DATE:  November 27, 2007
In re:
---------------------
SSN: -----------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 06-25429
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
MARC E. CURRY
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
Julie R. Edmunds, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
Applicant’s accrual of $9,500 in delinquent debt, and his failure to make a good-faith
effort to satisfy or otherwise resolve them create a financial considerations security concern
which he failed to mitigate. Clearance is denied.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 12, 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
Item 3.1
Id.2
Item 5 at 2.3
Item 6 at 3.4
2
answered the SOR on August 6, 2007, admitting all of the allegations except subparagraphs 1.q
through 1.s, and elected to have the case decided on the written record.
On August 30, 2007, the government submitted a File of Relevant Materials (FORM) which
Applicant received on September 10, 2007. Applicant neither objected to any of the FORM
submissions, nor submitted any supplementary documents. The case was assigned to me on
November 2, 2007.
RULING ON EVIDENCE
Department counsel’s motion to strike SOR subparagraph 1.s and SOR Paragraph 2 is
granted.
FINDINGS OF FACT 
Applicant is a 32-year-old married man with two stepchildren ages six and nine. His first
marriage ended in divorce in 2001. He is a paramedic and a firefighter. He earned a paramedic
certificate in 2002.
Between approximately 2001 and 2007, Applicant accrued 18 delinquent debts in the
approximate amount of $9,500. Fourteen are medical bills (SOR subparagraphs 1.a through 1.n), one
is a deficiency owed on a repossessed car (SOR subparagraph 1.o), and three are delinquent credit
card accounts (SOR subparagraphs 1.p through 1.r). Applicant’s ex-wife, who was covered under
his health insurance when they were married, accrued the medical bills.  The remainder were joint1
debts he “was stuck with”  after the divorce was finalized. 2
Applicant satisfied subparagraph 1.q.  There is no record evidence documenting when he3
satisfied it. His contention that he satisfied subparagraph 1.r is unsupported by any documentary
evidence. He asserts that he has not been able to satisfy any other delinquencies because of “lack of
money.”  4
Applicant contacted the creditor listed in SOR subparagraph 1.p and proposed a payment
plan. The creditor rejected it. As of March 2007, he was considering filing for bankruptcy protection.
To date, he has not filed it. 
POLICIES
See generally, Directive, Sec. 2.3, Sec. 2.5.3, Sec. 3.2, and Sec. 4.2.5
Adjudicative Guideline Paragraph 18.6
3
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.
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 conclusions5
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
“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.”6
Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts7
A history of not meeting financial obligations.8
Consistent spending beyond one’s means, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant9
negative cash flow, high debt-to-income ratio, and/or other financial analysis. 
The conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of10
employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or separation), and the
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.
4
Applicant’s history of financial problems triggers the application of Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) 19(a),  FC DC 19(c),  and FC DC 19(e).  I have considered all7 8 9
of the mitigating conditions and conclude none apply. All but one of the SOR delinquencies are still
outstanding, he provided no evidence that he has attended any financial counseling, and he has yet
to fulfill his promise to resolve the delinquencies through bankruptcy. He provided no documentary
proof to support his dispute of SOR subparagraph 1.r. Although Financial Condition Mitigating
Condition 20(b)  is potentially applicable because of the relationship of his delinquencies to his10
2001 divorce, his failure to responsibly address them by satisfying or otherwise disposing of them
renders it inapplicable. Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations security concern.
Whole Person Concept
Applicant accrued approximately $9,500 of delinquent debt between 2001 and 2007. Because
his ex-wife accrued much of it, its nature, extent, and seriousness are mitigated somewhat.
Applicant, however, has taken no significant steps to address them. Absent any evidence of
rehabilitation, the likelihood that his financial difficulties will continue remains unacceptably high.
Evaluating this case in the context of the whole person concept, I conclude he remains a security
concern.
FORMAL FINDINGS
Paragraph 1 – Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a -1.r: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s: WITHDRAWN
Paragraph 2 - Guideline E: WITHDRAWN 
DECISION
5
In light of all 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.
Marc E. Curry
Administrative Judge