KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Between approximately 2002 and 2005, Applicant accrued two debts totaling
approximately$25,000, which generates a security concern. Although circumstances beyond her
control contributed in part to these delinquencies, she failed to demonstrate that she has taken any
concrete steps to resolve them. Clearance is denied. 
CASENO: 06-18581
DATE: 05/22/2007
DATE:  May 22, 2007
In re:
-----------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-18581
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARC E. CURRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
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. (Directive).
Item 5, Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), dated September 28, 2005, at 24.2
Id. at 9, 11.3
Item 4, Answer, dated September 11, 2006, at 1.4
Id.5
2
Between approximately 2002 and 2005, Applicant accrued two debts totaling
approximately$25,000, which generates a security concern. Although circumstances beyond her
control contributed in part to these delinquencies, she failed to demonstrate that she has taken any
concrete steps to resolve them. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 25, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) stating it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue a security clearance.  Applicant answered it on September 15,1
2006, admitting all of the allegations and electing to have the case decided on the written record.
Department Counsel mailed the government’s file of relevant material (FORM) to Applicant
on February 28, 2007. She received it on March 9, 2007, and neither objected to its contents nor
submitted any materials in response to it. The case was assigned to me on April 30, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
I have incorporated Applicants admissions into the findings of fact. In addition, I make the
following additional findings of fact.
Applicant is a 35-year-old married woman with two children and two stepchildren, all of
whom are teenagers. She is a U.S. Army veteran who served from 1994 to 1996. She was honorably
discharged.  She has worked for her employer in the production support field since 2005, and has2
been working toward a college degree since 2004.3
Applicant’s current spouse is her second husband. At or about the time they married in
January 2001, they lived in a mobile home. Upon moving to a larger home, they were unable to sell
the mobile home, and were compelled to rent it in order to pay the mortgage.  Two years later, the4
renters moved, Applicant fell behind on mortgage payments, and it was voluntarily repossessed.5
Currently, she owes approximately $22,099 on the delinquent mortgage.
Id.6
Id. at 2.7
3
In June 2005, Applicant was laid off from her job.  Although she obtained a new job without6
experiencing an employment gap, it paid substantially less than the prior job. Consequently, she grew
delinquent on payments owed to a credit card company, as referenced in SOR subparagraph 1.b.
Currently, she owes $3,181. 
Applicant recently earned a promotion to a higher paying job, and intends to repay her debts
“as soon as possible.”  She provided no evidence that she has made any payments or organized a7
payment plan.
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to be considered in evaluating
a person’s eligibility to hold a security clearance. In addition to brief introductory explanations for
each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines are divided into those that may be considered in deciding
whether to deny or revoke an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information
(disqualifying conditions) and those that may be considered in deciding whether to grant an
individual’s eligibility for access to classified information (mitigating conditions).
An administrative judge need not view the adjudicative guidelines as inflexible, rules of law.
Instead, acknowledging the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines, when applied in
conjunction with the factors set forth in the Adjudicative Process provision in Section E2.2.,
Enclosure 2, of the Directive, are intended to assist the administrative judge in reaching fair,
common sense decisions.
Because the entire process involves an evaluation of a number of variables known as the
“whole person concept,” all available, reliable information about the person, past and present,
favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in making a meaningful decision. The Adjudicative
Process factors which an administrative judge should consider are: (1) the nature and seriousness of
the conduct and surrounding circumstances; (2) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (3) the
age of the applicant; (4) the motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct was
negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the consequences; (5) the absence or
presence of rehabilitation; and (6) the probability that the circumstances or conduct will continue or
recur in the future.
I find the following adjudicative guideline most pertinent to an evaluation of the facts of this
case:
Guideline F - Financial Considerations: An individual who is financially
overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.
See Directive, Sec. 2.3, Sec. 2.5.3, Sec. 3.2, and Sec. 4.2. 8
4
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those
which could mitigate security concerns, pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines are set forth and
discussed in the conclusions below.
Since the protection of national security is the paramount consideration, the final decision
in each case must be reached by applying the standard that the issuance of the clearance is “clearly
consistent with the national interest”  In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions8
that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have
avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation.
The government is responsible for presenting evidence to establish facts in the SOR that have
been controverted. The applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by the government, and has the ultimate burden
of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.
CONCLUSIONS
Financial Considerations
Applicant’s delinquencies, accrued between 2003 and 2005 trigger the applicability of
Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) E2.A6.1.2.1 (A history of not meeting
financial obligations), and FC DC E2.A6.1.2.3 (Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts).
Applicant’s inability to sell her mobile home after she relocated in 2001, and her reduced income after
a downsizing in 2005 were the principal cause of her delinquencies. Financial Considerations
Mitigating Condition (FC MC) E2.A6.1.3.3 (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)) applies.
Although Applicant asserted that her finances were improving, she provided no evidence.
Moreover, because she has yet to make any debt repayments, her contention that she intends to repay
them in the future has little probative value. I have considered the other mitigating conditions and
conclude none apply.
Whole Person Concept
Applicant deserves credit for her service to the country in the Army, and has demonstrated
good character by returning to college, later in life, to obtain a degree. Her financial problems were
exacerbated by her inability to sell her mobile home upon relocating in 2001 and an employment
downsizing in 2005. Nevertheless, she had a responsibility to provide concrete evidence supporting
her contention that these delinquencies will be satisfied in the future. She failed to do so. Absent such
Directive ¶E2.2.1.6.9
Directive ¶E2.2.1.9.10
5
evidence, the issue of rehabilitation  remains in doubt, and the likelihood of continuation or9
recurrence  remains unacceptably high. Clearance is denied.10
This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot or will not
rehabilitate her finances in a manner necessary to justify the award of a DoD security clearance.
Should she be afforded an opportunity to reapply for a security clearance in the future, and were to
arrange a satisfactory repayment plan with her creditors to repay the delinquent accounts, she may
well demonstrate persuasive evidence of security worthiness. That time has not yet arrived, however.
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
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.
Marc E. Curry
Administrative Judge