1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 07-16959
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Michael Lyles, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant signed a security clearance application, Standard Form 86 (SF-86), on
August 17, 2004. On June 12, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns regarding
financial considerations (Guideline F) arising from 10 specifically identified delinquent
debts. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended, and 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. 
On July 7, 2008, Applicant signed a notarized document in which he denied all
allegations, citing to a viable debt consolidation plan and to direct payments made
toward his obligations. A hearing before an Administrative Judge was requested. I was
assigned the case and the parties agreed to a hearing date of October 22, 2008. A
Notice of Hearing was issued on October 6, 2008, to that effect. 
 Tr. 28.    1
 Tr. 27.    2
Ex. 9 (“Person Summary,” dated October 17, 2008).    3
2
The hearing was timely convened. Department Counsel introduced nine
documents, accepted into the record without objection as exhibits (Exs.) 1-9. Aided by
his wife, Applicant gave testimony and offered two documents, accepted into the record
without objection as Exs. A-B. Applicant’s wife and an associate gave testimony on
behalf of Applicant. Applicant was given until November 4, 2008, to submit any
additional documents for consideration. The transcript (Tr.) was received on October
30, 2008. No additional documents were forwarded for admission and the record was
closed on November 7, 2008. Based upon a review of the limited case file and exhibits
presented, Applicant carried his burden and mitigated financial considerations security
concerns. Clearance is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 42-year-old military operations research analyst. He earned a
bachelor of science degree while serving in the United States military. Applicant has
two young children from a prior marriage that ended in divorce in 2003. From his
current marriage, he has a four-year-old child and a 23-year-old step-son.
From 1987 through 1988, Applicant served in the Army National Guard. He then
served in the United States Army from 1988 through 2000. He maintained a security
clearance throughout this time without incident. He was employed as a network
engineer in the private sector after his honorable discharge in December 2000 through
August 2002. Up to this point in his career, Applicant had good credit and was in control
of his finances.  1
A downturn in the economy following the September 11, 2001, attacks and the
subsequent decline in the technology field left Applicant unemployed from August 2002
until June 2003. During that 11 month break in employment, Applicant was divorced
and given custody of the two young children from that union. With his period of
unemployment being unforeseeably protracted, money became scarce and some pre-
existing accounts became delinquent. Committed to not acquiring any additional new
debt as the year went by, he ultimately made the decision to prioritize his bills. His top
priorities were for current expenses and family medical needs. He kept current on such
bills by accepting temporary, part-time assignments.  In June 2003, he was hired for a2
position requiring a security clearance, and an interim security clearance was granted.3
The economy again impacted his employment when he lost his job in early September
2003. He again resorted to temporary work in order to cover current living and medical
expenses and preclude the accumulation of more delinquent debt. As a consequence,
some of the bills that became delinquent during his last period of unemployment and
some of the debts accrued early on during that same period remain unpaid. Ultimately,
 Tr. 50.    4
 Tr. 28. The child was deemed ineligible for disability because he had not worked a sufficient amount of    5
time. Tr. 57.
 Tr. 51. Applicant estimated a minimum of $10,000 in medical bills was paid out of pocket for family medical    6
expenses between late 2002 and 2007. Tr. 56-57.
 Tr. 52.    7
 Tr. 51.    8
3
he accepted a position with his most recent employer in late February 2004, around the
same time the technology sector stabilized. 
In addition to Applicant’s two periods of unemployment, divorce, and assumption
of child custody, Applicant has also been responsible for extraordinary medical
expenses. His medical insurance did not cover, or only minimally covered, necessary
medical care related to chiropractic and dental problems for his children from his prior
marriage. Additionally, Applicant’s new wife has had significant health issues in the past
couple of years. Problematic dentition led to the removal of many of her teeth, requiring
a partial bridge and other dental care not covered by health insurance.  Moreover, she4
suffers from severe sleep apnea which has demanded extensive medical attention and
related expenses. This condition not only contributed to her 2006 heart attack and
regular migraines, but it also has affected her ability to work full-time. As well, her 23-
year-old son from a prior marriage incurred uncovered medical care debts while he was
a dependent. The child suffers from a debilitating form of rheumatoid arthritis.  As a5
result, that son has found it difficult to work. Applicant and his wife, however, have
limited their responsibility for his medical bills to those acquired while he was a
dependent. Applicant and his wife agree that they have considered medical care a top
priority. In all, they state that they have managed “tens of thousands” of dollars in
medical care over the past few years.6
Applicant first discovered the full extent of his delinquent debt when he received
the SOR in June 2008. By that time, Applicant had already instituted measures to
address some of his delinquent accounts. In order to address their debts and still live
within their means, Applicant and his wife developed a strict budget which Applicant’s
wife oversees.  Although Applicant has made it a priority to make sure his children are7
educated and receiving appropriate medical care, he has explained his financial
situation to their children. The elder children are aware that their parents can no longer
assist them financially.  Consequently, the eldest two have moved out of the home and8
live independently, leaving only the four-year-old and a teenager at home. 
Unable to work efficiently due to her sleep apnea, Applicant’s wife provides
daycare for their four-year-old and manages the home. She has sold their non-essential
possessions, mostly at flea markets. She also earns $300-$500 a month making crafts
and infant clothing items. Applicant maintains a part-time job to supplement the family
 Tr. 45.    9
 Tr. 48 (“I think the last time we went out was for our anniversary.”)    10
  SOR allegations 1.a – 1.j.    11
 Ex. B (Debt Consolidation Plan Payment Statements for June 30, 2008, through August 30, 2008); Tr. 34,    12
60-61.
 Id.    13
 Ex. 7 (Receipt I, dated May 21, 2008).    14
 Ex. 8 (Receipt II, dated May 21, 2008).    15
 Tr. 36.    16
 Tr. 37.    17
 Id.    18
 Id.    19
4
coffers.  The couple has downsized to a rental property for housing. Applicant’s car is9
paid for, as are two cars previously purchased for the elder two children. Applicant’s
wife’s truck has a car note upon which he makes timely payments. The vast majority of
available income goes to their old debt and current daily living expenses.
Entertainment, eating out, and extras are at a minimum.10
The SOR notes 10 delinquent obligations, amounting to approximately
$19,000.  With regard to the 10 debts noted in the SOR, Applicant sought advice and11
guidance from financial conselors. Applicant provided evidence that commenced
repayment on four of the accounts through a debt consolidation repayment plan.12
Through that plan, $270 is deducted from his personal account for monthly
disbursements toward the accounts noted in the SOR under allegations 1.a, 1.c, 1.f,
and 1i.  Additionally, a prior balance of approximately $2,325 to an account noted at13
SOR allegation 1.d has been reduced to approximately $1,424 through direct
payments.  Moreover, direct payment resumed in the summer of 2008 on the account14
noted in SOR allegation 1.j with an approximate balance of $2,257.15
Applicant has been unsuccessful thus far in addressing the four remaining
accounts. He has been unable to find information about the account noted at SOR
allegation 1.b for a balance of approximately $2,081.  He is attempting to add the16
obligation noted at SOR allegation 1.e for approximately $1,468 to the consolidation
plan.  Information on the telecommunications accounts noted in the SOR as17
allegations 1.g and 1.h, for approximately $425 and $121, respectively, had only
recently been received.  Applicant is in the process of adding them to the consolidation18
plan.19
 Tr. 21.    20
 Tr. 2-21.    21
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).    22
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).    23
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).    24
5
Applicant’s wife concurs that Applicant is actively working to address his debt.
She also depicted their economizing efforts and simplified lifestyle. Applicant’s former
boss spoke highly of Applicant’s work efforts and product, noting Applicant was poised
for promotion before these financial issues were raised.  Applicant’s former supervisor20
knows of no reason to doubt Applicant’s ability to maintain classified information and
has no reason to think Applicant lives beyond his finances.21
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 a22
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  23 24
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
 Id.    25
 Executive Order 10865 § 7.    26
 Revised Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18.    27
6
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 access25
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information. The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily a
determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the26
applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense
have established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Based upon consideration of the evidence, I find Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) to be the most pertinent to the case. Under that guideline, 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. Conversely, an individual
who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate
funds.  The Regulation sets out several potential disqualifying conditions. 27
Applicant was unemployed for about 17 out of the 19 months between August
2002 and February 2004. Combined with a divorce, custody of his children, and a
number of medical bills which required immediate payment, Applicant acquired debt
which became delinquent. Much of that debt remains unpaid to date. Consequently,
Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts”) and .FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting
financial obligations”) apply. With such conditions raised, it is left to Appellant to
overcome the case against him and mitigate security concerns. 
Shifts in the technology field and market affected Applicant twice and caused
him to be unemployed for about 17 months between August 2002 and February 2004.
7
In the interim, he was divorced and he assumed custody of his two young children.
Addressing his debts became more difficult as his period of unemployment dragged on
and he became increasingly responsible for a number of unforeseeable and necessary
medical bills accrued by family members. Short of financial resources, he devoted his
limited available funds to current medical and living expenses. In this manner, he
attempted to provide his family with necessities while precluding the accumulation of
more delinquent debt. Therefore, Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC
MC) 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.
Following his first bout of unemployment, Applicant was given a reprieve with
employment that commenced in the middle of 2003. The reprieve, however, was brief.
Through no fault of his own, he was unemployed again by September 2003. As a result,
he was unable to make any significant progress on his previously acquired delinquent
debt or to save for his next period of unemployment. At the time, these two periods
were unique to his area of expertise (technology) and were unfortunate interruptions to
an otherwise continuous history of employment. During these periods of
unemployment, however, he maintained custody of his children, made sure an
appropriate education and medical care was provided, and did his best to limit his
acquisition of additional delinquent debt. There is no indication that he lived
extravagantly or otherwise exercised poor financial judgment. Once he returned to the
work force, he and his wife developed a strict budget to guide them and he began
repayment on his delinquent debt. Therefore, Financial Considerations Mitigating
Condition (FC MC) 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”) and FC
MC AG ¶ 20(d) (“the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts”) apply.
Applicant has received assistance from a debt consolidator, but he failed to show
that he received actual financial counseling. Therefore, FC MC AG ¶ 20(c) (“the person
has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications
that the problem is being resolved or is under control”) cannot apply.
Through a repayment plan, Applicant is addressing four of the ten accounts at
issue. Two additional accounts are being addressed by him through direct payment. Of
the remaining four accounts, he is preparing to add three of the accounts to the
repayment plan. He has been unable to find information as to the fourth account.
Although financial counseling is clearly warranted, there is no evidence it has been
received. On the other hand, there is no evidence that Applicant’s acquisition of
delinquent debt was the result of poor self-control, lack of judgment, or an unwillingness
to abide by rules and regulations, nor is there evidence that he is unreliable or
untrustworthy. Applicant’s periods of unemployment were both recent and significant.
By showing his efforts to address his delinquent debts through his debt consolidation
8
experts and the efforts he has done independently, Applicant has demonstrated his
desire and ability to address his debts.
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 the
facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the “whole person” factors.
Applicant is a mature and educated man with significant work experience. The record
shows that he applies diligence in both his professional and personal life. 
Through no fault of his own, Applicant experienced two significant and protracted
periods of unemployment. Proactively, he resorted to temporary and part-time jobs to
lessen the financial burden on his family and to prevent the acquisition of further
delinquent debt. Today, Applicant continues with a part-time job. His wife continues to
provides daycare and earns an additional $300-$500 per month for her crafts and
handiwork. Applicant responsibly saw to it that his eldest child and his wife’s eldest child
were educated before they left the household to become self-supporting. Applicant’s
wife has sold off their non-essential possessions. The couple has downsized their living
situation. Through these efforts, Applicant defrayed both his family’s daily expenses
and immediate medical expenses, areas which he considered to be priorities both
during the lean times and today. All of these efforts helped limit Applicant’s acquisition
of new debt. 
The couple has no on-going obligations except for monthly housing expenses
and a note on one truck. They live comfortably, albeit within a strict budget. Applicant
started repayment on two of the delinquent accounts before receiving the SOR; he has
since started repayment on six of the ten accounts at issue. Three more accounts have
been verified and are poised for inclusion on his repayment plan. Only one account, of
which he has been unsuccessful in his efforts to verify the account information and
balance, remains unaddressed.
9
Applicant’s acquisition of debt was not the result of poor self-control, lack of
judgment, or an unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations. Based on the facts
regarding his lifestyle and his periods of unemployment, there is no indication that his
debt raises questions about his reliability, trustworthiness, or ability to protect classified
information. Although he still owes significant debt, he has made appropriate strides to
address that debt and instituted organized repayments on the majority of the accounts.
In light of these financial considerations and the “whole person” analysis, I find that
Applicant has mitigated financial considerations security concerns. 
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
Conclusion
In light of all of the facts and circumstances presented by the record in this case,
it is clearly consistent with national security to continue Applicant’s eligibility for a
security clearance. Clearance is granted.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge