KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant is a 52-year-old machinist employed by a defense contractor since June 2004.
He has a history of not meeting his financial obligations. He has six outstanding debts totaling
approximately $32,304 and $29,736 of that amount represents child support. Applicant proffered
evidence that he has been paying on this child support debt for the past eight years. He continues to
owe $2,568 for five other outstanding delinquent debts. Applicant has not mitigated the financial
considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-07320.h2
DATE: 08/27/2007
DATE:  August 27, 2007
In re:
---------------
SSN:  -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-07320
REMAND DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JACQUELINE T. WILLIAMS
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
James B. Norman, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Applicant is a 52-year-old machinist employed by a defense contractor since June 2004. He
has a history of not meeting his financial obligations. He has six outstanding debts totaling
approximately $32,304 and $29,736 of that amount represents child support. Applicant proffered
evidence that he has been paying on this child support debt for the past eight years. He continues to
owe $2,568 for five other outstanding delinquent debts. Applicant has not mitigated the financial
considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied.
Item 4 (Security Clearance Application, signed September 17, 2004).1
Item 2 (Applicant’s Answer, dated August 10, 2006).2
The Government submitted six items in support of the allegations in the SOR.3
3
REMAND STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On September 17, 2004, Applicant applied for a security clearance and completed a Security
Clearance Application (SF 86).  On June 30, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals1
(DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, pursuant to Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended and
modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified. The SOR
detailed reasons under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) why DOHA could not make the
preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant, and recommended referral to an
Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted or revoked.
Applicant responded to the SOR allegations in a document  sworn to on August 10, 2006 and
elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.  Department Counsel2
submitted the Government’s written case on October 18, 2006. A complete copy of the file of
relevant material (FORM)  was provided to Applicant, and he was afforded an opportunity to file3
objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He had 30 days to respond
to the FORM and chose not to respond. The case was assigned to me on December 1, 2006.
On January 31, 2007, I issued a decision denying Applicant a clearance. I concluded
Applicant had not mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. On February 15, 2007,
Applicant filed a notice of appeal with the Appeal Board. The Chief Department Counsel declined
to brief the issue or contest Applicant’s appeal. On July 25, 20007, the Appeal Board remanded the
case for a new decision, which takes into account Applicant’s submission in response to the FORM.
In the Appeal Board’s decision, the Board indicated that the original file before me, on which I based
my decision, contained Applicant’s response to the FORM, dated November 17, 2006, which was
forwarded to Department Counsel on November 21, 2006.
REMAND FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on the entire record, including Applicant’s submission in response to the FORM, I
make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is a 52-year-old machinist who has worked for a defense contractor since June
2004. He attended college in September 1976 and was awarded a degree in February 1978. Applicant
is married. He divorced his first wife in 1979. The record is devoid of the number of children in his
family. He did not list his children on his SF 86.
In his undated response to the FORM, Applicant listed four debts. However, the debts for Fashion Bug and4
Citifinancial were not mentioned in the SOR.
Applicant’s Appeal, with attachments.5
4
A May 8, 2006, credit bureau report, which serves as a basis for allegations in the SOR,
indicated that Applicant has six delinquent debts, totaling approximately $32,304. The debts at issue
are these:
¶1.a/DirectTV/Nationwide ($86)  This account has been placed for collection. As
of May 8, 2006, this debt has not been paid. In his response to the FORM, Applicant
did not specifically address this debt but indicated he owed $201.00 for a delinquent
television bill. In his note on November 17, 2006, explaining his finances, he
indicated that the television bill was “unpaid,” the amount owed is “$201.00,” and
the explanation “[w]ill be paid by 01/06/07.” In his note with his appeal in March
2007, regarding an explanation of his finances, he lists a debt for a delinquent
television account. The status is “unpaid,” amount owed is “$201.00,” explanation
“[w]ill be paid as soon as possible.”  4
¶ 1.b/DirectTV/RSKMGMTNAN ($86) This account has been placed for
collection. As of May 8, 2006, this debt has not been paid. See ¶ 1.a above.
¶ 1.c/Child Support Enforcement ($29,736)  This debt is for delinquent child
support. Question 34 of his SF 86 stated (Your Financial Record - Wage
Garnishments  In the last 7 years, have you had your wages garnished for any
reason). He answered “yes” and noted that in 1998 his paycheck was garnished for
child support. Applicant indicated that the balance on this account is now
$27,346.87. He stated that “this account was set up and collected $50.00 every week
for the past 6 years after remaining dormant/settled for 3 years.” “For the past two
years, $65.00 per week has been paid on this balance. (Nonstop, uninterrupted
payments have been made for the past 8 years total.)”5
¶ 1.d/Medical creditor ($970) This account has been placed for collection. As of
May 8, 2006, this debt has not been paid. Applicant did not address this debt when
he submitted his response to the FORM.
¶ 1.e/Medical creditor ($1,000) This account has been placed for collection. As of
May 8, 2006, this debt has not been paid. Applicant did not address this debt when
he submitted his response to the FORM.
¶ 1.f/Medical creditor ($426) This account has been placed for collection. As of
May 8, 2006, this debt has not been paid. Applicant did not address this debt when
he submitted his response to the FORM.
Applicant has offered proof that he has been paying on his child support debt for the past few
years. At the time the SOR was filed, the child support debt was listed as being $29,736, but has
ISCR Case No. 96-0277 (July 11, 1997) at p. 2.6
ISCR Case No. 97-0016 (December 31, 1997) at p. 3; Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.14.7
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).8
ISCR Case No. 94-1075 (August 10, 1995) at pp. 3-4; Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.9
ISCR Case No. 93-1390 (January 27, 1995) at pp. 7-8; Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.10
Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.11
Id.12
Id.; Directive, Enclosure 2, ¶ E2.2.2.13
5
been reduced to $27,347. In addition, Applicant has $2,568 in unpaid delinquent debts for five other
accounts, as indicated in subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.f.
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to be considered in evaluating
a person’s eligibility to hold a security clearance. Included in the guidelines are disqualifying
conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) applicable to each specific 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 factors listed
in the Directive. Specifically these 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. Although
the presence or absence of a particular condition or factor for or against clearance is not outcome
determinative, the adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured
against the policy guidance.
The sole purpose of a security clearance determination is to decide if it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an applicant.  The Government6
has the burden of proving controverted facts.  The burden of proof is something less than a7
preponderance of evidence.  Once the Government has met its burden, the burden shifts to an8
applicant to present evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against
him.  Additionally, an applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance9
decision.10
No one has a right to a security clearance  and “the clearly consistent standard indicates that11
security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable12
doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be resolved
in favor of protecting such sensitive information.  The decision to deny an individual a security13
Executive Order 10865 § 7.14
6
clearance is not necessarily a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an14
indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of
Defense have established for issuing a clearance.
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards, and I reach the
following conclusions.
Under Guideline F, a security concern exists for an individual who is financially overextended.
The person is at risk of having to engage in illegal or unethical acts to generate funds to meet financial
obligations. Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be unconcerned,
negligent, or careless in properly handling and safeguarding classified information. Applicant has a
history of financial problems. He has an outstanding debt for child support that had been $29,736 but
has been reduced to $27,347. Although he has been paying on this debt for the past eight years, there
was a period of time when it was dormant and he is attempting to rectify that situation. Although he
has been paying on the child support debt, it shows that he has been financially irresponsible in the
past in handling this debt. Moreover, there are five other delinquent debts listed on Applicant’s credit
report totaling approximately $2,568. He had made no movement toward paying them off. Thus,
Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) 1 (a history of not meeting financial
obligations) and FC DC 3 (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) apply.
Various conditions can mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties. Applicant
has the burden of presenting evidence to establish mitigating circumstances. In his response to the
FORM, he noted that a debt for $201 for a delinquent television account would be paid by January
2007. However, in March 2007, he sent updated information with his appeal and indicated that this
same debt would be paid as soon as possible. Payment of a debt in the future is not a good faith effort
to pay a debt. Applicant has not provided any evidence regarding why these five debts are still
delinquent. Moreover, in his submission in March 2007, he failed to provide information on three
medical debts totaling $2,396 that were listed in the SOR. Consequently, Financial Considerations
Mitigating Conditions (FC MC) 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), FC MC 4 (the person has received or is receiving counseling for
the problem and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control),
and FC MC 6 (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts) do not apply.
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
is financially irresponsible when it comes to paying his debts. He is to be commended for diligently
paying child support for the past eight years. However, he has five other debts that have not been paid.
Moreover, Applicant failed to explain why his financial situation is preventing him from paying these
delinquent debts. In balancing all the information of record, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated
7
the security concerns arising from his financial difficulties. Based on the evidence of record, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
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 (Financial Considerations): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances in the case, it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied.
Jacqueline T. Williams
 Administrative Judge