KEYWORD: Financial
DIGEST: Between 1999 and 2005, Applicant accrued approximately $22,000 of delinquent debt.
All of this debt related to expenses he incurred while struggling to afford a prestigious, expensive
private college without any financial help from his impoverished parents. Since graduating, he
obtained a job, has received two raises, and has entered a payment plan to address the delinquencies.
Clearance is granted.
CASENO: 07-07110.h1
DATE: 09/26/2007
DATE: September 26, 2007
In re:
------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-07110
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARC E. CURRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
2
Between 1999 and 2005, Applicant accrued approximately $22,000 of delinquent debt. All
of this debt related to expenses he incurred while struggling to afford a prestigious, expensive private
college without any financial help from his impoverished parents. Since graduating, he obtained a
job, has received two raises, and has entered a payment plan to address the delinquencies. Clearance
is granted.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 13, 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 August 9, 2007, and requested a hearing.
The case was assigned to me on August 22, 2007. On August 30, 2007, DOHA issued a
notice of hearing scheduling it for September 11, 2007. Applicant waived his right to 15-days notice
of hearing. During the hearing, I received two government exhibits, 11 Applicant exhibits, and the
testimony of two Applicant witnesses. DOHA received the transcript on September 21, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT 
Applicant admitted all of the allegations in SOR , and they are incorporated into the findings
of fact. In addition, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 26-year-old single man with a five-year-old daughter. He earned a bachelor’s
degree in business administration in January 2006. 
Shortly after graduating, Applicant began working for a defense contractor as a technical
communications coordinator (Exhibit 1). His responsibilities included writing requests for proposals.
Later, he was promoted to the position of information technology manager, where he currently
serves. His duties include installing networks, servicing computers, and training staff (Tr. 17). 
Applicant is highly respected at work. According to his supervisor, he is an exceptionally
ambitious young man with a high degree of maturity who has performed admirably(Exhibit E, Tr.
45-48). He has been rewarded for his outstanding performance with two raises (Exhibits E through
G). 
Applicant was the first person in his family ever to attend college (Tr. 36). Tuition was
$38,000 per year (Tr. 22). Because his family was poor, they were unable to help him financially (Tr.
35). Through a combination of grants, scholarships, and work-study programs, Applicant was able
to pay the annual tuition (Tr. 22). He underestimated the additional costs, such as books, lodging,
transportation, and food. 
3
He began applying for credit cards to meet these expenses. As a young man who had just
finished high school, he “did not fully understand” how quickly credit card debt could accrue (Tr.
21, 43). He attempted to stay current with his credit card bills, but as time passed, what he was
earning part-time through his work-study scholarship was not enough to cover the living expenses
he was charging on his credit cards (Id.).
Applicant’s finances were stretched further by the birth of his daughter while he was in
college.  He was unable to satisfy his child support obligation (Exhibit J).
By the time Applicant graduated, he had accrued 14 delinquent accounts in the approximate
amount of $22,000. Nine are owed to credit card companies (1.a, 1.c, 1.f through 1.j, 1.m and 1.n).
The remainder includes a medical bill (1.b), a late car note payment (1.d), a delinquent phone bill
(1.l), a child support delinquency (1.e), and a debt owed to a community college Applicant attended
for a semester (1.k).
Applicant has been satisfying the delinquent child support obligation since April 2007
(Exhibit H). Currently, he pays $135 per week, $60 of which is applied toward the arrearage (Id. at
2).
The other delinquencies lingered for approximately 18 months after Applicant graduated. He
lacked the extra income to make any payments (Tr. 20). When Applicant received his most recent
raise in August 2007, he consulted a credit counselor (Exhibit A). With the help of the counselor,
he consolidated all of his debts except the child support delinquency into a payment plan. Under the
plan, he will pay $800 each month for the next 30 months (Exhibit A, Tr. 19). He made his first
payment on September 5, 2007 (Exhibit A).
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; (2)the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include
knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the age of the
applicant; (5) the extent to which the participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent 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.
The following adjudicative guideline is raised:
See generally, Directive, Sec. 2.3, Sec. 2.5.3, Sec. 3.2, and Sec. 4.2.1
4
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
consistent with the national interest.”  In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions1
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
Financial Considerations
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 did not accrue the delinquencies through
frivolous spending. Instead, he accrued them while struggling to put himself through college. As his
financial outlook gradually improved, he began satisfying his delinquencies, first organizing a child
support payment plan, and later organizing a payment plan for the other delinquencies. Also, he is
working with a credit counselor. 
Upon evaluating the unique circumstances leading to the accrual of the delinquencies, the
professional assistance Applicant has sought to satisfy them, and his current progress, I conclude that
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) 20(a): the behavior occurred under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur, and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment, FC MC 20(c): the person 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
20(d): the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors, apply. Applicant has
mitigated the financial considerations security concern.
Whole Person Concept
5
Although Applicant entered into a debt payment plan, and has been making payments toward
the satisfaction of the child support delinquency since April 2007, his debt still exceed $20,000.  Any
negative inference generated by this fact is greatly outweighed by the unique circumstances that led
to his debts, the subsequent steps to resolve them, and his strong character. As a first-generation
college student from a poor family, he could have easily foregone his college of choice given its high
tuition. Instead, he successfully managed to procure enough scholarships and financial aid to enable
him to pay his tuition. Although he was unable to afford the college’s miscellaneous costs without
accruing delinquent debt, he managed to earn his degree. Evaluating this case in the context of the
whole person concept, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concern. Clearance is granted.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1 – Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 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