1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-15967
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant completed and signed a Standard Form 86 (SF-86) security clearance
application dated March 16, 2007. On March 12, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) stating security concerns
under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The action was taken under 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 effective for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
In a response notarized on June 17, 2008, Applicant denied all eleven
allegations raised concerning allegedly delinquent debts. She also requested a hearing.
DOHA received Applicant’ request on June 10, 2008, and it was assigned to another
administrative judge. The case was reassigned to me for caseload considerations on
 Tr. 17.1
2
July 10, 2008. Department Counsel and Applicant agreed to an August 14, 2008,
hearing date, and a Notice of Hearing was issued on July 17, 2008, to that effect.
The hearing took place as scheduled. Department Counsel submitted four
exhibits (Ex.), accepted into the record as Exs. 1-4 without objection. Applicant
submitted three exhibits, accepted as Exs. A-C without objection. Applicant was
assisted by her daughter. Both Applicant and her daughter gave testimony. No other
witnesses were called and no exhibits were offered into evidence. Applicant was given
through August 29, 2008, to submit any additional materials. The transcript (Tr.) was
received on September 4, 2008. The record was closed on September 8, 2008, with no
additional documents received. Based upon a review of the case file, exhibits, and
testimony, security clearance is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 63-year-old security guard who has worked for the same
government contractor since 1994. She is a widow who raised five children. She has a
high school diploma. She returned to school as an adult for some college course work. 
After her marriage, Applicant worked as a wife and mother. Her husband, then in
his 30's, died in 1981. Applicant was left as a single parent living off Social Security and
meager benefits from his estate. She eventually found work as a cleaner. She worked
hard to make sure her children were well taken care of and educated. 
One of Applicant’s daughters took a student loan for $5,000 in 1989 while in
college. Because she was underage at the time, Applicant co-signed for the loan.
Before the daughter graduated in June 1991, the lender accidently started asking for
repayment prematurely, although the loan was not set for repayment until six months
after her graduation. The student aid office referred her to some forms to fill out to
correct the situation and make sure she was not liable for the interest. The school told
her not to pay the loan at that time. Neither the daughter nor Applicant heard about that
particular student loan until Applicant applied for a home mortgage in the spring of
2008. In the interim, the daughter paid off all of her other student loans.1
Between 2001 and 2003, Applicant oversaw her elderly mother’s medical care.
Although the mother had some financial resources, Applicant was needed to co-sign a
lease so her mother could rent an apartment. After about six months, Applicant had to
leave her job because caring for her mother was so time consuming. Applicant
eventually sublet the lease to a niece in 2002 when Applicant’s mother had to be placed
in a nursing facility. Applicant continued with regular visits to visit her mother until, after
a brief time in the hospital, her mother died on New Years Eve of 2003. 
When Applicant applied for a home loan in the past year, she learned her niece
had broken the lease by vacating the apartment prematurely. As a consequence,
 Tr. 19.2
 Tr. 18; 22.3
 Tr. 30-32.4
 Tr. 22.5
 Ex. A (Monthly payment stub); Ex. B (Income contingent repayment letter); Tr. 27.6
3
Applicant was deemed liable for the lease balance. The apartment owner ultimately
accepted a proposal that Applicant would repay the balance owed on the lease through
monthly $25 payments.  Applicant has been making payments in accordance with that2
agreement.
Over the years, Applicant and one of her daughters have been confused with
other because they have the same name, lived at many of the same addresses, had
the same phone numbers, and other similarities.  This confusion is apparent on3
Applicant’s credit report in several entries regarding personal information. For example,
it notes Applicant’s profession as that of her daughter. Applicant’s daughter similarly
notes that the telecommunications/telephone accounts noted on Applicant’s credit
report are, in fact, hers.4
At issue in the SOR are 11 allegedly delinquent accounts:
Medical Account Balance ($537 and $30) – Addressed/In Processing – These medical
bills were submitted to Applicant’s medical provider, which apparently declined to cover
them. She is awaiting verification that she is liable for them. (SOR ¶ 1.a and ¶ 1.b).
Cell Phone Bill ($492) – Unaddressed – Applicant’s daughter lost this phone in an
amusement park. She states that she immediately reported the lost phone, but that it
was not disabled. She claims subsequent calls on the phone were wrongfully billed to
her mother, the Applicant.  (SOR ¶ 1.c and ¶ 1.e).5
Credit Balance ($57) – Unaddressed – Applicant stated this account was paid, but
failed to provide evidence of payment. (SOR ¶ 1.d).
Collection Account ($643) – Unaddressed – Applicant does not recognize this account
entry. She believes it is an error on her credit report, but there is no documentation that
this has been disputed with either the company or any of the credit reporting bureaus.
(SOR ¶ 1.f).
Telecommunications ($118) – Unaddressed – Applicant’s daughter claims this is one of
her telephone accounts. Applicant denies that it is her account. Applicant stated the
account was disputed, but provided no evidence of dispute. (SOR ¶ 1.g).
Student Loan ($16,025) – In repayment – Applicant requested and received a
repayment plan to pay off her daughter’s educational loan.  The terms call for payments6
 Tr. 25-29.7
 Ex. C (Creditor letter, dated July 22, 2008).8
 See Ex. 3 (Credit report, dated April 5, 2007).9
 Ex. D (Letter, dated June 10, 2008).10
 Tr. 30.11
 Tr. 43.12
4
of approximately $215 per month. Applicant demonstrated that the credit report marked
as Government Exhibit 3, at 13, reflects the account as being currently in repayment.7
(SOR ¶ 1.h).
Creditor ($4,905) – Paid – Applicant settled for a pay off of this account for $2,800. That
amount was tendered and the account is now satisfied.  (SOR ¶ 1.i).8
Phone Bill ($160) – Unaddressed – Applicant believes this is a repeat of the cell phone
bill noted in ¶ 1.c and ¶ 1.e), above. It does not, however, have the same account
number or date for the opening of the account as any of the above telecommunications
or phone services.  Again, Applicant’s daughter believes the cell phone bills are hers9
and on her mother’s credit report in error. (SOR ¶ 1.j).
Apartment Lease Balance ($1,391) – In repayment – This is the apartment which was
sublet to Applicant’s niece. Applicant demonstrated she has a promissory note to repay
the balance that shows payments have been made.  She was to submit evidence of a10
history of payment after the hearing, but none arrived prior to the closing of the record.11
(SOR ¶ 1.k).
Applicant recently became a homeowner with the help of her daughter, who lives
nearby. She has received financial counseling to the extent she has been thoroughly
counseled by her daughter, a finance professional with a major financial institution. The
daughter has 15 years of experience in a capacity not far akin from a personal
bookkeeper and financial analyst. She is considered to have excellent skills in her
profession.  12
Applicant’s daughter has impressed upon Applicant the importance of being
responsible with credit and the importance of keeping her use of credit low. Starting
earlier this year, she helped her mother devise a strategy for dealing with the debts
noted by the home lender and, subsequently, the SOR. Thus far they have worked out
two repayment plans that are in progress and satisfied a major debt with a credit card.
The record shows execution of their strategy thus far has developed a meaningful track
record which, when the daughter’s phone bills are set aside, leaves less than $1,500
yet unaddressed. 
 Tr. 38.13
 Id.14
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).15
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).16
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).17
5
With her mother living nearby, the daughter now discusses both her mother’s
physical well-being and recent expenditures daily. She now regularly reviews her
mother’s accounts, expenses, and expenditures. Applicant’s bills now go directly to her
daughter’s home so that she can go over them with her mother.  With her daughter’s13
help, Applicant’s credit cards have a zero balance at the end of each month.  Her14
daughter is committed to helping her mother both keep her home and her security
clearance. 
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 not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior,
these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative
process. The Administrative Judge’s over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial
and common sense decision. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny
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 ¶ 2(b)
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.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a15
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  16 17
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
 Id.18
 Id.19
 Executive Order 10865 § 7.20
 Revised Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18.21
6
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. 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.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information). “The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access18
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.   The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily19
a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the20
applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense
have established for issuing a clearance.
Based upon consideration of the evidence, I find Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) to be the most pertinent to the case. Conditions pertaining to this
adjudicative guideline that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as
well as those which would mitigate such concerns, are set forth and discussed below.
Analysis
Under Guideline F, “failure or an 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.”  The Regulation sets out several potentially disqualifying conditions21
under this guideline.  
In the spring of 2008, Applicant discovered she had several delinquent accounts
on her credit report. She was unaware of many of them, either because she assumed
they had been paid or because her role as co-signer had been exploited. Regardless,
several of the accounts remain unpaid to date. Consequently, Financial Considerations
 See ISCR Case No. 07-06482 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008); ISCR Case No. 05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1,22
2007).
7
Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial
obligations”) and FC DC AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts”) apply.
With such conditions raised, the burden shifts to Appellant to overcome the case
against her and mitigate security concerns. 
Applicant was co-signer on an apartment lease for her aging mother. When
Applicant’s mother’s health dramatically declined and she had to be moved into a
nursing facility, her niece took over the lease. When, unbeknownst to Applicant, the
niece abandoned the apartment and broke the lease, Applicant became responsible for
the outstanding balance. Similarly, Applicant was assigned responsibility for cell phone
accounts properly belonging to her daughter. This apparently occurred because of
identity confusion on the part of the credit bureaus, which have repeatedly confused the
two in other areas in the past. Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) 2,
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”) applies.
Applicant and her daughter discovered most of the debts at issue when
Applicant was considering the purchase of a home in the spring of 2008. With the help
of her daughter, a finance professional, Applicant was advised about how to improve
her credit, to address her debts, and to manage her finances in the future. Together,
they sought to address the debts in order of their significance. Applicant sought out a
repayment plan for the student loan, her largest debt, and the apartment lease. She
paid off the second largest debt. Aside from those debts, Applicant needs to clean up
her credit report by reporting inaccurate information and accounts. She also needs to
address several small accounts representing less than $1,275 in debt. However, given
Applicant’s income and the four months since receiving the SOR, significant strides
have been made and a meaningful track record developed.  FC MC 4, AG ¶ 20(d),22
(“the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts”) applies. To the extent her daughter’s counseling and oversight can be
considered counseling, and in light of the efforts thus far made to address Applicant’s
debts, FC MC 3, 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 is under
control”) applies. 
Inasmuch as Applicant has presented mitigating conditions with regard to how
her debts have arisen and has shown how she is systematically approaching the
satisfaction of those debts with the help of her daughter, a finance professional, she
has mitigated financial considerations security concerns.
8
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the
Applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. The Administrative Judge should
consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
(1) 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 extent to which 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. 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
public trust position must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the “whole person”
factors. Applicant is a mature woman who, when widowed early, did what she could to
see that her children were raised well and educated. She has balanced her work as a
cleaning person, and then a security guard, with her obligations as a mother and a
daughter. Before her daughter interceded, Applicant had little guidance as to how to
systematically approach her bills or how to organize and maintain records.
Consequently, an SOR was issued regarding 11 allegedly delinquent debts. 
Applicant has demonstrated a meaningful track record of debt resolution. She
sought out a repayment plan for the student loan she co-signed for her daughter. She is
in repayment on that loan. She has also entered into a settlement agreement and then
paid off her second largest debt in July 2008. Although Applicant failed to demonstrate
a monthly history of timely payment on the apartment complex obligation, she did
demonstrate that a promissory note has been executed and that payments were being
made. Not counting various telecommunications accounts which are apparently part of
a credit report mix-up with her daughter’s identity, Applicant leaves a manageable sum
of well under $1,275 in accounts yet unaddressed.
Applicant’s daughter is a finance professional with 15 years of experience.
Within the past six months, she has interceded in her mother’s life as an informal
bookkeeper and financial mentor. She lives near her mother and the two have daily
contact. They meet whenever questions or issues regarding money arise. The daughter
reenforces organization and reasoned expenditures, finances, and the importance of
timely repayment as the keys to maintaining her home and her job. All bills go through
9
the daughter, and the two discuss their monthly payments and budget. With her help,
Applicant’s daughter hopes to help complete Applicant’s fulfillment of her financial
obligations and clear up errors on her credit report. Given her recent help to make her
mother a homeowner, Applicant’s prospects look good with regard to honoring her two
remaining repayment plans and methodically addressing those accounts yet to be
satisfied. Between the Applicant’s efforts thus far and her daughter’s on-going
guidance, Applicant has mitigated security concerns. I conclude it is clearly consistent
with national security to grant Applicant a security clearance. Clearance is granted.
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: 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
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: 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. Clearance is granted.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge