KEYWORD:  Financial
DIGEST:  Applicant has a history of financial delinquencies, and she admitted four of the seven
debts alleged in the SOR.  While she provided credible evidence she had paid in full three of her
delinquent accounts, she failed to mitigate security concerns under Guideline F, Financial
Considerations.  Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-10147.h1
DATE: 07/12/2007
DATE:  July 12, 2007
In Re:
--------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-10147
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOAN CATON ANTHONY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James F. Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has a history of financial delinquencies, and she admitted four of the seven debts
Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended and1
modified.
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program2
(Jan. 2, 1992), as amended and modified.
Two medical delinquencies alleged in the SOR were assigned for collection in 2000. (Item 9 at 6, 7.)3
2
alleged in the SOR.  While she provided credible evidence she had paid in full three of her
delinquent accounts, she failed to mitigate security concerns under Guideline F, Financial
Considerations.  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 November 16, 2006, under the applicable Executive Order  and1
Department of Defense (DoD) Directive (Directive),  DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR),2
detailing the basis for its decision – security concerns raised under Adjudicative Guideline F
(Financial Considerations), promulgated December 29, 2005, and applicable in DoD adjudications
of SORs  issued as of September 1, 2006, and thereafter.  With the SOR, DOHA provided Applicant
with a copy of the Directive and the applicable Guidelines.  Applicant answered the SOR in writing
on December 19, 2006, and requested that her case be determined on the record in lieu of a hearing.
The Government compiled its File of Relevant Material (FORM) on May 9, 2007.  The FORM
contained documents identified as Items 1 through 11.  By letter dated May 16, 2007, a copy of the
FORM was forwarded to Applicant, with instructions to submit any additional information and/or
objections within 30 days of receipt.  Applicant received the file on May 21, 2007.  She filed
additional information within the required time period.  Department Counsel did not object to
Applicant’s submission.  On June 28, 2007, the case was assigned to me for a decision.  After a
careful review of  Applicant’s submission of additional information, I admitted her eight-page
submission to the record as Applicant’s Exhibit (Ex.) A.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The SOR contains eight allegations of disqualifying conduct under revised adjudicative
Guideline F, Financial  Considerations.  (SOR ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.h.)   (Item 1.)  Applicant admitted
four allegations and denied four.  Applicant’s admissions are admitted herein as findings of fact. 
Applicant is 35 years old and has been employed since September 2005 by a defense
contractor as an administrative assistant.  From 2001 to 2005, she was employed as a clerk by a
school board. She was married for the first time in 1989 and divorced in 1992.  Two children were
born of that marriage.  Applicant married again in 1997 and divorced in 2003.  One child was born
of that marriage.  She has a fourth child, born in 1993.  Applicant receives $469 each month in child
support.  She married for the third time in 2006, and she reported her husband was helping her with
her financial situation.  (Item 5, Item 6 at 1, 3-4.)
Applicant has a history of financial delinquencies.   The SOR alleges Applicant’s monthly3
expenses and debt payments exceed her income, resulting in a negative cash flow of $159 (¶1.a.).  The
3
SOR also alleges she is responsible for financial delinquencies totaling approximately $10, 244  (¶
¶ 1.b. through 1.h.)  (Item 1.)
One of Applicant’s financial obligations arises from the repossession of a vehicle, which
resulted in a debt, alleged at SOR ¶ 1.b. of approximately $7,623.  Applicant and her second husband
purchased the vehicle in 1999, but she asserts she should not be held responsible for the debt, since
her second husband was the primary debtor on the loan and she was the secondary debtor.  She
provided no credible evidence that she was not responsible for the debt.  She stated, however, that she
would pay the debt if failure to do so would result in the denial of her security clearance.  (Items 4,
7, 9, 10, 11.)  
In an August 2006 financial statement, Applicant reported her net monthly salary as
approximately $1,862.   She reported her husband’s net monthly income as $1,800, and she reported
receiving $469 each month in child support. She listed $1,970 in total monthly expenses, $2,320 in
debt payments, and a negative net remainder of $159.  (Item 6 at 4. )
In mitigation, Applicant attributed her financial delinquencies to her second husband’s
abandonment of her and her four children.  (Item 4 at 1.)  In a submission of November 2006,
Applicant provided credible evidence that she owed the debt of $377 alleged at ¶ 1.c. and had
satisfied that debt. (Item 4; Item 7 at 7.)  She also provided credible evidence to show that the SOR
allegations at ¶¶ 1.g. and 1.h. were redundant and the single debt alleged therein was satisfied. (Items
7, 11.)  While Applicant asserted the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.f. was also redundant, there was
insufficient credible evidence in the record to establish this, and the debt was listed as a separate
account and unpaid on her May 2007 credit report. (Item 11.)
In her response to the FORM, Applicant annotated Item 11 to show she had satisfied some
of the debts alleged at 1.d. and was continuing to pay on others.  She provided a receipt dated April
2007 showing final payment on the debt alleged at SOR 1.e.  She stated her financial statement of
August 2006  would not have reflected a negative balance if she had correctly listed car expenses of
$250 and $300 instead of listing a redundant car payment of $595. (Ex. A.)  
Applicant states she has had “informal credit counseling,” but cannot document receiving
formal credit counseling. (Ex. A.)
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.
The President has restricted eligibility for access to classified information to United States citizens
“whose personal and professional history affirmatively 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.”  Exec. Or. 12968,
Access to Classified Information § 3.1(b) (Aug. 4, 1995).  Eligibility for a security clearance is
4
predicated upon the applicant meeting the security guidelines contained in the Directive. 
By Memorandum dated August 30, 2006, the Under Secretary of Defense directed
implementation of revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Information (AG), promulgated December 29, 2005, and effective September 1, 2006, as
modified. The revised AG replaced the guidelines published in Enclosure 2 to DoD Directive 5220.6
and Appendix 8 to DoD 5200.2-R and apply to all adjudications and other determinations in which
a SOR had not been issued by September 1, 2006.  Accordingly, since the SOR in this case was issued
November 16, 2006, the revised AG apply. 
The revised AG set forth personal security guidelines, as well as the disqualifying conditions
(DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline.  In evaluating the security worthiness of
an applicant, the administrative judge must also assess the adjudicative process factors listed in the
Directive.  The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a determination
as to the loyalty of the applicant.  See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7.  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.
Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal
or professional history of the applicant that disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being
eligible for access to classified information.  See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.  The Directive presumes a
nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the disqualifying conditions listed
in the guidelines and an applicant’s security suitability.  See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd.
May 2, 1996).  
Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the
burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts.  ISCR Case No. 01-
20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002); see Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  An applicant “has the ultimate burden
of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security
clearance.”  ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3.
CONCLUSIONS
Guideline F–Financial Considerations
An applicant’s failure to live within his or her 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.  See Guideline F, ¶ 18.
In the SOR, DOHA alleged Applicant was responsible for seven unsatisfied delinquent debts
totaling approximately $10,244.  The allegations raised security concerns under two Guideline F
 Guideline F, ¶ 19(a) reads: “Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.” Guideline F, ¶ 19(c) reads: “A history4
of not meeting financial obligations.”
5
disqualifying conditions, ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c).   Applicant admitted responsibility for debts totaling4
approximately $ 2,354 and stated she did not feel responsible for the debt of $7,623.  Applicant
provided credible evidence to show payment of the debt alleged at ¶¶ 1.c.  She provided credible
evidence that the debts alleged at ¶¶ 1.g. and 1.h. were redundant and that the single debt alleged had
been paid.  She also provided credible evidence that she had paid the debt alleged at ¶1.e. and that her
calculation of a negative cash flow for August 30, 2006, as alleged at ¶ 1.a., was the result of a
reporting error.
Through Applicant’s admissions and the record evidence, the Government established that
Applicant had a history of not meeting her financial obligations and was unable or unwilling to satisfy
her debts as specified in Guideline F, ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c).   
Several conditions could mitigate the security concerns raised by Applicant’s remaining
financial delinquencies.  Unresolved financial delinquency might be resolved if it 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.   (Guideline F,
¶ 20(a))  Additionally, unresolved financial delinquency might be mitigated if the conditions that
resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control, such as loss of
employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or separation,
and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.  (Guideline F,¶ 20(b))  Still other
mitigating circumstances that might be applicable include evidence the person has received or is
receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being
resolved or is under control (Guideline F, ¶ 20(c)) or the individual has initiated a good-faith effort
to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts (Guideline F, ¶ 20(d)).
Applicant’s acknowledged financial delinquencies are numerous, long-standing, and continue
to the present day.  Several of her financial delinquencies remain unresolved, suggesting an
unwillingness or inability to satisfy debts that is likely to recur.  Accordingly, ¶ 20(a) does not apply
as a mitigating condition.  Applicant attributes her financial delinquencies to her second divorce,
which occurred in 2003.  While Applicant received monthly child support of $469, her status as a
single parent, responsible for four children, caused financial hardship.  However, her security
clearance application reflects she has been steadily employed since 2001.  Thus, the facts do not of
themselves establish that Applicant’s unresolved financial delinquencies were largely beyond her
control or that she acted reasonably under the circumstances.  Nothing in the record suggests
Applicant contacted her creditors or otherwise gave them notice of her reduced financial
circumstances resulting from her second divorce.  Nothing in the record suggests Applicant offered
her creditors a plan to meet her obligations responsibly while in reduced circumstances.  Accordingly,
I conclude ¶ 20(b) applies only in part under the facts of this case.
Applicant asserted she  received “informal financial counseling,” but did not further specify
what she meant.  She denied receiving financial counseling that she could document and define.
Applicant worked on her own, especially after receiving the SOR, to satisfy her creditors and should
be commended for her efforts to resolve her debts.  However, she has not established a track record
of timely payment of her financial obligations, and it is unclear whether her underlying financial
6
problems are resolved or under control.  Accordingly, I conclude that ¶ 20(c) is inapplicable.  
Several of Applicant’s delinquencies were assigned for collection in 2000, 2001, and 2002.
She did not address many of her delinquencies until after receiving the SOR, and this leads to a
concern that she initiated her efforts to pay her creditors because of her concerns about her security
clearance and not because of her awareness of her obligation to pay her honest debts.  Applicant has
a history of financial problems.  Her recent actions to resolve some of her debts and not to address
her largest debt, which resulted from the vehicle repossession, unless it would affect her security
clearance, leads me to conclude Applicant’s conduct does not warrant the application of ¶ 20(d).   See
ISCR Case No. 01-21030 at 3-4 (App. Bd. May 7, 2004).
Whole Person Analysis
The revised AG and the Directive require that the adjudicative process in a security clearance
case not only assess conduct under the adjudicative guidelines, but it must also reflect a careful
weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept.  The factors to be considered
in a whole person analysis include the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; the frequency and
recency of the conduct; the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;  the extent to
which participation is voluntary; the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent
behavioral changes; the motivation for the conduct; the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation,
or duress; and, the likelihood for continuation or recurrence.
Applicant is a mature adult who has a history of financial over-extension. Her history of not
meeting her financial obligations and her inability to pay her debts over a period of several years
raises a security concern because it suggests a lack of good faith.  Since she has not sought consumer
credit counseling or assistance in learning how to manage her finances, Applicant has failed to
demonstrate her delinquencies will not continue to pose security concerns in the future. 
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern.  Security
clearance decisions are not intended to assign guilt or to impose further punishment for past
transgressions.  Rather, the objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, common
sense assessment of a person’s trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information.
Indeed, the “whole person” concept recognizes we should view a person by the totality of his or her
acts and omissions, including all disqualifying and mitigating conduct.  Having done so, I conclude
Applicant should not be entrusted with a security clearance.  In reaching my decision, I have
considered the evidence as a whole, including the appropriate factors and guidelines in Department
of Defense Directive, 5220.6., as amended.  I conclude that Applicant failed to mitigate security
concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
FORMAL FINDINGS
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
7
Paragraph 1.: Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. : For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b. : Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c. : For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f.: Against 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 not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.  Clearance
is denied.
Joan Caton Anthony
Administrative Judge