KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant has a history of failing to meet his financial obligations dating back to 1997.
As of the date of his response to the FORM, he had 19 accounts totaling approximately $29,000,
which had been delinquent for many years. His evidence is insufficient to show that he is in control
of his finances, is not overextended, and has a track record of financial responsibility. Clearance is
denied.
CASENO: 06-23382.h1
DATE: 07/17/2007 
DATE:  July 17, 2007
)
In re:)
)
-------------------------
)
ISCR Case No. 06-23382
SSN: -----------
) 
)
Applicant for Security Clearance)
)
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JUAN J. RIVERA
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Nicole L. Noel, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has a history of failing to meet his financial obligations dating back to
1997. As of the date of his response to the FORM, he had 19 accounts totaling
approximately $29,000, which had been delinquent for many years. His evidence is
insufficient to show that he is in control of his finances, is not overextended, and has
a track record of financial responsibility. Clearance is denied. 
KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant has a history of failing to meet his financial obligations dating back to 1997.
As of the date of his response to the FORM, he had 19 accounts totaling approximately $29,000,
which had been delinquent for many years. His evidence is insufficient to show that he is in control
of his finances, is not overextended, and has a track record of financial responsibility. Clearance is
denied.
CASENO: 06-23382.h1
DATE: 07/17/2007 
  See Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960, as amended,1
and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Jan.
2, 1992) (Directive), as amended. On August 30, 2006, the Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence) published a memorandum directing
application of revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) to all adjudications and other determinations made under the Directive and Department of Defense
(DoD) Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program (Regulation), dated January 1987, as amended, in which the SOR was issued
on or afte r Sep tember 1 , 2006 .
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On January 30, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), alleging facts and security concerns
under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The SOR informed Applicant that
based on the available information, DOHA adjudicators could not make a
preliminary affirmative finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest
to grant him access to classified information and submitted the case to an
administrative judge for a security determination.1
On February 20, 2007, Applicant answered the SOR. He admitted all of the
SOR allegations, and requested a decision without a hearing. On April 19, 2007,
Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM), which was
mailed to Applicant on April 20, 2007. He acknowledged receipt of the FORM on
April 23, 2007, and did not object to anything contained in the FORM or submit
additional information for consideration within the 30-day period provided to him.
The case was assigned to me on June 28, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted all SOR allegations. His admissions are incorporated
herein as findings of fact. After a thorough review of the FORM evidence, I make
the following additional findings of fact: 
Applicant is a 36-year-old senior proposal designer. He has worked for his
current employer, a defense contractor, since May 2005. He attended a trade school
from 1993 to 1994, where he learned to be a graphics designer. He served as an
enlisted in the Air Force Reserve from June 1991 to June 1997. He married his first
spouse in June 1996 and they were divorce in December 2002. It is not clear from his
security clearance application whether he has any children born of this marriage. He
  A p p l i c a n t ’ s  Q u e s t io n n a i r e  fo r  S e n s i t i v e  P o s i t i o n s  ( S t a n d a r d  F o r m  8 6 )  ( e l e c t r o n i c  v e r s io n ) ,2
d a t e d  J a n u a r y  2 4 ,  2 0 0 6 ,  i s  t h e  s o u r c e  fo r  th e  i n fo r m a t io n  in  th e  p a r a g r a p h .
  GE 4.3
married his current wife in September 2005. He has three stepchildren, ages 18, 14
and 12, of this marriage (GE 3).2
Applicant’s security clearance application indicates no periods of
unemployment from May 1994 to January 2006, when he submitted his application.
His work history shows that Applicant has held numerous jobs for short periods of
time, some of them overlapping each other. He also has short, unaccounted periods
of time in between jobs.
Applicant’s background investigation addressed his financial situation and
included a review of his February 2006 credit bureau report (CBR), and his3
December 2006 (GE 5) response to the DOHA interrogatories. 
In his statement in response to the DOHA interrogatories, Applicant explained
he has no documents to verify the payment history of his delinquent debts. He
claimed his earnings only allow him to pay for his day-to-day living expenses and
current obligations. He is paying past due state and federal taxes for tax years 2004
and 2005. After paying his past due taxes, he has no money left to pay his old debts.
Applicant promised to contact his creditors, and to pay his delinquent obligations
when his wife begins working. He presented no evidence of any measures he has
taken to avoid future financial difficulties.
The SOR alleges 19 delinquent/charged off accounts totaling approximately
$29,000. Applicant admitted the alleged debts, and they are supported by the
government’s evidence. He did not explain how he acquired the debts, why they
became delinquent, and what efforts, if any, he has taken through the years to pay or
otherwise resolve his debts. 
POLICIES
The Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines which must be considered in
evaluating an Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. Foremost
are the Disqualifying and Mitigating conditions under each adjudicative guideline
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the guidelines are
not viewed as inflexible ironclad rules of law. The presence or absence of a
KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant has a history of failing to meet his financial obligations dating back to 1997.
As of the date of his response to the FORM, he had 19 accounts totaling approximately $29,000,
which had been delinquent for many years. His evidence is insufficient to show that he is in control
of his finances, is not overextended, and has a track record of financial responsibility. Clearance is
denied.
CASENO: 06-23382.h1
DATE: 07/17/2007 
  Directive, Section 6.3. “Each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial, common-sense determination4
based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy
in enclosure 2 . . .”
  AG ¶ 2(a). “. . . The adjudication process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole5
person concept. Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should
be considered in reaching a determination. . . .” The whole person concept includes the consideration of 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 permanent behavioral
changes; the motivation for the conduct; the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and the likelihood
of continuation or recurrence. . .”
  See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).6
  ISCR Case No. 98-0761 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 27, 1999) (Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less7
than a preponderance of the evidence); ISCR Case No. 02-12199 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 3, 2006) (Substantial evidence is
such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary
evidence in the record); Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1.
  Egan, supra n.6, at 528, 531.8
disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative of a conclusion for or
against an Applicant. Each decision must also reflect a fair and impartial common
sense consideration of the factors listed in Section 6.3 of the Directive, and the4
whole person concept. Having considered the record evidence as a whole, I conclude5
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) is the applicable relevant adjudicative
guideline.
BURDEN OF PROOF
The purpose of a security clearance decision is to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s eligibility for
access to classified information. The government has the initial burden of proving6
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. To meet its burden, the government must
establish a prima facie case by substantial evidence. The responsibility then shifts to7
the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the government’s case. Because no one
has a right to a security clearance, the applicant carries the ultimate burden of
persuasion.8
  See Id; AG ¶ 2(b).9
  AG ¶ 18.10
  See ISCR Case No. 03- 02374 at 4 (App. Bd. Jan. 26, 2006) (citing ISCR Case No. 02-22173 at 4 (App. Bd.11
May 26, 2004)). When making a recency analysis for FC MC 1, all debts are considered as a whole.
A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the government based on trust and confidence. The government,
therefore, has a compelling interest to ensure each applicant possesses the requisite
judgment, reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national
interests as his or her own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest”
standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability
for access to classified information in favor of protecting national security.9
CONCLUSIONS
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the government’s concern is10
that an Applicant’s 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.
Applicant has a history of failing to meet his financial obligations dating back
to 1997. Since 1997, he has accumulated at least 19 delinquent/charged off debts
totaling approximately $29,000, which have been delinquent for many years. In
December 2006, Applicant was confronted about his financial problems by DOHA
and asked to provide documentation verifying payments and current status of his
delinquent accounts. He provided no information to show he has in any way
attempted to resolve any of his debts. In April 2007, Applicant was provided a copy
of the FORM stating the government’s security concerns. He presented no evidence
to show he has taken any action to resolve his debts. Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) ¶ 19(a): inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;
and FC DC ¶ 19(c): a history of not meeting financial obligations; apply in this case.
Considering the record evidence as a whole, I conclude that none of the11
mitigating conditions apply. Applicant presented no evidence of efforts taken to
contact creditors, or to resolve any of the debts since he acquired them. Nor is there
any evidence that he has participated in any financial counseling, or that
circumstances beyond his control prevented him from resolving his debts.  
KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant has a history of failing to meet his financial obligations dating back to 1997.
As of the date of his response to the FORM, he had 19 accounts totaling approximately $29,000,
which had been delinquent for many years. His evidence is insufficient to show that he is in control
of his finances, is not overextended, and has a track record of financial responsibility. Clearance is
denied.
CASENO: 06-23382.h1
DATE: 07/17/2007 
Applicant presented no evidence to show he dealt responsibly with his
financial obligations before, or after receipt of the SOR (i.e., paid debts, settlements,
documented negotiations, payment plans, budgets, financial assistance/counseling).
Applicant’s financial history and lack of favorable evidence preclude a finding that
he has established a track record of financial responsibility, or that he has taken
control of his financial situation. Based on the available evidence, his financial
problems are likely to be a concern in the future. Moreover, his financial problems
are recent, not isolated, and ongoing. 
I have carefully weighed all evidence, and I applied the disqualifying and
mitigating conditions as listed under the applicable adjudicative guideline. I applied
the whole person concept. I specifically considered Applicant’s age, education,
maturity, his work experience, and his response to the DOHA interrogatories.
Considering the totality of Applicant’s circumstances, he demonstrated a lack of
judgment and trustworthiness in the handling of his financial affairs. He has failed to
mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. 
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
Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.s: 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 eligibility for a
security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.
Juan J. Rivera
Administrative Judge