KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant, a 38-year-old facility security officer for a defense contractor, failed to mitigate
financial security concerns relating to delinquent debts of almost $90,000 even though he filed a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy in July 2007 and hopes to be able to discharge the debts. He has made only
one payment. He was in Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1996, and incurred additional debts that became
delinquent during a seven year period after the bankruptcy was discharged. He did not resolve any
of the smaller delinquent debts incurred except for regular payments on delinquent federal taxes for
two tax years. His debts include repossessions for two automobiles purchased since the first
bankruptcy was discharged. Clearance is denied. 
CASENO: 06-22190.h1
DATE: 09/19/2007
DATE:  September 19, 2007
In Re:
---------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-22190
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
CHARLES D. ABLARD
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
2
SYNOPSIS
Applicant, a 38-year-old facility security officer for a defense contractor, failed to mitigate
financial security concerns relating to delinquent debts of almost $90,000 even though he filed a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy in July 2007 and hopes to be able to discharge the debts. He has made only
one payment. He was in Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1996, and incurred additional debts that became
delinquent during a seven year period after the bankruptcy was discharged. He did not resolve any
of the smaller delinquent debts incurred except for regular payments on delinquent federal taxes for
two tax years. His debts include repossessions for two automobiles purchased since the first
bankruptcy was discharged. Clearance is denied. 
STATEMENT OF CASE
On April 6, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, 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, issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant which detailed reasons 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. DOHA recommended the case be
referred to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued,
denied, or revoked.
On April 24, 2007, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations and requested a hearing. The
case was assigned to me on June 6, 2007. A notice of hearing was issued on June 7, 2007, for a
hearing on June 26, 2007, and held that day. The government offered in evidence 11 exhibits and
Applicant offered six. All were admitted. The transcript was received on July 6, 2007. The record
was left open for an interim report on July 24, 2007 and final submission on August 24, 2007, of
additional materials. The interim documents and a final submission were received. All were admitted
without objection.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted the specifics of all of the SOR allegations relating to a bankruptcy in
1996, and 19 delinquent debts of almost $90,000. After a complete review of the record, I make the
following additional findings of fact:
Applicant is a 38-year-old employee of a major defense contractor where he has been
employed since April 2000 as a facility security manager. He holds a bachelor’s degree in business
administration. He has held a security clearance since 1988 with no security violations. Between
1988 and now he served in the Marine Corps for six years with a rank of E 5, worked for a
government agency as an analyst, and for another government contractor. 
In 1996 Applicant filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy which was discharged in 1997. The primary
cause for the bankruptcy arose when he was  divorced in 1994 which resulted in his sole ownership
of a home for which he could not make payments. However, the bankruptcy included not only the
3
home mortgage of $101, 000 but also over $20,000 in consumer and credit card debt (Exh. 10). After
the bankruptcy, Applicant bought a new car on which he could not make payments, and it is the
subject of one of the auto repossessions in this proceeding (SOR ¶ 1. m.)
Applicant’s present financial problems accelerated after a second marriage in 1999 when he
acquired three step children. One of the children has severe health problems and a second was
sexually assaulted twice with resulting emotional problems. Because of the problems relating to the
children and custody issues arising with his wife and her ex-husband over the step-children, the
family moved their residence nine times since 2000. He and his wife now have one child from their
marriage. Although these problems have occurred, there is little evidence of the nexus between them
and the financial difficulties of Applicant. The reason Applicant may not have known about some
of the smaller delinquent debts is because of the large number of moves of his residence over a seven
year period since any efforts to reach him would have followed a long trail of addresses. 
Applicant’s annual salary is $64,000. In addition he has a second job for a delivery service
at a salary of $10,000 per annum. Through this job he receives free health care insurance for his
family (Tr. 44). The second job is from 4 A.M. until 8 A.M. when he reports to his full time job. He
commutes 90 miles each way to his work from their rented home which is located near his wife’s
family. In 2006 he fell asleep at the wheel driving to work, had an accident, and destroyed the car.
His wife has received training as a legal assistant and is employed earning $2,000 per month. 
The 19 delinquent debts alleged in the SOR range from several debts to utilities and service
providers of under $200 and for two auto repossessions for over $19,000 each (SOR ¶ 1.i. and
m.).The first was the auto he bought after the first bankruptcy; the second was a voluntary
repossession of a new minivan he bought in 2005. He now owns two autos on which he is making
regular payments. He has two student loans for over $25,000 that have been in default since 2003
(SOR ¶ 1.d. and q.). They were originally for under $20,000 but delinquency fees have increased the
debts. These debts were carried over after the first bankruptcy where they were listed but could not
be discharged. The only delinquent debts that are being satisfied through regular monthly payments
of $75 (Tr. 53) are to pay delinquent federal taxes for tax years 2004 and 2005 totaling $2,500 (SOR
¶ 1. r. and s.). He has been in negotiation with several of the creditors (SOR ¶ 1.c., f, k, l., and p.),
but no settlements with them were reached (Exh. 4). Applicant acknowledges other debts in his
candid interrogatory answers, but indicates no efforts to resolve them except to note the large number
of his household moves (Exh. 4). 
Applicant tried to avoid a second bankruptcy by taking the second job. However, he  recently
engaged counsel and filed a petition for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in July 2007 (Exh. I 3). He began
payments under the plan in August 2007. The plan requires payments of $850 per month over the
next five years depending on the number and amounts of the debts that are actually included in the
bankruptcy and the possibility of settling some for lesser amounts (Tr. 62). After the bankruptcy is
discharged, he will be required to begin payment on his education loans. He now does not have
enough left over to pay $850 per month (Tr. 65) but is decreasing his family expenses to improve
his ability to make the payments (Tr. 66). 
Applicant acknowledges that he has done more in the past six months to resolve his financial
problems than in the last six or seven years. He has no excuses for his failure to pay some of the
smaller debts (Tr. 51) particularly in view of his work responsibilities as a facility security officer
4
where he counsels other people on security issues (Tr. 9). He has received training through his
employment as a certified facility security officer.
Applicant now has two credit cards on which he makes regular payments. He recently
returned to the mortgagee a home he owned for which he could not make mortgage payments. This
was done as a deed in lieu of foreclosure (Exh. H). He believes there will be no additional charges
passed on to him as a result of the transaction. He and his wife now own two cars with total
payments of over $700 per month on which he is current and regular. 
Applicant is well regarded by his supervisor for his honesty and hard work. He is a well-
motivated, competent performer who is working two jobs to support his family and hopefully get out
of debt. (Exh. F). 
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.
An evaluation of whether the applicant meets the security guidelines includes consideration
of the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances
surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and
maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence
of rehabilitation and other behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential
for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
Directive, ¶ E2.2.1. Security clearances are granted only when “it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to do so.” Executive Order No. 10865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 3.1(b).
Initially, the Government must establish, by something less than a preponderance of the
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. The applicant then bears the burden of demonstrating it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance. “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. “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.
CONCLUSIONS
Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate
adjudicative factors, I conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR:
Applicant’s delinquent debts prompted the allegation of security concerns under Guideline
5
F of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) since an individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. (AG ¶ 18) Conditions that could raise
a security concern and may be disqualifying include a history of not meeting financial obligations
(AG ¶ 19 c.), and evidence of inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. (AG ¶ 19 a) Mitigating
Conditions (MC) include a condition that the person has initiated a good faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts. (AG ¶ 20 d), the conditions that resulted in the financial
problem were largely beyond the person’s control, and the person acted responsibly under the
circumstances (AG ¶ 20 b) , and there is clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control (AG ¶ 20 c).  
After Applicant had a Chapter 7 bankruptcy that was discharged in 1997, he had many family
problems that were beyond his control. However, he offered little evidence to establish a nexus
between the family problems and the severe financial difficulties he now has. Even if there was a
firmly established nexus, the fact that he has done so little to settle or pay even the smallest accounts
over the past seven years does not establish responsible behavior by Applicant. While the many
household moves may well have made it difficult for creditors to reach him, it is no excuse for not
making better efforts to resolve debts that he should have known to exist. This is particularly so in
view of the position he has held as a security officer responsible for enforcing the security
requirements on others. 
The Chapter 13 bankruptcy has just been initiated although Applicant has considered doing
so at least since 2006. Thus, there is no payment record for the bankruptcy or even a definitive listing
of the amounts likely to be resolved by the bankruptcy. There is also some doubt concerning his
ability to make the payments as he hopes to do in view of the need to cut his expenses to have
enough at the end of the month to make the payments to the bankruptcy trustee. Thus, I conclude that
it is premature to conclude that mitigating conditions apply to him. 
Applicant is a very hard-working person to hold two jobs with extreme hours of work to care
for his family. He was very candid in his answers to interrogatories and in his testimony. However,
Applicant has made many choices over the past seven years as to how to spend his money and where
he lived. Those were his choices to make.
In all adjudications the protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Persons
who have access to classified information have an overriding responsibility for the security concerns
of the nation. The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense
assessment of a person’s trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information. While
Applicant is a person of considerable energy and ability, I cannot conclude that the conditions
required for application of the whole person standard have been satisfied in view of his lack of
responsible behavior over such a long period of time. 
After considering all the evidence in its totality, I conclude that it is premature to grant a
security clearance.
FORMAL FINDINGS 
Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows:
6
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q.: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s.: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.t.: 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 renew a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance
is denied. 
Charles D. Ablard 
Administrative Judge