Applicant also filed security clearance applications on August 5, 1999 (GE 3) and January 10, 2007 (GE 2).1
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 08-04044
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                            
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony,  I
conclude that Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on August 4,
2007.  On July 11, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a1
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for
Applicant. 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 and his counsel terminated their working relationship on September 29, 2008, several weeks before2
the hearing. AE S (Letter dated September 29, 2008).
Applicant’s response to the SOR.3
2
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on July 17, 2008. He answered the
SOR in writing through counsel on August 5, 2008, and requested a hearing before an
administrative judge.  DOHA received the request on August 7, 2008. Department2
Counsel was prepared to proceed on August 21, 2008, and I received the case
assignment on September 4, 2008. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on September 29,
2008, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on October 15, 2008. The government
offered 11 exhibits (GE) 1 through 11, which were received and admitted into evidence
without objection. Applicant and one witness testified on his behalf. He submitted 19
exhibits (AE) A through S, which were received and admitted into evidence without
objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on October 23, 2008. I held
the record open until November 5, 2008, for Applicant to submit additional matters.  On
November 5, 2008, he submitted AE T through DD, without objection. Applicant also
requested an additional seven days to submit one additional document. I granted
Applicant’s request by Order dated November 6, 2008. On November 11, 2008,
Applicant submitted this document, AE EE, without objection. Applicant’s additional
documentation has been marked and admitted into evidence. The record closed on
November 11, 2008.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Notice
Applicant received the hearing notice on October 2, 2008, less than 15 days prior
to the hearing. At the hearing, I advised Applicant of his right under ¶ E3.1.8 of the
Directive to receive the hearing notice 15 days prior to the hearing date. Applicant
affirmatively waived his right to 15 days notice. (Tr. 9.) 
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, dated June 25, 2007, Applicant admitted the factual
allegations in ¶¶ 1.a, 1.c -1.e, 1.g -1.q, 1.s, and 1.t of the SOR, with explanations. He
denied the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.b, 1.f, and 1.r of the SOR. He also provided
additional information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance.  3
Applicant, who is 44 years old, works as a system administrator for a Department
of Defense contractor. Applicant began working for this company in 1997. His company
recently promoted him to a position which requires a security clearance. His immediate
supervisor describes him as a very good team player who works well with others.
Following assignments to other areas of the company, his supervisor receives very
positive feedback on his relationships with co-workers and his working skills. Applicant’s
performance is described as consistent and the work done correctly. The Director of his
AE M (2008 Performance Appraisal); AE N (Letter, dated October 14, 2008); AE O (letter, dated October 14,4
2008); Tr. 35-36, 121-125.
Tr. 34, 37.5
AE P (Letter, dated October 8, 2008); Tr. 38. At the hearing, Applicant provided a verbal listing of his monthly6
expenses. Id. Since the hearing, his mortgage payment has been reduced $600. I also take Administrative
notice of the fact that the price of gasoline for cars has declined at least 50% in the last two months. Thus,
Applicant gasoline costs are reduced by $200. Overall his monthly expenses have been reduced $800.
GE 5 (Credit report, dated June 25, 2008); GE 6 (Credit report, dated August 4, 2007); GE 7 (Credit report,7
dated January 12, 2007).
3
work area also describes him as a dedicated worker who does his work very well and is
a good team player. He graduated from high school, attended college and received a
certificate in computer operations. Applicant also worked part-time for his church until
August 2008.4
Applicant married in 1985. He and wife separated in January 2008, but have not
moved forward with a divorce. They have four children, a 22-year-old daughter and
three sons, ages 12 to 19. Applicant’s three sons live with him in the family home and
his daughter lives independently. His 19-year-old son works part-time at a fast food
restaurant. Although she works, his wife does not provide any child support.  5
Applicant’s bi-weekly gross pay is $2,500 and his bi-weekly net pay is $1,611.
His current monthly income totals $3,222. His monthly expenses average $3,305,
leaving a monthly deficit of approximately $80. Applicant’s household income has
declined by at least $2,000 a month with the loss of his part-time job and his wife’s
income.      6
A review of Applicant’s credit reports dated January 12, 2007, August 4, 2007,
June 25, 2008, and the SOR, shows a longstanding history of debt problems and the
following outstanding debts, totaling $42,055, and their current status, which are the
reasons for security concerns under the financial considerations guideline:7
SOR ¶ CREDITOR/DEBT
TYPE
AMOUNT STATUS EVIDENCE
1.a Judgment - bank
credit card
$  2,491 Unpaid GE 5, GE 6, GE
7; AE BB; Tr. 39-
42, 46
1.b Judgment $  3,370 Paid AE A; Tr. 128
1.c Medical bill $  1,126 Paid AE V; Tr. 47-48
1.d. Phone bill $     179 Paid AE B; AE X
1.e Medical bill $       65 Paid AE C; AE Y
His wife acknowledged this is her debt. His credit report lists the debt as his individual account.8
At the hearing, he acknowledged that his name was also on the car loan note and that the creditor perceived9
him as the debtor. Tr. 86-87.
W hile he did not pay his cable bill in September 2008, the cable bills in the record do not show he has an10
unpaid balance of $152.
4
1.f Bank credit card $  2,389 Same as ¶ 1.a GE 5, GE 6, GE
7; AE BB; Tr. 39-
46.
1.g Bank card $     269 Unpaid AE D; Tr. 518
1.h Bank credit card $     954 Unpaid Tr. 52
1.i Store credit card $     617 Unpaid,
negotiating
payment plan
Tr. 53
1.j Cell phone bill $  3,247 Unpaid,
negotiating
payment plan
Tr. 53-54
1.k Car repossession $16,939 Unpaid, (Joint
account, wife’s
acknowledges her
debt)
AE E; Tr. 54-55,
86-879
1.l Mortgage debt $40,330
as of 11/
2007
Forbearance plan GE 4 at 12; AE
AA
1.m Automobile loan $  4,174 Unpaid AE T; Tr. 55
1.n Automobile loan $     282 Paid AE I; Tr. 128 
1.o Medical bill $     737 Paid AE W
1.p Store account $  2,843 Unpaid Tr. 59
1.q Medical bill (creditor
not identified)
$     133 Challenged as not
his
AE J; Tr. 59-60
1. r Cable bill $     152 Paid GE 4 at 6; AE K10
1. s Medical bill (creditor
not identified)
$     250 Challenged as
unable to locate
AE J; Tr. 59-60
1.t Medical bill (creditor
not identified)
$     132 Challenged as
nonexistent
AE J: Tr. 59-60
AE AA (New forbearance plan).11
GE 5, supra note 7; GE 6, supra note 7;  GE 7, supra note 7;  GE 8 (Credit report, dated March 7, 2000);12
AE BB; Tr. 39-46. Because Applicant denied allegation 1.f in the SOR on the grounds it was the same as the
judgment in allegation 1.a, the government had the burden of proving the debts were two different debts. A
listing of the two debts separately on a credit report would not establish the debts are separate debts because
a court case number will not be the same as a credit card account number. Applicant obtained the court
records , which was the government’s duty, and established the two debts are the same. 
GE 4, supra note 10, at 11; AE U (Letter, dated October 21, 2008); Tr. 47-48, 95-96.13
5
In addition to the above debts, Applicant acknowledged at the hearing that the
two time shares he and his wife owned are going to foreclosure. He paid the monthly
mortgage on the time shares until his wife left. Without her income, he cannot pay these
two mortgages. He paid his monthly mortgage on his home when his payment was
$600 to $800 a month. His mortgagor raised his monthly mortgage payment from $600
a month to almost $1,500 a month after the mortgagor paid a $9,000 tax lien filed
against Applicant for unpaid water bills. In February 2008, Applicant entered into a
forbearance plan, but because of the high monthly payment, he missed payments
beginning in May 2008. Applicant recently renegotiated his forbearance plan. He and his
estranged wife signed the agreement on October 25, 2008. Under the terms of the
agreement, he must pay $852 a month on time for the next four months. If he complies
with these terms, the final balloon payment will be added back into a modified loan, if
approved. He submitted his first payment on October 27, 2008.11
Applicant denied owing the credit card debt of $2,389 listed in SOR ¶ 1.f,
indicating that it was the same as the judgment listed in SOR ¶ 1.a. The government
disagreed and argued that the judgment and the credit card debt are different because
of the $102 difference. Applicant stated that he had three credit cards with this particular
bank and acknowledged he owed the balance on one debt and the judgment. He denied
that he owed the balance on a fourth credit card, stating that the judgment and largest
credit card with this bank were the same. The three credit reports indicated that
Applicant had three credit cards with this bank. Credit card number 1 (allegation 1.f)
showed a balance of $2,062 in January 12, 2007, $2,172 in August 2007 and a balance
of $2,389 in June 2008. Credit card number 2 had a balance of $832 in January 2007, a
balance of $954 in August 2007 and June 2008. Credit card number 3 has a zero
balance on all credit reports. The August 2000 credit report shows credit card number 1
as an account in good standing and no other credit cards with this bank. Subsequent to
the hearing, Applicant obtained the court records. Based on these records, the
government has agreed the two debts are the same. In light of this evidence, I find that
the judgment in 1.a and the credit card debt in 1.f are the same.12
Applicant believes his financial problems started in 2006 when he experienced
problems with depression and bipolar disease. He was taken to the hospital emergency
room after which, he started outpatient treatment for his mental health. He is not
currently on medication. During the time he had these medical problems, he did not pay
attention to his finances.13
6
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. 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 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).  
7
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline 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. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt over many years
and has been unable to pay his obligations for a period of time. The evidence is
sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions, requiring a closer
examination.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ Applicant=s
financial worries have been ongoing and continuous since at least 1997 and are the
result of financial mismanagement. This potentially mitigating condition does not apply.
Under AG & 20(b), it may be mitigating where Athe 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.@ Applicant had medical
problems in 2006. He and his wife separated in January 2008 and he lost his part-time
job in August 2008. As a result of the 2008 events, he lost approximately $2,000 in
household income. His financial problems arose long before either of these events.
However, the loss of this income does impact his ability to pay his current debts and his
past debts. I find this potentially mitigating condition is not fully applicable in this case
because he has not shown he acted responsibly under the circumstances. His financial
problems are not improving and may be getting worse because of the foreclosures.  
Evidence that Athe 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@
is potentially mitigating under AG & 20(c). Applicant has not sought financial counseling
8
and his financial problems are not under control or being resolved. This mitigating
condition is not applicable. 
 Similarly, AG & 20(d) applies where the evidence shows Athe individual initiated
a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.@ Applicant has
resolved nine debts. He also renegotiated a reasonable forbearance paln with his
mortgagor which he believes he can manage based on his ability in the past to pay a
lower mortgage. He, however, has not resolved the majority of his unpaid debts listed in
the SOR. This mitigating condition is partially applicable.
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 to the medical bills listed in SOR allegations 1.q, 1.s and 1.t. Applicant
learned that one bill was not his, one bill did not exist and one creditor could not be
located. He had a legitimate reason to challenge each debt. This mitigating condition
applies to these three SOR debts only.
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 security
clearance must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole person concept.       
In reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is
to be commended for his efforts to resolve several debts. His debt issues are not recent,
but longstanding. He not only has problems with unpaid old debts, but he also has two
properties going to foreclosure. His monthly expenses exceed his income by $80,
making it difficult for him to meet his monthly living expenses. His current finances do
not allow him to repay his older debts. His health issues two years ago and his
separation from his wife contributed to his financial problems, but do not excuse his
9
failure to act more responsibly by taking control of his finances years ago to reduce his
expenses. His financial problems are the result of many years of poor money
management. He has not demonstrated a track record for managing his monthly income
and expenses or a change in his attitude towards spending money. He has lived beyond
his financial means for many years.  
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
considerations. 
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: 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: 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: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.t: For Applicant
10
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by 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.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge