount of $2,142 entered in about October 2002. There is another outstanding federal
tax lien owed to the IRS in the approximate amount of $8,979 entered in about October 2002.
Applicant has a payment agreement of $65 each month to pay off both liens.  However, she pays12
the IRS $50 each month through a payroll deduction.  Payroll deductions were made for the period13
ending January 31, 2007, February 15, 2007, and February 28, 2007.  These payments will continue14
until 2009.  In 2009, she will have finished paying off her car note of $300 a month. That $300 will15
then be paid to the IRS toward her tax debt.  She believes she currently owes between $7,000 and16
$8,000 to the IRS for the tax liens.17
In about November 2003, Applicant lost her job. Immediately thereafter, she was hospitalized
due to a severe asthma attack. She did not have any health insurance. Applicant is indebted to a
Ex. A (Information regarding debts state in the SOR), at 4-5.18
Ex. A, supra, note 4, at 5-6.19
Ex. A, supra, note 4, at 7. 20
Tr. 41-43.21
Exs. E-I, supra, note 2.22
Ex. C (Earnings and Leave Statements).23
Ex. C24
Tr. 68.25
Tr. 68-69.26
Tr. 69.27
5
hospital in the approximate amount of $3,482 on an account placed for collection. On November 6,
2006, Applicant received a letter from the hospital regarding her outstanding bill. The letter stated,
in part: “We believe that you may be eligible for financial assistance with your hospital bills through
a special program established by [the hospital].”  By letter dated March 12, 2007, the hospital18
informed her that based on her application for financial assistance, her application was approved for
a 75 percent reduction.  By letter dated March 13, 2007, the hospital informed her that she was19
“expected to pay the remaining balance of $1,063.89 at $50 per month starting March 13, 2007.20
On March 13, 2007, Applicant made a credit card payment to the hospital. Every month on the 9th
and 24th, a payment of $25 will be automatically deducted from her checking account and paid
directly to the hospital.  A payment was made on April 9, 2007.  The final payment is due on April21 22
24, 2008.
Although not an allegation in the SOR, Applicant proffered evidence that she has paid her
delinquent debt with the state through payroll deductions.  She paid approximately $319 until the23
debt of $1,201.96 was paid in full.24
Applicant’s mother testified as a character witness. She acknowledged that Applicant
developed asthma as an adult and had been hospitalized numerous times because of that condition.25
Her mother indicated that Applicant also had sleep apnea as well as a weight problem.  She was26
aware that her daughter did not have health insurance during her last hospital stay, and incurred a
hospital bill of more than $3,000.27
POLICIES
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).28
Id. at 527.29
Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960). 30
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).31
Id.; Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.32
Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.33
6
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”  As Commander in Chief, the President has28
“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.”  The President authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to29
grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to do so.”  An applicant has the ultimate burden of30
demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his or her
security clearance. The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance determinations
should err, if they must, on the side of denials.  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant31
should be allowed access to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such
sensitive information.  The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a32
determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the applicant has not
met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a
clearance.  33
The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and
mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline. Additionally, each security clearance 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 listed
in the Directive and AG ¶ 2(a).
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those
which would mitigate security concerns, together with the whole-person concept, are set forth and
discussed in the conclusions section below.
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards, and I reach the
following conclusions.
Financial considerations are a security concern because 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. The
Tr. 33.34
Tr. 34.35
7
Government has established a prima facie case for disqualification under Guideline F, financial
considerations.
Applicant filed for bankruptcy in 2001. She is indebted to the IRS on two federal tax liens,
totaling $11,121. She also is indebted to a hospital for $3,482. Thus, Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and FC DC
19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply.
Various factors can mitigate financial considerations. In 2002, Applicant lost her full-time
job that she had worked at for 12 years.  A year of unemployment followed.  During this year,34 35
Applicant had asthma, sleep apnea, and was hospitalized for her extreme weight. She then had
gastric bypass surgery. In about November 2003, Applicant lost her job. Immediately thereafter, she
was hospitalized due to a severe asthma attack. She did not have any health insurance. Applicant
owes $3,482 to the hospital. She also has two tax liens with IRS for $11,121. However, she has
entered a payment plan with the IRS. She also has entered a payment plan with the hospital. Based
on those facts, Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC) 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, or a death, divorce or separation), and the
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances) and FC MC 20(c) (the individual initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) apply. Applicant has
mitigated the Government’s case. Allegations 1.a through 1.d of the SOR are found for Applicant.
I have considered all the evidence in the case. I have also considered the “whole person”
concept in evaluating Applicant’s risk and vulnerability in protecting our national interests. Applicant
has been plagued with health problems that required hospitalization during a time when she had no
health insurance. A hospital bill was delinquent until she received a reduction in the debt based on
her meager earnings. Two federal tax liens are now in the process of being paid off due to her
payment arrangements with the IRS. I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising
from her financial difficulties. Based on the evidence of record, it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. For the reasons stated, I conclude Applicant
is suitable for access to classified information.
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:
8
Paragraph 1. Guideline F (Financial Considerations): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances in the case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest
to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is granted.
Jacqueline T. Williams
 Administrative Judge