KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Applicant has a history of financial delinquencies.  He admitted the eleven delinquent
debts alleged in the SOR and provided no evidence of payment or settlement  His promises to
resolve his debts in the future were not credible.  Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns
under Guideline F, Financial Considerations.  Clearance is denied.
CASENO: 06-22686.h1
DATE: 09/17/2007
DATE: September 17, 2007
In Re:
----------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-22686
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
JOAN CATON ANTHONY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Rita C. O’Brien, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant has a history of financial delinquencies. He admitted the eleven delinquent debts
alleged in the SOR and provided no evidence of payment or settlement  His promises to resolve his
debts in the future were not credible. Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns under Guideline
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.
2
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 February 26, 2007, 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 March 26,
2007 and April 16, 2007, and requested that his case be determined on the record in lieu of a hearing.
The Government compiled its File of Relevant Material (FORM) on May 31, 2007.  The FORM
contained documents identified as Items 1 through 9.  By letter dated  June 14, 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 June 28, 2007.  He did not submit
additional information within the required time period.  On September 10, 2007, the case was assigned
to me for a decision.  
FINDINGS OF FACT
The SOR contains eleven allegations of disqualifying conduct under revised Adjudicative
Guideline F, Financial Considerations.  (SOR ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.k.)  (Item 1.)  Applicant admitted all
eleven allegations, totaling approximately $18,000.  His admissions are admitted herein as findings
of fact. 
Applicant is 40 years old and employed as a cameraperson/editor by a government contractor.
In July 2005, when he completed a security clearance application (SF-86), he reported he was married
in 1999 and separated from his wife in August 2002.  (Item 1.)  His current marital status is not clear.
Applicant served in the U.S. Navy from 1987 to 1991.  He received a bachelor of arts degree
in 1997. He has been steadily employed since 1997, and he has worked for his present employer since
2001. He reported two judgments and seven financial delinquencies on his July 2005 SF-86. He
acknowledged the debts alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.i. through 1.k. on his SF-86. He stated on the SF-86 that
his debts occurred while he was in college, and he further stated he had saved money to pay his
delinquencies and intended to pay them. (Item 1.)
3
Applicant responded to DOHA interrogatories about his financial delinquencies on January
11, 2007.  He acknowledged the debts alleged at ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.h. of the SOR and admitted he had
not  paid or settled those debts.  He suggested he be granted a conditional security clearance until his
delinquent debts were paid off. He failed to provide evidence that any of the alleged debts had been
paid.  He stated he would have paid his debts sooner if he had known that he would receive a security
clearance after having done so.  (Item 7 at 5.)
Applicant’s 2005 credit bureau report shows that at least three of his delinquencies were turned
over for collection in 1999. (Item 9.)  Nothing in the record suggests he sought or participated in credit
counseling.
POLICIES
“[No 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
predicated upon the applicant meeting the security guidelines contained in the Directive. 
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.
 Guideline F, ¶ 19(a) reads: “Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.” Guideline F, ¶ 19(c) reads: “A history3
of not meeting financial obligations.”
4
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 eleven unsatisfied delinquent debts
totaling approximately $18,000.  The allegations raised security concerns under two Guideline F
disqualifying conditions, ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c).   Applicant admitted responsibility for all eleven debts3
and asserted in July 2005 and in January 2007 that he had saved money to pay his debts.  His answer
to the SOR in March and April 2007 indicated he had failed to satisfy any of the eleven debts.  
Through Applicant’s admissions and the record evidence, the Government established that
Applicant had a history of not meeting his financial obligations and was unable or unwilling to satisfy
his debts as specified in Guideline F, ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c).   
Several conditions could mitigate the security concerns raised by Applicant’s 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.  All of his financial delinquencies remain unresolved, suggesting that the
circumstances that caused these delinquencies are likely to continue in the future, thereby casting
doubt on Applicant’s current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.  Accordingly, ¶ 20(a)
does not apply as a mitigating condition.  Applicant attributes his financial delinquencies to debts
accrued in college. The record shows he graduated from college in 1997 and has been steadily
employed since  then.  Thus, the facts do not of themselves establish that Applicant’s unresolved
financial delinquencies occurred while he was a student, were largely beyond his control, or that he
acted reasonably under the circumstances.  Nothing in the record suggests Applicant contacted his
5
creditors to negotiate payment or settlement plans, even though he said, in July 2005 and January 2007
that he had saved money to pay his creditors and intended to do so. Accordingly, I conclude ¶ 20(b)
does not apply to the facts of Applicant’s case.
Nothing in the record suggests Applicant has sought or participated in financial counseling
and the evidence strongly shows his underlying financial problems are neither resolved nor under
control.  Accordingly, I conclude that ¶ 20(c) is inapplicable.  
Several of Applicant’s delinquencies date from 1999.  His record statements suggest he
perceived the award of a security clearance as a quid pro quo for paying his debts, and he appeared
unwilling to act on his obligation to pay his creditors and honor his financial commitments.
Accordingly, I 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. His  history of not
meeting his financial obligations and his inability to pay his debts over a period of several years raises
a security concern because it suggests a lack of good faith. Twice he promised to pay his delinquent
debts, and twice he failed to do so. Since he has not sought consumer credit counseling or assistance
in learning how to manage his finances, Applicant has failed to demonstrate his delinquencies will not
continue to be 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
6
The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:
Paragraph 1.: Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.k.: 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.
Joan Caton Anthony
Administrative Judge