The government submitted as Item 4 a Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions (SF 86) dated March1
29, 2007, to which the signature form for the e-QIP is attached. There is no information as to how that
signature form came to be appended to an SF 86 that on its face is a property of the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM).
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )     ISCR Case No. 07-12105
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on March 7, 2007.  On February 29, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and1
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing the
security concerns under Guideline F that provided the basis for its decision to deny her
a security clearance and refer the matter to an administrative judge. 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 within the Department of Defense as of
September 1, 2006.
2
 
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on March 5, 2008. She submitted an
undated Answer to the SOR, which was received by DOHA on May 19, 2008. She
requested a decision without a hearing, and on July 18, 2008, the government
submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM) consisting of eight exhibits (Items 1-8).
DOHA forwarded a copy of the FORM to Applicant and instructed her to respond within
30 days of receipt. No response was received by the September 3, 2008, deadline. On
September 26, 2008, the case was assigned to me to consider whether it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for her.
Based upon a review of the government’s FORM, including Applicant’s Answer to the
SOR allegations (Item 2), eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Findings of Fact
DOHA alleged under Guideline F, financial considerations, that Applicant owes
13 delinquent debts totaling $16,073 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.m), including an $8,317
judgment debt owed a former landlord (SOR ¶ 1.j). Applicant admitted the debts without
any explanations when she answered the SOR (Item 2). Her admissions are accepted
and incorporated as findings of fact. After considering the evidence of record, I make
the following additional findings.
Applicant is a 27-year-old single mother who has worked as an outside machinist
for a defense contractor since August 2006 (Item 4). The record does not reflect that
she has held a security clearance.
Applicant had her first child in 1996, when she was still in high school. After high
school, she worked for a succession of employers as a bill collector, sales
representative, and a customer service pickup agent. From June 2002 to April 2003,
she attended a vocational/training school from which she earned a medical assistant’s
diploma. Applicant did not work while she attended school and for a couple of months
thereafter. In August 2003, she took a sales clerk position at a discount retailer, but
stopped working in November 2003. In mid-February 2004, she gave birth to her
second child (Item 4).
In September 2004, she began a new job as an account representative/bill
collector, but was there for less than eight months. Applicant was again unemployed, for
about two months until June 2005, when she accepted a position with a telemarketer.
Within the month, she began working as a machinist for a plastics manufacturer.
Following another period of unemployment from November 2005 to January 2006, she
was placed by a temporary services agency in a customer care representative position.
By May 2006, she was again out of work until August 2006, when she started her
employment with the defense contractor as an outside machinist (Item 4).
Applicant completed an e-QIP on March 7, 2007, from which OPM prepared a SF
86 that was made available for review (Item 4). Applicant disclosed in response to
3
financial record inquiry (question 27D on the SF 86) that a judgment was awarded
against her in May 2003 in the amount of $8,371 (SOR ¶ 1.j):
THIS JUDGMENT WAS FILED AFTER AN APARTMENT FIRE. I WAS
EIGHTEEN YEARS OLD, A FIRE STARTED ON THE KITCHEN STOVE.
I PANICKED WHEN THE FIRE STARTED AND THREW WATER ON
THE FIRE INSTEAD OF SALT. I DID NOT HAVE RENTERS
INSURANCE. [The landlord] FILED FOR A JUDGEMENT, STATING THE
FIRE WAS MY FAULT AND I WOULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR THE
DAMAGES.
Applicant also listed six unresolved delinquent debts in response to the financial
delinquency questions (on the SF 86, 28A. “LAST 7 YRS, OVER 180 DAYS
DELINQUENT ON ANY DEBTS?” and 28B, “CURRENTLY OVER 90 DAYS
DELINQUENT ON ANY DEBTS?”): a $2,831.54 credit card debt (SOR ¶ 1.g), two
cellular telephone debts of $102 (SOR ¶ 1.m) and $66 (SOR ¶ 1.d), and three medical
debts of $63 (SOR ¶ 1.h), $373 (SOR ¶ 1.k), and $63 (not alleged) (Item 4).
A check of Applicant’s credit on March 29, 2007, revealed additional
delinquencies of $301 past due since September 2001 (SOR ¶ 1.a), $847 on an auto
loan owed since November 2001 (SOR ¶ 1.c), $693 on a medical account in collection
since January 2004 (SOR ¶ 1.l), and $335 on a collection account placed for $292 in
September 2001 (SOR ¶ 1.b). Applicant was also listed as an authorized user on a
credit card account with a retailer opened in December 2001 and charged off in the
amount of $417 in August 2002 (SOR ¶ 1.f). The collection balance of the debt in SOR
¶ 1.g had risen to $2,942, and no progress had been made about resolving the other
debts listed on her SF 86 as well (Item 5).
On June 13, 2007, Applicant was interviewed by a government investigator about
her financial issues. Applicant indicated she did not recognize the collection agencies
acting as assignees for the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.h, 1.k, and 1.m, even though she
had listed each of these debts on her SF 86. She explained that the delinquent car loan
debt was for a repossessed car. She thought she had cosigned on a vehicle loan for her
then boyfriend but found out that it was solely in her name when it was repossessed.
Applicant indicated she had heard nothing about the vehicle or loan since 2003 so she
was unsure whether the debt had been paid. As for the delinquent retail credit card debt
on which she was listed as an authorized user (SOR ¶ 1.f), Applicant expressed her
belief her mother had opened the account. Applicant admitted that she had stopped
making payments on a VISA card account balance of about $2,200 (SOR ¶ 1.g), when
she was between jobs and struggling to support herself and her children, and it was
placed for collection in 2001/02. Applicant wanted to make payments on the debt but
could not afford to do so. She also acknowledged one unpaid medical debt of $693
(SOR ¶ 1.l), but she wanted to check on it since she has always been covered by
Medicaid. Applicant explained that the $8,000 judgment (SOR ¶ 1.j) was awarded a
former landlord for fire-related damage to her apartment. She had not paid the judgment
because she was contemplating filing for bankruptcy. She stated she would make
4
payments on the judgment and on the credit card debt (SOR ¶ 1.g) if she does not file.
Based on estimated monthly expenses of $1,079 (she was paying no rent), Applicant
estimated a net remainder of $14 (Item 7).
In July 2007, Applicant took out an automobile loan of $11,787, to be repaid at
$305 per month. As of December 2007, the account was current with a balance of
$11,213 (Item 8).
On October 30, 2007, Applicant indicated in response to financial interrogatories
from DOHA that she had done nothing to resolve her delinquent debt, including a
$666.17 balance of a March 2003 financial judgment that had not been listed on her
March 2007 credit report:
As of right now I am not financially able to resolve these debts. I’m just
making enough to cover my regular household expenses, especially being
a single mother with two kids. I have decided to use my tax refund for the
2007 year which I should receive by February or March of 2008 to file
bankruptcy on these debts because I don’t know if and when I would ever
be able to pay them all off. (Item 6).
As of December 2007, Applicant’s net salary had increased from $1,508 to
$1,617 per month. She estimated her monthly living expenses (rent, clothing, utilities,
car expenses, car payment, and cell phone) at $1,377.50 (Item 7), but this figure does
not account for any food costs. It is also unclear whether she had miscellaneous
expenses.
As of January 22, 2008, Applicant’s credit report showed no progress toward
resolving the $8,371 judgment (SOR 1.j), the $830 past due balance for the
repossessed vehicle (SOR ¶ 1.c), or the collection debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.g, 1.k, and
1.l. She reportedly owed $903 on a telephone services debt placed for collection in
March 2002 (SOR ¶ 1.e). The charged off $417 retail credit card balance (SOR ¶ 1.f)
was still on her credit report as past due (Item 8). The $525 judgment (SOR ¶ 1.i) and
the collection debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.d, 1.h, and 1.l did not appear on her credit report
(Item 8), but there is no indication that they have been paid. 
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 overarching
5
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire 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.
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
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
that 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).
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for financial considerations is set out in AG & 18:
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. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
6
Applicant has a history of financial delinquency since about 2001, when debt
totaling about $1,500 became past due (SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.c, and a $63 medical debt). In
2002, additional debt balances totaling about $3,644 (SOR ¶¶ 1.d-1.h) were placed for
collection. Two financial judgments totaling $8,896 (SOR ¶¶ 1.i and 1.j ) were awarded
against her, and two medical debts were placed for collection (SOR ¶¶ 1.k and 1.l) in
2003. In March 2004, a communications company placed a $102 delinquent balance for
collection (SOR ¶ 1.m). Significant security concerns are raised by “inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts” (AG ¶ 19(a)) and by “a history of not meeting financial
obligations” (AG ¶ 19(c)).
When she completed her e-QIP in March 2007, Applicant reported six delinquent
debts and the $8,371 judgment, so she was clearly aware of the debt. In October 2007,
Applicant expressed her intent to file for bankruptcy after she received her income tax
refund in spring 2008. There is no indication that she has made any payments on her
debts or that she has sought to relieve herself of the debt burden through bankruptcy.
Under the circumstances presented, AG ¶ 20(a) (“the behavior happened so long ago,
was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and
does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment”), 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”), and AG ¶ 20(d) (“the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts”) do not apply.
AG ¶ 20(b) (“the conditions that resulted in the financial problem 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 to the extent that debts were
incurred due to a personal calamity and to insufficient income. Her largest debt, the
$8,371 judgment, was apparently due to a fire in her apartment. While Applicant’s
conduct caused or at least contributed to the damage, the fire was an unforeseen and
unwanted circumstance. Her other debts became delinquent between 2001 and 2004,
when she held a succession of various jobs not likely to pay enough to support herself
and a child. A period of unemployment from June 2002 to August 2003 corresponds to
her vocational/technical training for a career as a medical assistant, so it was within her
control. At the same time, it was reasonable for her to pursue a new career in the hope
of making a better life for herself and her family.
However, Applicant’s failure to address her indebtedness, especially the court
judgments, is inconsistent with the responsible behavior required for AG ¶ 20(b) to fully
apply. Applicant was aware as of March 2007, if not before, that she owed a debt of
$102 and three others of less than $70 each. With only about $14 per month in
discretionary income, she was not in a position to make meaningful efforts to pay even
her minor debts. Her salary had increased by December 2007. Based on income and
expense figures she provided, she would have had a net monthly remainder of $239.50,
but this figure does not include any costs for groceries or miscellaneous expenses. As
of June 2007, Applicant was spending $200 per month on groceries and $260 on
Department Counsel indicated in the FORM that with the changes to her income and expense figures2
in December 2007, Applicant had a negative monthly net remainder of over $200 (FORM at 5). Based just on
the salary and expense figures provided, Applicant has a positive remainder of $239.50, but it does not include
the costs of groceries or any miscellaneous expenses. 
7
unexplained miscellaneous expenses.  So despite an increase in salary, her financial2
situation has not improved, in part because she now has to pay rent of $437.50 and
higher utility costs. Applicant told the government investigator in June 2007 that she had
consulted with an attorney about filing for bankruptcy. While a planned bankruptcy could
alleviate the financial pressures,  there is no indication that she has filed or can be
expected to do so in the near future.
AG ¶ 20(e) (“the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to
substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the
issue”) applies, but only to the debt in SOR ¶ 1.f. Although Applicant admitted the debt
when she answered the SOR, and it appears on the credit reports included in the record
for review, she denied opening the account when questioned by an investigator in June
2007. She surmised her mother had opened the account in her name, although her
mother had denied it. Per the March 2007 credit report, Applicant was only an
authorized user on the account. Although she may be legally responsible for the debt,
concerns for her financial judgment are not raised in the absence of evidence showing
she incurred the delinquency.
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 her 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 security
clearance must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept. 
I considered the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and
circumstances surrounding this case. The government must be assured that those
8
persons with classified access can be counted on to exercise good judgment at all
times. Applicant has not concealed from the government that she has had difficulty
meeting her financial obligations, but her handling of her financial matters continues to
raise significant security concerns. Applicant remains under a burden of delinquent
debt, including a sizeable court judgment, that she has not repaid due to lack of funds.
At the same time, she financed the purchase of a vehicle in July 2007, taking out a loan
of $11,787 and increasing her monthly car payment from $215 to $305 per month.
Although Applicant has lower car costs (presumably maintenance and/or gasoline) of
$134 per month, her overall savings amount to only $43 due to the higher car payment.
Based on the total amount financed and the monthly payment amount, it is not
scheduled to be paid off within 36 months. Whether or not this car was a discretionary
purchase, her delinquent debt is likely to take a back seat to her car loan. Her January
2008 credit report does not show any new delinquent accounts, but that alone is not
enough to overcome the judgment concerns raised by her failure to date to make any
good faith efforts to resolve her delinquent debt. 
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
                                       
ELIZABETH M. MATCHINSKI
Administrative Judge