Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended. 1
1
              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                  DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
In the matter of:                                              )
       )
        ) ISCR Case No. 08-04260  
                  )
       )
Applicant for Security Clearance                    )
                        Appearances
For Government: Kathryn D. MacKinnon, Esquire, Deputy Chief Department Counsel
For Applicant: Alexander J. Brittin, Esquire
                        ________________
                        Decision
                       ________________
O’BRIEN, Rita C., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I conclude
that Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised under the guideline for financial
considerations. Accordingly, his request for a security clearance is granted.
Applicant requested a security clearance by submitting an Electronic Questionnaire
for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) signed on September 25, 2007. After reviewing the
results of the ensuing background investigation, adjudicators for the Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) were unable to make a preliminary affirmative finding  that1
it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant’s request. 
 Adjudication of this case is controlled by the Revised Adjudicative Guidelines, approved by the President on2
December 29, 2005,which were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. The
Revised Adjudicative Guidelines supersede the guidelines listed in Enclosure 2 to the Directive, and they apply
to all adjudications or trustworthiness determinations in which an SOR was issued on or after September 1,
2006.
 Applicant’s post-hearing documents, submitted as 1.a. through 4.c., were re-marked in accordance with the3
DOHA practice of identifying Applicants’ exhibits with letters. The revised identification is as follows: 1.a.
through 1.e. are re-marked as AE I through AE M; 2.a. through 2.d. are re-marked as AE N through AE Q;
3.a. and 3.b. are re-marked AE R and AE S; 4.a. through 4.c. are re-marked as AE T through AE V.
Applicant’s cover letter indicated that his post-hearing submission included item 3.d. (sic), a letter concerning
car repairs of January 2007, but that document was not included in the submission.
2
On July 22, 2008, DOHA issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), which
specified the basis for its decision: security concerns addressed in the Directive under
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (AG).2
Applicant signed his notarized Answer to the SOR on August 27, 2008. In his
response, Applicant denied all allegations in the SOR except the following: ¶¶ 1.p., 1.q. 1.r.
and 1.t. He also requested a hearing before an administrative judge.
Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on September 5, 2008, and the case
was assigned to me on September 24, 2008. A Notice of Hearing was issued on October
22, 2008, setting the hearing date for November 12, 2008. After retaining counsel on
November 5, 2008, Applicant moved to continue the hearing to allow time to adequately
prepare. The Government did not object to Applicant’s motion. By Order dated November
7, 2008, I granted Applicant’s request. DOHA issued an Amended Notice of Hearing on
November 10, 2008, and I convened the hearing on December 10, 2008.
During the hearing, the government offered four exhibits, which were marked as
Government’s Exhibits (GE) 1 through 4 and admitted without objection. Applicant testified,
presented the testimony of one witness, and offered eight exhibits, which were marked as
Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A through H, which were also received without objection. I held the
record open to allow Applicant to submit additional documentation. He timely submitted 14
documents, which were forwarded without objection by Department Counsel. The
documents were admitted as AE I through AE V.  DOHA received the transcript (Tr) on3
December 18, 2008. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant’s admissions in response to the SOR are admitted as fact. After a thorough
review of the pleadings, Applicant’s response to the Statement of Reasons, and the record
evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact.
Applicant, 30 years old, completed tenth grade in approximately 1996. Since that
time, he has worked in a fast-food restaurant, as a laborer for a construction company and
 The government concedes that allegation 1.e. is a duplicate of allegation 1.b. (Tr 113-114).4
 The government noted that, of the allegations related to medical debt, 1.b. and 1.e. were duplicates; 1.k.5
is included in the plan; and it is unclear if 1.l. and 1.m. were included (Tr 113-115).
3
as a mover. He joined his current employer in 2003 as a laborer (GE 1; Tr 30-33).
Applicant’s security officer testified that he is a reliable and dependable worker who has
performed his job consistently and well during the years he has been with the company. (Tr
105-106). 
Applicant is single. He has three children, aged nine, eleven, and twelve years, with
Mother A. Applicant pays $74 per week in child support for these three children. He also has
one child, six years old, with Mother B. His pays $66 per week support for this child. Child
support payments have been deducted automatically from his paycheck since 2005 (Tr 40;
GE AE I; AE J). Applicant’s pay stub (AE B) shows weekly pay, without overtime, of $934,
or approximately $48,000 gross income per year. His net income after deductions is
approximately $34,000. He lives with his parents to save money (Tr 90). Nevertheless,
Applicant has accrued delinquent debt.
Applicant decided to seek help, and a friend at his church referred him to an agency
(Tr 47). In May 2008, Applicant contacted a credit counseling service. He provided the
organization with his credit report, so that a plan could be developed that included all his
delinquencies (Tr 84). He signed an agreement, and worked out a monthly budget of his
income and expenses, and developed a payment plan (GE 4). The original plan required
a payment of $700 per month, which Applicant could not afford. He worked with the agency
on a revised plan that he could manage financially (Tr 81). The agency created a revised
plan to pay 13 debts over 24 months (AE E; AE T; AE U). Applicant signed the agreement
in December 2008. After an initial payment of $192, Applicant is scheduled to pay $127.50
per week, or $510 per month, which will be deducted from his pay (Tr 82).
The current status of the alleged debts is as follows:
Allegations 1.b., 1.c., 1.d, 1.e.,  1.i., 1.k., 1.l., 1.m., 1.o. - medical debts - Applicant4
incurred numerous debts because of a medical condition that requires frequent doctor visits
(Tr 52-53). He failed to pay these debts because he thought they were being paid through
his employer’s medical insurance plan. Several of the collection agencies for these debts
appear in the plan, although the amounts differ from those cited in the SOR.  Applicant5
testified that the medical debts are included in his consolidation plan (Tr 52-56; 76; AE E).
Allegations 1.f., 1.h. and 1.n. - communications debts - Two cable debts (1.f. and
1.h.) are included in Applicant’s consolidation plan. Applicant disputes the remaining $170
cell-phone debt. He believes this is not his debt, because his cell phone bill is prepaid (Tr
64; 111).
Allegation 1.j. - car loan - Applicant initially disputed his obligation to pay for this
used car because it required several major repairs shortly after he bought it (AE R; AE S;
The government concedes that allegation 1.s. is a duplicate of allegation 1.a. (Tr 120).
6
Directive. 6.3.
7 
4
Tr 60-61). However, he accepted responsibility for the debt, contacted the creditor and
obtained an agreement to a reduced balance of $5,300. He and the creditor also agreed
to a payment plan of $200 per month for 26 months that started in May 2008 (AE F).
Although Applicant’s counsel stated that the plan had not been formalized, Applicant
testified that he is making the monthly payments. I find that AE F supports Applicant’s
contention that a plan is in place for this debt (Tr 61-62; AE A; AE F).
Allegations 1.a., 1.g., 1.p., 1.r., 1.s.,  and 1.t. - child support delinquencies,6
related state liens  and incarceration - In 2003, Applicant was paying Mother A directly,7
without payroll deductions, but was late in paying. When he did not have the unpaid support
on hand at his court appearance, he was incarcerated overnight until the funds were
obtained (Tr 50-52). 
Applicant disputes that his child support is delinquent because support payments
have been deducted automatically from his pay since 2005 (AE B). He submitted copies of
court orders showing his child support obligations (AE I and J). In addition, a letter from
Applicant’s security manager indicates that the company has been deducting child support
payments from his pay for both mothers since 2005 (AE H and V).
Although the state instructed that payments for both families be sent to the state
division of child support enforcement (AE I and J), Applicant’s employer mistakenly sent
payments for Mother A directly to her. Child support arrearages began to accrue because
the state child support office failed to receive payments for Mother A. Ultimately, the state
charged Applicant with failure to meet his obligations and filed liens against him. Applicant
contacted the division of child support enforcement to determine why he was charged with
failing to pay his support. He could not understand why the receipts that were forwarded to
him credited him with only part of the amount he was actually paying (Tr 71). Applicant
recently learned that his employer’s error, which has continued for several years, has
caused the discrepancy (Tr 43). His security officer testified that the situation resulted from
a company error, that it was discovered approximately two weeks before the hearing, and
that the error has now been corrected (AE H; V; Tr 100-104).
Allegation 1.q. - payday loan - After a judgment was filed against Applicant in 2006,
he repaid the loan in full in 2007 (AE G; Tr 65-66).
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information, and
consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the Revised Adjudicative
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).8
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.9
 See Egan; Revised Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 2(b).10
5
Guidelines (AG).   Decisions must also reflect consideration of the  “whole person” factors7
listed in ¶ 2(a) of the Guidelines.
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not
determinative of a conclusion for or against an Applicant. However, specific applicable
guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them as they
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified information.
In this case, the pleadings and the information presented by the parties require
consideration of the security concerns and adjudicative factors addressed under Guideline
F (Financial Considerations).  
          A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve the questions of whether it
is clearly consistent with the national interest  for an Applicant to either receive or continue8
to have access to classified information. The government bears the initial burden of
producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or
revoke a security clearance for an Applicant. Additionally, the government must be able to
prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the government meets its burden, it then
falls to the Applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the government’s case. Because no
one has a “right” to a security clearance, an Applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.9
A person who has access to classified information enters 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 judgment, reliability
and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or his own. 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.10
Analysis
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
AG ¶18 expresses the security concern pertaining to financial considerations:
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 over-extended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Compulsive
gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including espionage.
Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a
6
security concern. It may indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal
acts.
Applicant has worked as a laborer for more than 10 years. His credit bureau reports
show that he has had numerous delinquencies, which began accruing in 2003.
Disqualifying conditions AG ¶19a (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and AG ¶19c
(a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply. There is no evidence of other
disqualifying conditions such as frivolous spending, or debts related to alcoholism,
gambling or deceptive practices.
The Financial Considerations guideline also contains factors that can mitigate
security concerns. Mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20b, AG ¶ 20c, AG ¶ 20d, and AG ¶ 20e
apply. 
Applicant’s largest alleged debt relates to child support arrearages. However, the
delinquencies resulted not from Applicant’s failure to pay his obligation, but from his
employer’s failure to follow the state’s instructions to send Applicant’s payments to the
state division of child support enforcement. His employer’s mistake was unknown to
Applicant and beyond his control. He acted responsibly by contacting the state office and
obtaining receipts of his payments to try to determine why his payments were not being
credited to him. I find that AG ¶ 20b applies (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). 
Both 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 has made sincere efforts to resolve his debts.
He initiated a payment plan for his car loan, even though the car appeared to be a
“lemon.” He acted in May 2008, before the SOR was issued, indicating that he was acting
in good-faith, rather than in response to the security process. His history of child support
payments going back to 2005 also shows a good-faith effort to meet his obligation to
support his children. In addition, Applicant contacted a financial counseling service in May
2008 and concluded a payment plan in December. The payment plan includes 13 debts,
9 of which appear in the SOR (AE E). Not all of the medical debts listed in the SOR are
included in the plan; however, the medical debts that do not appear to be included are not
sufficient to raise security concerns. Applicant has made a concerted effort to resolve his
debts and with this payment plan in place, his debts are under control. 
Applicant’s exhibits (AE B - D; AE H - L; AE V) and his security officer’s testimony
confirm that the child support debts listed in the SOR stemmed from an error by his
employer that has continued for almost four years. Applicant’s child support had in fact
been deducted from his pay during that time, and arrears should not have been accruing.
I find that AG ¶ 20(e) applies (the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the
legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
7
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions
to resolve the issue).
Whole Person Analysis  
 
Under the whole person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate the
Applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the Applicant’s conduct and all
the circumstances. An 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) 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.
AG ¶ 2(c) requires that the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance
must be an overall common-sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the
guidelines and the whole person concept. Under the financial considerations guideline,
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts
and circumstances surrounding this case. 
Applicant has a stable work history and his security manager attests to his reliability
as an employee. In the process of supporting himself and four children on his single salary
as a laborer, he incurred delinquencies amounting to approximately $10,000. The SOR
alleges $31,200 in delinquent debt (excluding duplicate allegation 1.s.). However, of this
total, Applicant does not owe $21,245 in child support arrears, which the state child
support enforcement division charged as delinquent because of a mistake by Applicant’s
employer. He made good-faith efforts to resolve the remaining debts by initiating a
payment plan for his automobile loan, seeking counseling, and establishing a reasonable
payment plan under which payments on his remaining debts will be deducted from his
salary.
Overall, the record evidence satisfies the doubts raised about Applicant’s suitability
for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the
security concerns arising from the cited adjudicative guideline.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1, Guideline F For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.a. - 1.t. For Applicant
8
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the interests of national security to allow Applicant access to classified
information. Applicant’s request for a security clearance is granted.
RITA C. O’BRIEN
Administrative Judge