DATE:  November 13, 2007
In re:
---------------------------
SSN: ------------
Applicant for Security Clearance
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ISCR Case No. 07-00413
DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE
PAUL J. MASON
APPEARANCES
FOR GOVERNMENT
John B. Glendon, Esq., Department Counsel
FOR APPLICANT
Pro Se
SYNOPSIS
By launching her Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan in February 2007 before she officially received
notice her security clearance application was in jeopardy, and by substantiating seven regular
payments under the plan, Applicant has exercised good judgment in demonstrating she is serious
about eradicating her financial troubles. Her persuasive character evidence tells me she will
successfully complete the plan while taking the appropriate steps to ensure the financial setbacks do
not recur. Clearance is granted. 
STATEMENT OF CASE
2
On March 30, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to
Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, dated January 2, 1992, as revised by Adjudicative
Guidelines (AG) made effective on September 1, 2006, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the
Applicant. The SOR indicated that based on financial considerations (Guideline F), DOHA could
not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. DOHA recommended
referral to an Administrative Judge to conduct proceedings and determine whether clearance should
be granted, continued, denied or revoked. On April 24, 2007, Applicant provided her response to the
SOR and requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. 
The case was assigned to me on July 16, 2007. On August 6, 2007, this case was set for
hearing on September 12, 2007. The Government submitted six  exhibits. Applicant submitted two
exhibits. In addition to her testimony, four witnesses testified in her behalf. The transcript (Tr.) was
received on September 26, 2007. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
There are 11 creditors listed in the SOR. Seven of the creditors are medical facilities or
collection agencies representing the facilities. Four are credit cards or jewelry stores. The debts total
$10,658.00. Applicant admitted all debts, and considered her son’s medical difficulties, her medical
problems, and the trouble she encountered during her first marriage to be the primary reasons for her
debts becoming delinquent. The listed debts became delinquent between October 2001 and August
2003. 
Applicant is 37 years old and employed has been an administrative assistant with a defense
contractor since November 2006. Before her current employment, she was an acquisition specialist
with another defense contractor for approximately two and ½ years. She has been married since
March 2005. She has one child, 11 years old.
! 1.a. Applicant opened the credit card account in February 2002. The account was charged
off in November 2004. In February 2007, the account was delinquent in the amount of $2,006.00.
! 1.b. Applicant opened a second credit card (same company) in May 2002. That account
was charged off in November 2004. The current, delinquent amount owed is $1,735.00. Both
accounts 1.a. and 1.b. are included in Applicant’s Chapter 13 plan (GE 5; AE A). The only accounts
not included are the two described in subparagraphs 1.j. and 1.k.
! 1.c. Applicant opened the mail-order catalog account in October 2001. The account
($1,224.00, currently held by a collection agency) was charged off in December 2003, and is listed
in the Chapter 13 plan (GE 5; AE A)
! 1.d. This delinquent bill represents the cost of medical treatment for Applicant’s son who
was hospitalized in November 2004 for five days because of a sinus infection. The past due amount
is $1,963.00.
3
! 1.e. Dental surgery for Applicant’s son occurred in April 2002 and cost $1055.00. 
! 1.f. Applicant owes $901.00 for the anesthesia her son received in advance of dental
surgery in April 2002. 
! 1.g. Applicant received medical surgery June 2002, costing $804.00 for a hysterectomy.
! 1.h. This debt ($666.00) is the physician’s fee for conducting the hysterectomy. 
! 1.i. Applicant’s son caught a common virus that most children get. The listed bill ($134.00)
represents the cost of her son’s hospitalization for one night. 
! 1.j. Though Applicant could not identify this bill at the hearing, she admitted the bill in her
answer to the SOR. GE 4 (credit bureau report, CBR) reflects the bill is for medical services
rendered in July 2002.
! 1.k. Although Applicant admitted the debt in her answer to the SOR, she did not know
what the debt was for. She told the investigator that the $45.00 may have been for a cable service
she had while she lived in a neighboring state. The debt does not appear in her Chapter 13 petition
because she did not know about the debt until she received the package from DOHA in April 2007.
She talked to her former husband about the bill, but he did not know anything about the bill. She can
certainly pay the debt.
Applicant married in September 1996 and gave birth to a son in July 1997. In April 1998, her
husband took a temporary work assignment in another state, and Applicant moved with him. The job
was only supposed to last only six months but did not end until two years later. Instead of selling
their marital home, they rented it. Apparently, the rental payments and unreliable renters contributed
to a mortgage shortfall they could not recover from.
After they returned to their permanent duty location in the summer of 2000, they fell further
behind on the mortgage and other debts. Adding to increasing financial problems was a deteriorating
marriage and Applicant’s unanticipated health issues requiring surgery. In early 2002, Applicant’s
husband moved out and her father died in October 2002. Applicant’s divorce from her first husband
in January 2003 required her to pay all marital debt that included her own medical bills and most of
her son’s medical bills and insurance. Even though she was not ignoring the listed debt, her primary
concern was covering the rent, utilities and expenses related to raising a child. 
In early 2004, she began working for a defense contractor that provided her with earning and
promotion potential. She also started dating her present husband at a later point in 2004, and they
were married in March 2005. In November 2006, Applicant came to work for her current employer
and received a substantial increase in earnings. In the same month, she received documentation from
DOHA advising her that her security clearance application was being questioned due to overdue
debts. 
She contacted a bankruptcy attorney and a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition was filed in
February 2007. The terms of the petition require Applicant to pay $1,732.10 every month for 24
4
months. All creditors except subparagraph 1.j. and 1.k. are included in the plan. Applicant has made
seven payments under the plan. Before she was able to file the Chapter 13 petition, she was required
to attend financial counseling which she successfully completed in January 2007. The counseling,
required under the bankruptcy laws, consisted of understanding, establishing and maintaining a
budget. 
Applicant’s current supervisor explained that Applicant’s job includes tracking funds so that
the command can know how much money is being spent on the various programs. Based on his
knowledge of Applicant’s work product, her supervisor strongly recommends her for a position of
trust. 
Applicant’s program manager advised that her performance evaluation (November 2007) will
contain outstanding ratings. Applicant told the program manager about her financial problems when
she was hired. He believes she is on the right track to resolve those problems and get on with her life.
Applicant’s past supervisor from 2004 until her hire in November 2006 was impressed with
how she managed her time on assignments. Her trustworthiness, reliability, and self-starter attitude
are three reasons the past supervisor recommends her for a position of trust. 
Applicant’s former coworker believes Applicant is one of the most honest individuals. The
former coworker is confident Applicant will correct her financial problems.
In a character statement dated April 26, 2007, Applicant’s security officers have found her
to be open about her financial problems. On April 27, 2007, the Commander (in a character
statement) of a project that employs Applicant has found her to be dependable. On April 24, 2007,
the task leader found Applicant to be a delight to work with. Her desire to broaden her education and
promotion potential, according to the task leader, is unsurpassed. 
The electrical engineer provided impressive compliments about Applicant on April 20, 2007.
The engineer has an understanding of her past due debts, but believes she has executed the proper
steps to get those debts paid. The procurement officer hired to take Applicant’s place at her former
job in November 2006 recounted the thoroughness in which Applicant trained her. The officer now
understands why Applicant was promoted. 
POLICIES
The AG contains disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) that should
be given binding consideration in making security clearance determinations. These conditions must
be considered in every case along with the general factors of the whole person concept. However,
the conditions are not automatically determinative of the decision in any case nor can they supersede
the Administrative Judge's reliance on his own common sense. 
Burden of Proof
Initially, the government must establish, by substantial evidence, that conditions exist in the
5
personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualifies, or may disqualify, the applicant
from being eligible for access to classified information. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484
U.S. 518, 531 (1988) “[T]he Directive presumes there is a nexus or rational connection between
proven conduct under any of the Criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability.” ISCR
Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996) (quoting DISCR Case No. 92-1106 (App. Bd. Oct.
7, 1993)). 
Once the government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the
burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. “[S]ecurity clearance
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” See Egan, 481 U.S. at 531; see
Directive E2.2.2.
Financial Considerations (FC)
The failure to pay debts in a timely manner places an individual at risk of committing acts
of poor judgment to generate funds.
CONCLUSIONS
The records discloses that Applicant has 11 overdue debts that have not been paid. The debts,
which total more than $10,600.00, became delinquent between October 2001 and August 2003. FC
disqualifying condition (DC) 19.a. (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and FC DC 19c. (a
history of not meeting financial obligations) apply based on Applicant’s inability to pay the debts
that are up to five years old. 
Although the government has established a case under the FC guideline, Applicant has
successfully mitigated the adverse evidence. First, there were circumstances outside her control that
exacerbated her financial problems. FC mitigating condition MC  20.b. (the conditions that resulted
in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control) applies. The unexpected period
of time she and her first husband had to stay at the temporary duty location (1998 to the summer of
2000) caused them to fall behind in their mortgage. Her unanticipated medical problem in September
2001, followed by her father’s sudden death in October 2002, were clearly two occurrences beyond
her control, combined with the ongoing medical problems of her son. Aggravating her overall
financial instability was her husband’s demand for a divorce, and the final terms of the divorce
requiring her to pay all the marital debt and most of the medical obligations for herself and her son.
Significantly, the listed debts all became delinquent during the periods between October 2001 and
August 2003. 
Applicant received some counseling in January 2007 in advance of her Chapter 13 petition
becoming effective. Since her plan was accepted by the Bankruptcy court in February 2007,
Applicant has been utilizing a budget in her financial affairs. 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) applies. In addition to some evidence of counseling, Applicant
has made seven payments (almost $13,000.00) under the plan. Even though Applicant’s repayment
of her creditors is being made through a Chapter 13 petition, the mode of repayment still represents
6
favorable evidence under 20.d. (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) Applicant’s strong character evidence, together with the
favorable mitigating evidence under FC MC 20.b. and FC MC 20.d. warrant findings for Applicant
under subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.i. I am firmly convinced Applicant will exercise the same good
judgment to resolve the debts in subparagraphs 1.j. and 1.k. The FC guideline is resolved in
Applicant’s favor. 
My findings for Applicant under the whole person concept are the same as they are under the
FC guideline. The sterling character ratings Applicant has received from individuals who have
observed her for up to three years convince me Applicant will (1) maintain payments under her
Chapter 13 plan until successful completion of the plan, and (2) maintain her budget so that she can
continue to stay on top of her finances at home exactly as she has at work. 
FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal Findings required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 are:
Paragraph 1 (Financial Considerations, Guideline F): FOR THE APPLICANT.
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.k. For the 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. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge