DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February1
20, 1990), 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 (RAG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department
of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXX, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxxx )       ISCR Case No. 07-16664
SSN: XXX-XX-XXXX )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: John B. Glendon, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
On 28 April 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline
F.  Applicant answered the SOR 15 May 2008, and requested a hearing. DOHA1
assigned the case to me 11 August 2008, and I convened a hearing 28 August 2008.
DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 11 September 2008.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations except for SOR 1.a. She is a 36-year-old
secretary employed by a defense contractor since January 2007. She previously held a
clearance 1997-2001.
The SOR alleges, and government exhibits substantiate, seven delinquent debts
totaling over $21,000. Applicant admits all but one debt for $178, paid 10 days before
the SOR was issued. Applicant attributes her financial problems to her June 2008
divorce and unemployment from September 2004 to December 2005. The record
provides insufficient support for her assertions, demonstrating too, that Applicant had
financial problems before those events.
Applicant’s clearance application (G.E. 1) reflects that Applicant was continuously
employed from at least September 1997 to September 2004, before voluntarily
resigning her government job. She states, without corroboration of the circumstances or
the reasons those circumstances required her to resign, that she resigned because her
mother was ill and she had a high risk pregnancy. Her child was born in mid-August
2005, more than a year after she resigned her job. She returned to work in December
2005, and has been continuously, if sometimes under-employed since.
Applicant failed to withhold sufficient federal income tax from her salary in 2001,
and was assessed interest and penalties on top of the shortfall. However, she failed to
adjust her withholding the following year, and again owed taxes, interest, and penalties.
Applicant claims, without corroboration, that she entered into a repayment agreement
with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and began paying her delinquent taxes. There
is no evidence to indicate whether or not this was in response to an IRS lien. She
stopped these payments in 2004 when she resigned her government job. In the
meantime, Applicant failed to withhold sufficient income tax in 2003 and 2004, and the
IRS filed a $9,000 income tax lien against her in June 2005 for tax years 2001, 2002,
2003, and 2004. According to Applicant, she also owes back taxes for 2007, which she
has included in her offer-in-compromise to the IRS (A.E. D).
Applicant claims, again without corroboration, to have restarted payments to the
IRS after she regained employment in December 2005, claiming that she set up a direct
payment through her company. However, when she changed jobs, the automatic
payment stopped, and she did not restart it with her new employer. She states, without
corroboration, that she entered into a new payment schedule with the IRS in January
2008, and made five payments before being temporarily laid off because of her lack of a
clearance. 
Applicant’s payment history with her educational loans (dating back to 1994 when
she graduated from college) follows a similar arc to her IRS payments, except that she
has been making payments since February 2008 (A.E. B). Her payment history shows
that her total debt had increased to over $20,000. Her account is listed as current,
3
although she is considered to be in rehabilitation status with the loan authority. Her
current balance is $19,500.
Applicant married in January 2006, separated from her husband in June 2008,
and was divorced in June 2008. She provided no evidence how her divorce affected her
finances.
Applicant claimed, without much credibility, that she was unaware of her past due
debts until she was confronted with them during subject interviews in August and
September 2007. She moved a couple of times, but did not provide her creditors with
her new addresses. Applicant provided evidence that she reached settlements with the
creditors at SOR 1.e. (for 60% of the debt) and 1.f. (for 15% of the debt) after the SOR
was issued, and paid those creditors. She provided proof of payment for the debts at
SOR 1.c. and 1.d. during the same time frame.
Applicant currently lives with her mother. She has provided no work or character
references. She has not received financial counseling; nor has she demonstrated that
she has a budget.
Policies
The Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (RAG) list factors to be considered in
evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative
Judges must assess both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly
raised by the facts and circumstances presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair
and impartial common sense consideration of the factors listed in RAG ¶ 2(a). The
presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or
against Applicant. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a
case can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the
grant or denial of access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and
the evidence as a whole, the relevant, applicable, adjudicative guideline is Guideline F
(Financial Considerations).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an Applicant’s security clearance. The government
must prove, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. If it does so, it establishes a prima facie case against access
to classified information. Applicant must then refute, extenuate, or mitigate the
government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the Applicant
bears a heavy burden of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).2
¶19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;3
¶20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that4
it is unlikely to recur . . . 
¶20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and5
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶20.(c)  the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that6
the problem is being resolved or is under control;
4
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.2
Analysis
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. The short summary is that government
records, and Applicant’s own documents, establish her accumulated indebtedness over
several years.  She failed to corroborate her claimed reasons for the indebtedness.3
Applicant’s unemployment certainly contributed to her financial difficulties, as did no
doubt and her separation and divorce. But Applicant was having financial problems
before any of these events occurred. She had tax problems with the IRS before she
resigned her government job or got married, and the fact that she was able to make
payments on an agreed plan with the IRS, does not obscure the fact that she both
under withheld federal tax for several years (and failed to correct that issue), and
apparently lacked the resources to pay the delinquent taxes without entering into a
repayment plan. Even if I accepted Applicant’s characterization that the debts were due
to circumstances beyond her control, Applicant had the burden to demonstrate that she
had taken responsible action to address the debts. She has not done so. Only the debt
at SOR 1.a. appears to have been paid as a result of her subject interviews in 2007.
The remainder were addressed (to the extent they were addressed) in the wake of the
SOR.
The mitigating factors for financial considerations provide mixed help to
Applicant. Her financial difficulties are both recent and multiple.  Her evidence is4
insufficient to clearly establish that her financial problems were largely due to
circumstances beyond her control. Nor can it be said that she has acted responsibly
overall in addressing her debts, having taken action mostly after the SOR was issued.5
She has not demonstrated that the problem has been brought substantially under
control.  She did not produce a budget showing that she lives within her means. Part of6
the resolution of her financial problems relies on her obtaining relief from the IRS
through her offer in compromise, by no means a sure thing, and in any event not a
mitigating condition for financial concerns. She cannot be said to have paid her debts in
,¶20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.7
5
a timely, good-faith effort.  It is not even clear that she now has the means to get and7
keep her financial house in order. Nevertheless, the best case view of Applicant’s
circumstances is that it is still too early to tell whether her goal of financial stability will
be achieved. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
Subparagraph b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph g: Against Applicant
Conclusion
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 denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge