KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST:  Applicant is unable to mitigate financial considerations concerns that arose following the
submission of her security clearance application that identified outstanding debts exceeding
$20,000.00.  She sought chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and is awaiting receipt of her bankruptcy
discharge.  She has yet to establish a budget and a financial track record establishing financial
responsibility.  Clearance is denied.   
CASENO: 06-20725.h1
DATE: 05/31/2007
DATE: May 31, 2007
In Re:
-------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-20725
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
ROBERT J. TUIDER
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Pursuant to Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended1
and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program  (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended and modified.  Concerning the security guidelines, this case is brought under the
revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information approved by the
President on December 29, 2005.  The revised guidelines were then modified by the Defense Department, effective
September 1, 2006.  They supersede or replace the guidelines published in Enclosure 2 to the Directive and Appendix
8 to DoD Regulation 5200.2-R.  They apply to all adjudications and other determinations where an SOR has been issued
on September 1, 2006 or thereafter, and they apply to this case because the SOR is dated February 22, 2007.  Both the
Directive and the Regulation are pending formal amendment.
2
Applicant is unable to mitigate financial considerations concerns that arose following the
submission of her security clearance application that identified outstanding debts exceeding
$20,000.00.  She sought chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and is awaiting receipt of her bankruptcy
discharge.  She has yet to establish a budget and a financial track record establishing financial
responsibility.  Clearance is denied.  
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) declined to grant or continue a
security clearance for Applicant.  On February 22, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)1
detailing the basis for its decision–security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) of the Directive.  Applicant answered the SOR in writing on March 21, 2007, and
elected to have a hearing before an administrative judge.  
Department Counsel indicated he was ready to proceed on April 11, 2007, and the case was
assigned to me on April 13, 2007.  On April 26, 2007, DOHA issued a notice of hearing scheduling
the case to be heard on May 16, 2007. The case was conducted as scheduled to consider whether it
is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.
At the hearing, the government presented six exhibits, which were marked as Government
Exhibits (GE) 1 through 6, and admitted without objection.  Applicant did not present any exhibits.
DOHA received the transcript on May 25, 2007.  
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant’s admissions to the SOR allegations are incorporated herein.  In addition, after a
thorough review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is a 34-year-old executive assistant, who has been employed by a defense
contractor since August 1990, accumulating over 16 years of employment with the same company.
She began her employment with her company shortly after she graduated from high school in June
1990.  She seeks reinstatement of her clearance, which was suspended as a result of these
proceedings.  
3
Applicant is unmarried and mother of three children, a 12-year-old son, a 5-year-old
daughter, and a 3-year-old son.  The father of her oldest son does not currently pay child support
because of their recent  joint custody arrangement.  The father of her daughter and youngest son pays
intermittent and erratic child support.  The father of her oldest child lives nearby and is involved in
their daughter’s life.  The father of her son and youngest daughter lives in another state and is not
involved in the lives their children. 
The SOR alleges Applicant is in arrears on 18 debts exceeding $20,000.00 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a.
through 1.r.).  Applicant recently filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy on March 15, 2007, and all of the
debts alleged in the SOR are included on her Schedule F - Creditors Holding Unsecured Nonpriority
Claims.  Applicant’s unsecured debts listed on her Schedule F total $40,973.53.  GE 6.  She
estimates she will be granted her discharge in July 2007.  Tr. 44.
Applicant attributes her financial difficulties to lack of child support, uncovered medical
expenses for her children and herself, and “bad judgment.”  Tr. 45-47.  She also underwent credit
counseling as a requirement of filing bankruptcy.  Tr. 44-45.  When Applicant received her
discharge, she plans to prepare a budget and attempt to rebuild her credit with the assistance of her
bankruptcy attorney.  Tr. 47.  She has also applied for low income housing to lower her housing
costs.  Tr. 49.
POLICIES
The adjudicative guidelines in the Directive are not a set of inflexible rules of procedure.
Instead, they are to be applied by administrative judges on a case-by-case basis with an eye toward
making determinations that are clearly consistent with the interests of national security.  In making
overall common sense determinations, administrative judges must consider, assess, and analyze the
evidence of record, both favorable and unfavorable, not only with respect to the relevant adjudicative
guidelines, but in the context of factors set forth in section E 2.2.1. of the Directive.  The government
has the burden of proving any controverted fact(s) alleged in the SOR, and the facts must have a
nexus to an applicant’s lack of security worthiness.
The adjudication process is based on the whole person concept. All available, reliable
information about the person, past and present, is to be taken into account in reaching a decision as
to whether a person is an acceptable security risk.  Although the presence or absence of a particular
condition for or against clearance is not determinative, the specific adjudicative guidelines should
be followed whenever a case can be measured against this policy guidance.
BURDEN OF PROOF
As noted by the United States Supreme Court in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518,
528 (1988), “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” 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. The President has restricted eligibility for access to classified
information to “United States citizens . . . whose personal and professional history affirmatively
4
indicates loyalty to the United States, strength of character, trustworthiness, honesty, reliability,
discretion, and sound judgment, as well as freedom from conflicting allegiances and potential for
coercion, and willingness and ability to abide by regulations governing the use, handling, and
protection of classified information.”  Executive Order 12968, Access to Classified Information §
3.1(b) (Aug. 4, 1995). Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting
the security guidelines contained in the Directive.
Initially, the government must establish, by substantial 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. All that is
required is proof of facts and circumstances which indicate an applicant is at risk for mishandling
classified information, or that an applicant does not demonstrate the high degree of judgment,
reliability, or trustworthiness required of persons handling classified information. Where the facts
proven by the government raise doubts about an applicant's judgment, reliability or trustworthiness,
then the applicant has the ultimate burden of establishing his security suitability with substantial
evidence in explanation, mitigation, extenuation, or refutation, sufficient to demonstrate that despite
the existence of guideline conduct, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or
continue his security clearance. 
Security clearances are granted only when “it is clearly consistent with the national interest
to do so.”  See Executive Orders 10865 § 2 and 12968 § 3.1(b). “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 “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security
clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.
Doubts are to be resolved against the applicant.
CONCLUSIONS
Guideline F – Financial Considerations
Under Guideline F for financial considerations, a security concern arises by:
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 government established its case under Guideline F by Applicant’s admissions and
evidence submitted establishing she had 18 delinquent debts exceeding $20,000.00.  These facts give
rise to Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) 18(a) inability or unwillingness
to satisfy debts; and FC DC 18(b) a history of not meeting financial obligations.
Applicant accumulated substantial debt over a lengthy period of time.  Her situation was no
doubt exacerbated by shortfalls in child support and uncovered medical bills.  However, I have also
noted Applicant’s admission that her problems were also caused by exercising “bad judgment.”  This
5
is further demonstrated by the fact her SOR identified only $20,000.00 of her unsecured debt in
contrast her Schedule F, which listed unsecured debt exceeding $40,000.00.
Applicant’s situation deteriorated to the point she sought bankruptcy as her remedy.
Although, she is to be commended for attempting to achieve financial stability, she has yet to
demonstrate she has attained the state of financial stability required before she could be granted a
clearance. Whether she will reach that state remains to be seen.  Given her current unresolved
situation based on the fact her bankruptcy discharge has not been granted and she has not established
a budget, I have little upon which to conclude she has changed her behavior.
I have reviewed the mitigating conditions under Guideline F and viewing the facts in the light
most favorable to the Applicant am able to apply MC 20(b) the conditions that resulted in the
financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., . . . unexpected medical
emergency, or. . . separation.  
While Applicant may be given consideration for uncovered medical expenses and insufficient
child support, she is unable to overcome the “bad judgment” aspect of her conduct.  Until such time
as she is able to demonstrate a track record of financial responsibility over a reasonable period of
time, I am unable to find for Applicant on this concern.
In reaching my decision I have applied the facts and circumstances presented in this case
using the “whole person” concept as required by the Directive.  I have specifically considered
Applicant’s 16 years of employment with the same company and the challenges she has encountered
being a single mother.  Unfortunately, Applicant’s has been unable to establish she has regained
control of her financial situation.
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1.  Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a.-1.r.: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of 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.
Robert J. Tuider
Administrative Judge
6