DATE:  October 18, 2007
In re:
------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-18694
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
NOREEN A. LYNCH
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Gina L. Marine, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant incurred approximately $18,570 in delinquent debt, including many charged off
collection accounts.  Applicant owes approximately $6,000 for tax year 2003 to the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS). She provided no information concerning a structured plan to pay her creditors, and
thus failed to mitigate the security concerns raised under the financial considerations guideline.
Applicant's eligibility for a security clearance is denied.
This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive1
5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified (Directive).
The government submitted eight items in support of its contentions.2
Item 5 (Applicant’s admission in Interrogatories).3
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On December 14, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) stating that it was unable to find that it is clearly consistent
with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance.  The SOR, which is in essence1
the administrative complaint, alleged security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
of the revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) issued on December 29, 2005, and implemented by the
Department of Defense effective September 1, 2006. The revised guidelines were provided to
Applicant when the SOR was issued.
On January 11, 2007, Applicant submitted a notarized response to the SOR, and elected to
have her case decided on the record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the
Government’s written case on August 1, 2007. Applicant received a complete file of relevant
material (FORM) on August 7, 2007, and was provided the opportunity to file objections and submit
material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.   Applicant did not submit any2
additional information. The case was assigned to me on October 1, 2007. 
RULING ON PROCEDURE
On July 31, 2007, the government moved to amend the SOR by deleting and replacing the
existing allegation 1.d to conform to the record evidence, and adding the following allegation to the
SOR as 1.f.
1.d     You are indebted to Appl CD Bk/ Pinnacle Financial Group in the approximate amount
of $2,730, for a delinquent account referred for collection by Cross Country in about July 2004. As
of April 27, 2007, this debt has not been paid.
1.f     You are indebted to the Internal Revenue Service in the approximate amount of $6,000
for the tax year 2003. As of October 20, 2006, this debt has not been paid.3
The Applicant did not object to the motion. I granted the government’s motion to amend the
SOR.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted  allegations in subparagraphs  1.a through 1.e in her SOR response under
Guideline F. The admissions are incorporated as findings of fact. After a complete review of the
evidence in the record and upon due consideration, I make the following additional findings of fact:
Item 4 (Application for Security Clearance (SF 86), dated August 23, 2005).4
Id.5
Item 5 (Answer to Interrogatories, dated November 2006).6
Id.7
Item 7(Credit Bureau Report, dated April 27, 2007) at 1-3.8
Item 5, supra note 6, at 8.9
Item 6 (Personal Financial Statement, dated February 23, 2006).10
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  11
3
Applicant is a 28-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She attended high school from
1993 until 1996. She obtained her GED in 1999. She has worked for her current employer since
November 2002. She is married with no children.  On August 23, 2005, she completed her security4
clearance (SF 86) application.5
Applicant was steadily employed after high school. Applicant did not provide any details
about her work record. 
In 2001, Applicant was diagnosed with melanoma. She required chemotherapy and due to
the side effects was ordered by her physician to remain home and out of work. Applicant states she
was out of work for almost one year. During that year she worked approximately six weeks.6
Applicant’s debts in the SOR total approximately $18,570.    Multiple accounts were charged7
off or placed for collection. Several of the debts have been in collection since 2002.  8
Applicant provided some details about her financial status in her February 2006 investigative
interview.  She acknowledges that her credit is poor and that she has an inability to pay all her bills.
She wants to pay her debts, but has not developed a plan to resolve them. However, she stated that
she did contact the creditors and will get back to them to make arrangements to pay her bills. During
that interview, she noted that she owes $6,000 in taxes from 2003 to the IRS.9
Applicant and her husband earn $3,395 in monthly net income. After her monthly  expenses
of $2,404, she has a net remainder of $991. She is not making any monthly payments to any creditors
listed in the SOR.10
POLICIES
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.”   In Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding11
Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960), the President set out guidelines and
procedures for safeguarding classified information and determining trustworthiness within the
executive branch. 
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.12
 Directive, Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) 2 (a)(1)-(9).13
 Id.14
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.15
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.15.16
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).17
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.18
4
To be eligible for a security clearance or access to sensitive information, an applicant must
meet the security guidelines contained in the Directive.  The revised Adjudicative Guidelines set forth
potentially disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) under each guideline.
Additionally, each security 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 adjudicative
process factors listed in ¶ 6.3 of the Directive, and AG ¶ 2(a).
“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make
an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for a security clearance.”    An administrative12
judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the available, reliable
information about the person.   An administrative judge should consider the following factors: (1)13
the nature, extent, 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
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 pertinent 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.   14
Initially, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts in the SOR that
disqualify or may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information.15
Thereafter, the applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate the facts.  An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent16
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”  Any doubt as to whether17
access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor
of the national security.  The same rules apply to trustworthiness determinations for access to18
sensitive positions.
CONCLUSIONS
I have carefully considered all the facts in evidence and the legal standards. The government
has established a prima facie case for disqualification under Guideline F of the revised Adjudicative
Guidelines (AG) most pertinent to the evaluation of the facts in this case.
AG ¶ 18.19
ISCR Case No. 99-0012 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 1999)(citation omitted).20
5
 
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) The Concern: 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. An individual who
is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.19
In this matter, the government provided substantial evidence that Applicant accrued  delinquent
debts with an approximate total balance of $18,570. She admits they are still outstanding debts. Her
2007 credit report and answers to her interrogatories confirm all her alleged debts. Consequently,
Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶19(a) (inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts) and FC DC AG ¶19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply. 
With the government’s case established, the burden shifts to Applicant to present evidence of
refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against her. I considered the Financial
Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶20(a), (the behavior 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). It does not apply because
Applicant still carries a significant amount of delinquent debt. One collection account is from 2002.
Despite steady employment, these numerous debts are delinquent. She provided no explanation of
special circumstances that would apply.
She has been in her current position since 2002. She has not provided sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the FC MC AG ¶20(b) (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) and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances).
I have considered the remaining mitigating conditions. FC MC AG¶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 under control); FC MC AG ¶ 20 (d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort
to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts);FC MC AG ¶20(e) (the individual has a
reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and
provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to
resolve the issue) 
Applicant has not received financial counseling or developed a structured plan to resolve these
debts. Applicant's financial problems remain. It is unlikely they will be resolved in the near future.
Applicant has not shown that she established a record of steady payments or financial stability.  Thus,
I conclude that she has not made a good-faith effort to resolve her debts. Despite her promises to take
actions in the future, however sincere, this is not a substitute for a documented track record of remedial
actions. The Appeal Board has held that “a promise to take remedial steps in the future is not evidence
of reform or rehabilitation.”20
6
The issue is not whether Applicant is still legally liable for any or all of her outstanding debts,
but whether she has presented sufficient evidence of extenuation, mitigation or changed circumstances
to warrant a favorable security determination. Her remaining unpaid debt constitutes a security
concern.  She has been employed with her current employer since 2002. She has not been able to
resolve her delinquent debts. Applicant has not mitigated the government’s concerns under Guideline
F.
Whole Person
In all adjudications, the protection of our national security is the paramount concern. The
objective of the trustworthy determination process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a
person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is eligible for assignment to sensitive
duties. Indeed, the adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a number of variables in considering
the “whole person” concept. It recognizes that we should view a person by the totality of their acts,
omissions, motivations and other variables. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits, taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful
analysis.
I have considered all the evidence and the “whole person” in evaluating Applicant’s security
clearance determination.  An applicant with a good or even exemplary work history may engage in
conduct that has negative implications or presents doubt about her judgment. Despite steady
employment, Applicant has accrued multiple delinquent accounts. 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: 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
DECISION
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with national interest to grant Applicant’s request for a security clearance. Clearance is
denied.
7
 Noreen A. Lynch
Administrative Judge