1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
----------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-01693
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
On, April 30, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline
F. 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 for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR on May 24, 2008, admitted all of the allegations
except 1.r and 1.s, and requested an administrative determination. On June 13, 2008,
department counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM), and mailed it to
Applicant. She prepared a reply on September 5, 2008. On September 24, 2008, the
case was assigned to me. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
SOR subparagraphs 1.q and 1.r are duplicates (Reply, Attachment 14 at 3).1
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 31-year-old married woman with a five-year-old child. She has a
high school diploma and has earned some college credits (Item 5 at 10).
Applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army in 1995. In 2000, a physician diagnosed her
with chronic fatigue syndrome (Reply at 6). Based on the physician’s recommendation,
her command restricted her employment activities to light duty. A physician evaluated
her again in 2002 and concluded her symptoms had not improved. Shortly thereafter,
she was medically retired from the military and placed on the temporary disability
retirement list (Reply at 13).
Approximately two years later, a military physician re-evaluated Applicant (Reply
at 9 through 12). Her condition had not improved. Consequently, the physician
recommended that the Army change her retirement status from temporary disability to
permanent disability (Reply at 12). From February 2004 through December 2006,
Applicant received $776 per month in retirement and disability benefits (Reply at 2).
This was approximately one third of her previous salary (Reply at 1). Consequently, she
had trouble making ends meet. By early 2007, she had accrued approximately $18,000
of delinquent debt.
After years of tests and treatment, Applicant’s health began to improve. In
October 2006, she obtained a part-time job as a substitute teacher in a local school
district. In February 2007, she began working as a data entry clerk, her first full-time job
since leaving the Army. Within a year of obtaining this full-time job, she earned a
promotion (Reply at 5). As of March 2008, she was earning approximately $38,000 per
year (Item 6 at 8).
As Applicant’s health and employment situation stabilized, she began to focus on
reducing her delinquencies. After consulting with a credit counselor, she began
contacting collection agencies, and negotiating settlements (Reply at 3). By June 2008,
she had satisfied the debts listed in SOR subparagraphs 1.b through 1.d, 1.g, 1.h, and
1.q (Reply, Attachment 12 at 5, Attachment 13, Attachment 15). In July 2008, Applicant1
satisfied the delinquency listed in SOR subparagraph 1.e (Reply, Attachment 12 at 4).
Recently, she settled the debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.f, and is awaiting the
creditor’s confirmation (Reply at 3). In total, she has satisfied approximately $3,250 of
delinquent debt.
Applicant did not recognize the creditor listed in SOR subparagraph 1.s. Her
efforts at identifying it have been unsuccessful. 
Approximately $14,200 of delinquent debt, as listed in the SOR, remains
outstanding. Four of Applicant’s debts in the approximate amount of $9,950, have been
delinquent for more than five years (SOR subparagraphs 1.k, 1.l, 1.n, and 1.o). In April
3
2008, Applicant prepared a budget (Item 6 at 4). She continues to receive disability
benefits. Her net monthly disposable income after expenses to pay debt is $2,064 (Id.).
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, they are applied together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the entire process is a 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. 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. 
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “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”
(AG ¶ 18). Moreover, “an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having
to engage in illegal acts to generate funds” (Id.).
Applicant’s accrual of approximately $18,000 of delinquent debt triggers the
application of AG & 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,@ and AG &
19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations.” In 2000, while serving in the Army,
Applicant suffered a disabling illness that precipitated her early discharge, and rendered
her unable to work for nearly five years. During this period, she was unable to satisfy
her debts with her disability retirement income.
4
Applicant’s health gradually improved. Shortly after obtaining a full-time job in
February 2007, she contacted creditors and began satisfying delinquencies. She has
satisfied approximately $3,250 of the delinquent SOR debt. 
Applicant presented no evidence that she is satisfying her debts through a formal
payment plan. The counseling she received consisted of one phone session.
Nevertheless, she presented solid, documentary evidence demonstrating that she is
researching her delinquencies, organizing payment plans after she locates their
respective creditors, and steadily resolving them. 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,” 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,” apply.
Applicant was unable to identify the creditor listed in SOR subparagraph 1.s.
Because the delinquency is less than $500 and she has more than $2,000 of monthly
disposable income, her inability to locate this creditor has minimal security significance.
Given Applicant’s focused, organized efforts at debt reduction since returning to
work in February 2007, I am confident she will continue to satisfy her remaining
delinquencies. She has mitigated the financial considerations security concern.
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
Applicant’s eligibility to occupy a sensitive position 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 must be an overall
commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the
whole person concept.
Although Applicant has been steadily satisfying her delinquencies, approximately
$15,000 remains outstanding. The delinquencies were not caused by extravagant
spending or financial irresponsibility. Instead, they were caused by a disabling medical
illness that forced Applicant to retire early from the Army, and live on a drastically
reduced income for the next five years as she struggled to overcome the illness. Since
Va. Code Ann. § 8.01 246.2 (2008).2
5
returning to work full-time, she has created a budget, satisfied approximately $3,250 of
her delinquencies, and has approximately $2,000 of monthly disposable income to
satisfy the remainder. The presence of rehabilitation demonstrated by her efforts at debt
repayment outweighs the potential for pressure, coercion, or duress generated by the
amount of debt that remains outstanding. 
In reaching this conclusion, I considered the fact that nearly $10,000 of
Applicant’s delinquencies are legally unenforceable because they have been delinquent
for more than five years. In Applicant’s state, creditors are barred from initiating
collection actions for debts that are greater than five years old.  Although when2
considered alone, this does not negate the security concern, it reduces the potential for
coercion. Upon considering this case in the context of the whole person concept, I
conclude she has carried the burden. 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
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.s: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge