1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 07-01445
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgrstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Security Clearance Application (SCA), on April 21, 2006.
On August 13, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under financial considerations
(Guideline F). The action was taken pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the revised adjudicative
guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and made
effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued on or after September 1,
2006. 
 
Applicant’s undated answer to the SOR was received by DOHA on September
10, 2007. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on October 24, 2007 and the hearing was
held on November 27, 2007. At the hearing, five exhibits (AE 1 through 5) were
admitted in evidence without objection to support the government’s case. Applicant’s
four exhibits (AE A through AE D) were received in evidence without objection.
Applicant testified. On January 7, 2008, Applicant submitted 15 pages of additional
 The exhibits contains documentation supporting Applicant’s efforts to reduce and/or resolve those debts1
listed in SOR 1.c., 1.d., 1.e., 1.i., and 1.l., as well as two debts not listed in the SOR. The exhibits also include
information showing two payments in her debt consolidation plan. 
2
exhibits. Those exhibits,  identified in the first two pages of AE E, were also received in1
the record without objection. DOHA obtained receipt of the hearing transcript on
December 7, 2007. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the 11 allegations listed under the financial considerations
guideline. She attributed the overdue debt to conditions beyond her control. Applicant is
34 years old, and has a 10-year-old daughter. She seeks a security clearance.
Applicant’s financial problems in the early 2000s essentially parallel her job
history (GE 1) when she moved back from State X to the local area in March 2000. The
jobs were of short duration and Applicant had to occasionally work two jobs to make
ends meet. 
Following her completion of high school in 1991, Applicant enrolled in a local
technical institute for vocational training. In 1993, she was awarded an associate
technical degree in specialized drafting. Her first drafting job was outside the local area.
After two years, she returned to the local area and performed contract drafting work for
a temporary employment agency. After six months, she found full-time employment as a
drafter from 1995 to 1999. In this four-year period of employment, she starting a
relationship with her daughter’s father. Though they never married, they built a house.
Applicant gave birth to their daughter in 1997. Unfortunately, their relationship ended in
1999. 
In July 1999, Applicant took a job in State X as a drafter. Though she testified
she was employed at that location about 10 months, GE 1 indicates she ended the
employment in March 2000, after only seven months. Applicant did not know anybody at
this new location, and had difficulty handling the cost of living on a single parent’s
earnings. She also did not file her state income taxes. (SOR 1.a.) A lien was filed
against Applicant in August 2003, and was satisfied in November 2007. (AE B)
Applicant’s explanation for not filing and paying her taxes was that her father had
always prepared and filed her taxes. Her relocation to State X was the first time she was
away from her father, so, she simply did not prepare and file them. She was unaware of
the tax lien until she obtained a copy of her credit report in 2006. Since her failure to file
taxes in 1999, she has learned how to file taxes and does every year.
In March 2000, Applicant moved back to the local area. She moved in with a
friend (single mom) and earned some money as a live-in babysitter. She also began a
computer job that lasted until September 2000. In November 2000, she moved in with
 She even worked as a parking attendant for a short time. 2
 The debts in SOR 1.g. through 1.l, though still past due, do not appear to be as delinquent as the others. 3
3
her second boyfriend. Over the next several years, she recalled continual problems
meeting the rent along with other bills.
She worked five jobs (in and out of her field)  before she found a drafting job at a2
regional university in September 2003. She was employed there until August 2006,
when she began her current employment. 
In 2003, Applicant purchased a house as investment property; she planned to
rehabilitate the house before reselling. After six months however, she moved into the
property. Having to pay a mortgage and other bills associated with raising a child
without a second source of earnings, while driving 110 miles daily to and from work,
exacerbated Applicant’s already frail, financial situation, even though she was working
two jobs occasionally. She recalled using her credit cards to pay for groceries as well as
nonessential items.
Although the SOR lists 11 debts, SOR 1.f. is the same as SOR 1.j. (AE 1 G) The
debts became delinquent between 1999 and April 2007.  The total indebtedness is3
approximately $14,040.00. Applicant has resolved the debts in SOR 1.a., and 1.c.
Between October and December 2007, she was able to successfully restructure her
mortgage. (SOR 1.e.) She has reduced the debt in SOR 1.l. to approximately 117.00.
She still owes the debts identified in 1b., 1.g., and 1.i. In October 2007, Applicant placed
the debts in SOR 1.d., 1.f., 1.h. and 1.k. in a 30-month, debt consolidation plan. She has
made two payments of $108.44 in the plan. 
÷ 1.a. As noted, this debt is a tax lien for $3,246.77 filed in August 2003 for not
paying income taxes. The lien was satisfied in November 2007. 
ÿ 1.b. A delinquent medical account ($225.00) was referred for collection in
August 2004. Applicant is unaware of the origin of this account, but acknowledges that it
does exist. 
ÿ 1.c. The collection account ($167.55), charged off in March 2005, was paid in
full. Applicant received verification on December 21, 2007. (GE 2, AE N)
ÿ 1.d. This collection account ($774.00), referred for collection in July 2005, has
been included with four other debts in Applicant’s consolidated debt plan. (AE C) 
ÿ 1.e. The mortgage account showing a deficiency of $1,347.00 as of May 10,
2007 (GE 3), is now current after Applicant requested in October 2007 that the
mortgage terms be modified downward. (AE D) After paying a modification fee of
$500.00, and a late charge fee of approximately 204.00, Applicant’s mortgage is now
current. (AE O)
4
ÿ 1.f. This past due account ($5,835.00) has been included in Applicant’s
consolidated plan. This is the same account as in 1.j. (AE C, G)
ÿ 1.g. This account is past due, but only by $24.00, not $625.00, according to
GE 3. The account is still unpaid. 
ÿ 1.h. This delinquent account ($501.00) is included in Applicant’s consolidation
plan. (AE C) 
ÿ 1.i. This account ($609.43) remains delinquent, although the account does not
appear in GE 3. 
ÿ 1. k. This account ($462.79) is included in Applicant’s consolidation plan. (AE
C). Before entering this account in her debt plan, she had been making payments until
February 2007. 
ÿ 1.l. The SOR lists this account as overdue in the amount of $1,500.00.
Applicant had been making payments with the collection agency who purchased the
debt. She paid $200.00 to the collection agency in March 2007 (GE 2), and also a
payment of $216.67 (postdated check) on November 19, 2007 to be cashed on
November 30, 2007. The payment of $216.67 on November 30, 2007 brings Applicant’s
balance on SOR 1.l. to approximately $117.00. (AE H)
In the last two years, Applicant has changed her spending habits. She has no
credit cards as she understands how they drew her into financial trouble. She only
purchases those items she and her daughter need. The death of her stepfather in early
2007, her estrangement from other familial members (no further information), as well as
the end of her seven-year-long relationship with her boyfriend, made her feel
overwhelmed for a short time. But, rather than wallow in her depression, the relationship
issues quickly provided additional incentive for Applicant to get her financial house in
order. With the help of regular therapy, Applicant is confident she will be able to resolve
all remaining financial problems. She has received two pay increases since her hire,
and, an arrangement with her daughter’s father will allow her to be able to work much
more overtime to help her expedite plans of resolving the debt. 
Though she has had no formal financial counseling, she has spent productive
time on the internet educating herself about various financial tools, such as the value of
credit reports and budgeting. She obtained her first credit report in September 2007.
Since she enrolled in the debt settlement/consolidation plans, she has been trying to
implement a budget, but is having problems getting underway because of the lack of
money. 
Three present and former coworkers provided character statements about
Applicant. The site manager has known Applicant since August 2006, and enjoys her
team-player attitude. The production manager considers Applicant a real professional. A
former coworker at her previous job praised Applicant’s common sense in getting jobs
5
done properly. Three friends for varying lengths of time value Applicant’s honesty and
dedication. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
Administrative Judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are flexible rules of law. Recognizing the complexities of human
behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge’s ultimate adjudicative goal is a fair,
impartial and common sense decision. According to the AG, the entire process is a
careful, thorough evaluation of a number of variables known as the “whole person
concept.” The Administrative Judge must consider all available, reliable information
about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2b.
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical and based on
the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship
is not restricted to normal duty hours. Rather, the relationship is an-around-the-clock
responsibility between an applicant and the federal government. The government
reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to
classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk
the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified
information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation
as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
6
Financial Considerations (FC)
Failure to live within one’s means, and inability to pay bills on time places the
individual debtor at risk of committing illegal acts to generate funds. 
Analysis
On August 13, 2007 (date the SOR), Applicant had 10 delinquent debts totaling
more than $14,000.00. She accumulated these debts over the last four years. FC
disqualifying condition (DC) 19.a. (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) applies due
to Applicant’s inability, not unwillingness, to pay those debts as they became due. FC
DC 19.c. (a history of not meeting financial obligations) also applies based on the
progression of debts falling delinquent in August 2004 and thereafter. FC DC 19.g.
(failure to file annual Federal, state, or local tax returns as required or the fraudulent
filing of the same) applies because of Applicant’s failure to file and pay state income
taxes for the 1999 tax year. 
The first four mitigating conditions (MC) under the FC guideline may apply to
overcome the adverse financial evidence. FC MC 20.a. (the behavior happened so long
ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under the such circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment) must be removed from consideration as the record shows there were
debts falling delinquent as recent as April 2007. 
FC MC 20.b. (the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person’s control and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances) has limited application. The record reflects the passing of Applicant’s
stepfather in early 2007 is the only traumatic and unanticipated event beyond her
control that could have caused or exacerbated Applicant’s financial bad times. However,
the overdue debt that Applicant compiled between 1999 and her father’s death is not
reconciled completely by matters beyond her control. 
FC MC 20. b. cannot apply to Applicant’s 1999 tax lien. Everyone is obligated to
file tax returns and pay taxes. The fact that Applicant was in State X, and could not have
her father prepare her taxes does not mitigate her poor judgment in simply ignoring her
tax obligation. 
The accumulation of Applicant’s remaining past due debt from August 2004 to
April 2007 receives some mitigation under FC MC 20.b. During the period from March
2000 until Applicant landed her current employment in August 2006, she had difficulty
finding stable employment in her field, as is evidenced by the six jobs she had during
the period. She even worked for a time as a parking attendant. Aggravating her
underemployment and unemployment problems was her ill-advised purchase of the
investment property in 2003. Paying a mortgage on only one income, while raising a
child and driving 110 miles to and from work every day from July 2003 to August 2006,
deserves some mitigation under FC MC 20.b.
7
FC MC 20.c. (the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem
and/or there are clear indications the problem is being resolved or is under control) has
limited application to the facts as Applicant has spent time on the internet learning about
a credit report. She is trying to incorporate a budget into her financial practices. She
enrolled in a debt consolidation plan. The fact she has resolved several debts, brought
other debts to a current status, and placed other debts in a repayment plan, establishes
persuasive evidence of a clear indication she is getting the debts under control. The
SOR debts in 1.a. and 1.c. have been paid, and the debts in 1.d., 1.f., 1.h., and 1.k. are
in the debt plan. 
FC MC 20.d. (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) applies to support the conclusion Applicant is
getting her finances under control. Having weighed and balanced the entire record with
Applicant’s favorable credibility, she has convinced me she is committed to finishing the
job she launched in December 2006 when she paid off two unlisted debts. All
subparagraphs under the FC guideline are found in Applicant’s favor. 
Whole Person Concept (WPC) 
I have weighed the circumstances of this case under the general factors of the
whole person concept. The comments from Applicant’s supervisors indicate that she is
a competent employee. By eliminating her credit cards, by only purchasing items she
and her daughter need, and by seeking internet help to improve her financial practices,
she has made the positive behavioral changes necessary to regain control over her
finances. I believe her resolution of most of the debts in the SOR, which she began
even before she received the SOR, has been a cathartic process, dramatically
improving her financial habits as well as her self-esteem. The FC guideline is found in
her favor.
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 (Financial Considerations, Guideline F): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f. For Applicant
8
Subparagraph 1.g. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l. For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
                       
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge