DATE:  November 28, 2007
In re:
--------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-21578
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
NOREEN A. LYNCH
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Gary Rigney, Esq.
SYNOPSIS
Applicant incurred approximately $24,000 in delinquent debt. Having developed no
structured plan to pay these debts, he has not  mitigated 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).
GE 1(Security Clearance Application, dated April 6, 2005).2
Id.3
Tr. 29-30.4
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On August 23, 2007, 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 essence the1
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 September 12, 2007, Applicant submitted a notarized
response to the SOR, and elected to have a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was
assigned to me on October 2, 2007.
The hearing was convened as scheduled on October 31, 2007, to consider whether it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.
Government exhibits (GE 1-5) were admitted. Applicant’s exhibits (AE A-D) were admitted into
the record without objection. Applicant had two witnesses testify in his behalf as reflected in the
hearing transcript. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on November 13, 2007.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Applicant admitted  allegations in subparagraphs  1.c through 1. h in his SOR response under
Guideline F. The admissions are incorporated as findings of fact. Applicant denied allegations in
subparagraph 1.a, 1.b, and 1.e based on lack of sufficient information. After a complete review of
the evidence in the record and upon due consideration, I make the following additional findings of
fact:
Applicant is a 31-year-old employee of a defense contractor. After he graduated from high
school in 1994, he married. In 1997, Applicant entered the military, but he received a hardship
discharge in 1998. His first marriage ended in divorce in 2000. He has worked for his current
employer since 2004.  On April 6, 2005, he completed his security clearance (SF 86) application.2 3
Applicant remarried in late 2000. As a result of that marriage he has one son. His second wife
has substance abuse problems. Unbeknownst to Applicant, she used cocaine and methamphetamine.
He and his wife separated because he did not want any part of this behavior. His wife left and
Applicant’s son stayed with him in approximately 2001. At the same time, Applicant started a
flooring business. He was having financial difficulties with the business. He had great difficulty in
managing his money.4
GE 5 (Applicant’s answer to Interrogatories, dated July 26, 2007).5
Tr. 30-31; AE A (Divorce Decree).6
AE B, C, and D (Income Tax Forms 2006-2004).7
Tr.27.8
Tr. 40.9
Personal Financial Statement, dated 2007.10
3
The flooring business did not do well. Applicant also had legal expenses in conjunction with
his separation and divorce. His self-employment did not produce an adequate income for him and
his son. During that time (2003), Applicant wrote checks and did not have sufficient funds in his
account to cover the checks. He does not dispute that he was charged with Fraud-Insufficient Funds
on four occasions from 2003 until 2005. He paid restitution on all of them.  5
During the two-year period of separation from his second wife, Applicant had credit cards
in both names. His wife continued to use them and the bills were not paid. Applicant tried to have
an account closed at one point. However, she continued to use them. They did not have a separation
agreement at the time. He also bought her a car a few days after they separated. They co-signed the
car note. The car was repossessed in 2002. Applicant called the company to see how much he owed
on the vehicle after it was sold. He did not receive any response from them.  In 2004, Applicant and
his second wife were finally divorced.6
Applicant’s income began to increase with his current job. In 2004, he earned $6,600. In
2005, he earned $25,543 and in 2006, he earned $31,395. He has filed and paid his taxes.  He now7
has a stable, steady income. He has not incurred any new debt. He does not use credit cards.  He8
managed to pay many debts that were listed in his credit report but none of the debts listed on the
SOR. He supports his son on his own. He paid his car loan and several other loans. He does not have
any outstanding current debt. 
Applicant bought a home in 2006. The mortgage company did not require a down payment.
The mortgage rate increased from approximately 7 percent to 12 percent in a short period of time.
He could not refinance due to his credit rating. He had no choice at that time. The home was
foreclosed. He contacted the company but has not received anything from them with regard to the
current status.  9
He earns approximately $1,600 net take home pay each month. After expenses he has a net
remainder of $480.  He now rents from his father.10
The current status of Applicant’s alleged debts listed in the SOR is as follows:
SOR ¶ Type of Account/Amount Status Evidence
Although Applicant disputes some debts due to his wife’s use of the credit, the debts themselves are not11
denied.
Testimony of witness at Tr. 67.12
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 527 (1988).  13
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.1.14
4
1.a Collection account    $3,275 Disputed Tr.47-48 11
1.b Credit card                $2,581 Disputed Tr.51
1.c Car Repossession     $6,286 Attempted settlement Tr.52
1.d Credit account           $1,914 Disputed Tr.53
1.e Phone account           $   402 Disputed Tr.54
1.f Foreclosure                $9,971 Unpaid Tr.63
Applicant’s team leader reports that Applicant is a very good employee who is conscientious
and follows all rules.   He also believes Applicant is well respected and well liked by his peers. He12
recommends him for a security clearance. He has no misgivings about Applicant’s ability to
safeguard classified information. A manager of the company also testified in Applicant’s behalf. He
characterizes Applicant as honest, and dependable. He has proven to be an invaluable asset. He does
not require frequent direction and can be trusted in his position.
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, Safeguarding13
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. 
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 administrative14
judge must apply the “whole person concept,” and consider and carefully weigh the available, reliable
 Directive, Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG)¶2 (a)(1)-(9).15
 Id.16
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.14.17
 Directive, ¶ E3.1.15.18
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002).19
 Directive, ¶ E2.2.2.20
AG ¶ 18.21
5
information about the person.   An administrative judge should consider the following factors: (1)15
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.   16
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.17
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 consistent18
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.”  Any doubt as to whether19
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 to20
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.
 
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.21
In this matter, the government provided substantial evidence that Applicant accrued  delinquent
debts with an approximate total balance of $24,000. He admits many debts are still not paid. His 2007
credit report confirms his SOR 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. 
6
With the government’s case established, the burden shifts to Applicant to present evidence of
refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against him. 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). This does not apply because
Applicant’s debts from the SOR are as recent as 2005 and 2006. 
Applicant’s debt resulted from his separation and divorce from his second wife. He also had
a business downturn in his flooring business. These are conditions that were largely beyond his control.
To fully satisfy 20(b), Applicant must have acted responsibly under the circumstances. However, he
paid other bills but did not actively pursue the debts listed in the SOR. The car repossession and the
foreclosure were addressed somewhat, but Applicant did not continue efforts to resolve the debts. 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). Applicant has not fully
met both requirements of 20(b).
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) does not apply in this case. FC MC AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual
initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) partially applies.
Applicant called some of the companies but did not follow up in writing. He did not take an active
stance to resolve his debts or seek protection in bankruptcy.  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) partially applies as well. Applicant did not have any documented proof to
substantiate the disputed accounts. He was credible in that his second wife continued to use the credit
cards, but he had a legal responsibility because they were in his name, and he did not act to remove
her. 
Applicant has not received any financial counseling. There are not clear indications that the
financial problem is being resolved or is under control.
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. Applicant is a hard-working man who was honorably discharged from the
military in 1998. His second marriage created financial problems as his second wife accumulated debt
7
under Applicant’s name. This is the half of the debt listed in the SOR. He had a business downturn and
severe financial difficulty in 2003-2005. He has custody of his son and provides for him. He now has
a stable position and is current on his bills. He has made some good faith efforts to resolve his
delinquent debts, but not sufficient to meet his burden in this case. He was honest and candid at the
hearing concerning his second wife’s part in this matter. 
I considered his military experience, his service to the country, and the very favorable
endorsement by his employer. After considering all the evidence, and particularly that Applicant has
no structured plan to pay the delinquent debts, I find Applicant has not presented sufficient evidence
of extenuation, mitigation or changed circumstances to warrant a favorable security determination.
Applicant has not met his burden in this case. He has not mitigated the government’s concerns under
Guideline F. It is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security
clearance. Clearance is denied.
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:- 1.j: 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.
Noreen A. Lynch
Administrative Judge