KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Between 2001 and 2006, Applicant accrued 20 delinquent debts in the approximate
amount of $95,000. During this time, he was totally disabled because of a work-related injury.
Before the injury, he had no financial problems. He returned to work in 2006 shortly after his
physician cleared him, retained a credit counseling agency, satisfied eight of the delinquencies in the
amount of $10,000, and filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. He is paying the remaining debts through
the plan. Applicant has mitigated ths financial considerations security concern. Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 07-00147.h1
DATE: 09/06/2007
DATE:  September 6, 2007
In re:
---------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-00147
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARC E. CURRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Peggy L. Moore, Esq.
SYNOPSIS
Answer at 1; Tr. 23.1
Applicant’s company had no light duty positions (Tr. 83).2
Tr. 60-61.3
2
Between 2001 and 2006, Applicant accrued 20 delinquent debts in the approximate amount
of $95,000. During this time, he was totally disabled because of a work-related injury. Before the
injury, he had no financial problems. He returned to work in 2006 shortly after his physician cleared
him, retained a credit counseling agency, satisfied eight of the delinquencies in the amount of
$10,000, and filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. He is paying the remaining debts through the plan.
Applicant has mitigated ths financial considerations security concern. Clearance is granted. 
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On April 16, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) explaining why it was not clearly consistent with the national interest
to grant or continue a security clearance. This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated
February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as amended. He
answered the SOR on May 10, 2007, admitting the allegations and requesting a hearing.
The case was assigned to me on June 22, 2007. On July 6, 2007, DOHA issued a notice of
hearing scheduling it for August 1, 2007. During the hearing, I received four government exhibits,
nine Applicant exhibits, and the testimony of three Applicant witnesses. DOHA received the
transcript on August 10, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT 
The SOR admissions are incorporated into the findings of fact. In addition, I make the
following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 46-year-old divorced man with two adult children. He is a veteran of the U.S.
Coast Guard, serving from 1980 through his disability retirement in 1998. After leaving the Coast
Guard, Applicant began working as a driver for an armored car delivery company. 
One day in October 2001, the driver of a work vehicle in which Applicant was a passenger
lost control, began hydroplaning, and crashed.  Consequently, Applicant suffered serious, soft tissue1
injuries to his neck, knee, and left shoulder, rendering him unable to work.
Despite an intensive treatment regimen, including prescription painkillers, multiple cortisone
injections, physical rehabilitation, and shoulder surgery, Applicant remained unable to work for
nearly five years. He had no earnings during this period.  For the first two years of his disability, his2
income loss was partially offset by worker’s compensation benefits.  By 2003, however, he had3
Id.4
Tr. 60.5
Tr. 62, 71.6
Exhibit H; Tr. 62.7
Id.8
Tr. 91.9
Tr. 63.10
Tr. 41, 96.11
Tr. 40-41, 94; Exhibit A.12
Tr. 41.13
Exhibit D; Tr. 42.14
Exhibit F.15
3
exhausted these benefits.  From October 2003 through February  2006, Applicant’s only income was4
his Coast Guard pension.  5
At or about the time of the accident, Applicant was helping both of his children pay their
college tuition, and was paying child support.  In 2003, his mother suffered a disability that6
prevented her from working.  Applicant then began providing her approximately eighty to one7
hundred dollars per month in financial support.8
As Applicant disability persisted, he gradually began accruing delinquencies. He managed
to make some payments through a credit card insurance program, but the benefits expired before he
was cleared to return to work.  Before the injury, he had no financial problems.  By February 2006,9 10
when his doctor cleared him to return to work, he was indebted to 20 creditors in the approximate
amount of $96,000. All of the delinquencies were either credit card accounts or lines of credit. Eight
accounts  were not included in the SOR. SOR subparagraphs 1.c, 1.d, and 1.n are duplicates.
After being cleared to work, Applicant left his old job, and began working in March 2007
as a security guard. He has remained engaged in this line of work since that time.
As soon as Applicant returned to work, he began paying his delinquencies. Between March
2006 and January 2007, he made $10,000 of debt payments, satisfying eight creditors, unlisted on
the SOR, in their entirety.  For approximately six months during this period, beginning in June11
2006, he utilized a credit counseling company to help him adhere to a debt repayment plan.12
In January 2007, Applicant sought legal counsel after one of his creditors threatened to sue
him.  In March 2007, he filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection.  Two months later, the court13 14
appointed a trustee to administer Applicant’s bankruptcy plan payments.  Under the plan,15
approximately half of the delinquencies will be discharged, and Applicant is to pay $745 per month
Tr. 23. 16
Tr. 28.17
4
for 60 months. He has been making payments since June 2007. In July 2007, the court entered a
wage order to enable payments to be deducted from his paycheck. All of the delinquencies in the
SOR are included in the bankruptcy plan.
Applicant is highly respected on the job. At the hearing, a coworker characterized him as an
upstanding citizen who is honest and hardworking.  His supervisor characterized him as an excellent16
employee with sound judgment and decision-making skills.17
POLICIES
The adjudicative guidelines, as revised December 29, 2005, and implemented September 1,
2006, apply to the analysis of this case. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each
guideline, they are divided into those that may be considered in deciding whether to deny or revoke
an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information (disqualifying conditions) and those
that may be considered in deciding whether to grant an individual’s eligibility for access to classified
information (mitigating conditions).
Because the entire process is a scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person
concept,” all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, should be considered in making a meaningful decision. 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.
The following adjudicative guideline is raised:
Guideline F - Financial Considerations: 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.
Conditions pertaining to this adjudicative guideline that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying, as well as those which could mitigate security concerns, are set forth and discussed
in the conclusions below.
Since the protection of national security is the paramount consideration, the final decision
in each case must be reached by applying the standard that the issuance of the clearance is “clearly
See generally, Directive, Sec. 2.3, Sec. 2.5.3, Sec. 3.2, and Sec. 4.2.18
5
consistent with the national interest.”   In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those18
conclusions that are based on the evidence contained in the record.
The Government is responsible for presenting evidence to establish facts in the SOR that
have been controverted. The applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain,
extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by the Government, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.
CONCLUSIONS
Applicant’s history of financial problems triggers the application of Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) 19(a): inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts, FC DC 19(c):
a history of not meeting financial obligations, and FC DC 19(e): consistent spending beyond one’s
means, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-
to-income ratio, and/or other financial analysis. 
Applicant’s financial problems did not begin until he was seriously disabled by an on-the-job
injury which prevented him from working for nearly five years. At the same time he was disabled,
his mother became disabled, compelling him to attempt to help her financially, and he was helping
his two children with their college tuition.
Shortly after Applicant was cleared to begin working, he retained a credit counseling agency,
satisfied eight of his delinquencies in the amount of $10,000, and arranged to pay the remainder
through a Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan. Although he has only made payments through the plan for
three months, he had been paying down his debts for 16 months before he began making payments
through the plan. Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC) 20(b): the conditions that
resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment,
a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or separation), and the
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances, FC MC 20(c): 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, and FC MC (d): the creditor initiated a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts, apply. Applicant has mitigated the financial
considerations security concern.
Whole Person Concept
Applicant accrued a tremendous amount of delinquencies between 2001 and 2006. Although
he has been satisfying them for approximately 18 months, he continues to owe more than $50,000.
No record evidence exists that any of these debts originated from irresponsible spending. Instead,
they accrued from his inability to support himself because of a disabling on-the-job injury. Since
returning to work, his efforts at rehabilitating his finances have been exemplary, and his financial
situation appears to be well in control. These positive factors substantially outweigh the negative
ones. Evaluating this case in the context of the whole-person concept, I conclude that Applicant has
mitigated the security concern. 
6
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1 – Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a-1.n: FOR APPLICANT
DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is
granted.
Marc E. Curry
Administrative Judge