DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February1
20, 1990), 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 (RAG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department
of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXX, Xxxxxxx Xxx          )       ISCR Case No. 08-00626
SSN: XXX-XX-XXXX )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Paul M. DeLaney, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
On 24 October 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under
Guideline F.  Applicant answered the SOR 11 December 2008, and requested a1
decision without hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me 12 March 2009. The record in
this case closed 9 March 2009, the day Department Counsel entered no objection to
Applicant’s response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM).
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations. She is a 55-year-old, thrice
divorced, principal quality engineer employed by a U.S. defense contractor since June
2007. She has not previously held an industrial clearance, but had a clearance while
she was in the military from 1978 to 1995.
The SOR alleges, Applicant admits, and government exhibits substantiate, 18
delinquent debts totaling over $16,000. Applicant accrued these debts after filing for
chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in July 1995, and receiving a discharge of her
dischargeable debts in November 1995. 
Applicant married her first husband in February 1976, and they divorced in
January 1978. They had no children. She married her second husband in July 1978,
just before she entered the military. They had two children together, a boy born in
December 1980 and a girl born in December 1983. They divorced in August 1985. She
married her third husband in October 1994, retired from the military in January 1995,
filed for bankruptcy in July 1995, received her bankruptcy discharge in November 1995,
and divorced in May 1996. They had no children.
Applicant served in the military from December 1978 to January 1995. Although
the record does not reflect the circumstances under which she achieved retired status,
she proved her entitlement to retired benefits, including medical benefits until she
reaches age 65. She has established that debts 1.a., b., f., h., I., j., and o. are medical
expenses and claims the military medical benefits program should have covered these
expenses. However, there is no evidence indicating the providers submitted the claims
to the program, indicating Applicant ensured they were submitted to the program, or
indicating whether the amounts alleged as past due represent amounts owed by the
program or co-payments required to be paid by Applicant. Applicant is encountering
difficulty trying to get information from the providers or the medical program.
Applicant proved that debt 1.l was paid no later than January 2008, when the lien
holder released the lien. She claims to have paid debt 1.g., but provided no
corroboration. She asserts that debt 1.n. is a joint credit card she held with her father,
who died in July 2002. She states that she is seeking to have the account removed from
her credit report, but it is not clear on what legal basis she can do so. Whether she
made the charges or not, she is as legally responsible for the debt as her father (or his
estate). She has made additional claims regarding the status of other debts, but
provided no corroboration. She alleges that debt 1.c. was due to identity theft. She
alleges that the debt at 1.p. is not hers. She alleges that she has paid the debt at 1.q.
She proved that she had received a settlement offer from the creditor holding debt 1.d.
for a lump-sum payment of half the outstanding balance. She was unable to pay the
lump sum, and has been unable to arrange either a reduced balance or a repayment
schedule.
The government alleged the amount of this debt as $2,904, a number found nowhere in the record. The credit2
report documenting two timeshares (Applicant admitted buying two) shows two repossessed timeshares
totaling over $18,000.
3
Applicant states that debt 1.r. is for repossessed timeshares she bought in 2002.2
She claims she “gave” them to her ex-husband when she moved to a different state to
take her current job. He allegedly promised to pay the promissory notes on both
properties but did not. The record does not reflect which ex-husband she entrusted the
properties to, or why he would agree to the arrangement. The properties are listed as
Applicant’s individual obligation, she bought them six years after her most recent
divorce, and the arrangement with her ex-husband was apparently unwritten. The
record contains no evidence of Applicant’s military performance, employment
references, or character references.
In her August 2007 subject interview, Applicant acknowledged living beyond her
means for several years, largely because of her children. She also acknowledged that
she was overwhelmed by her debts, but was determined to satisfy them. In her March
2009 response to the FORM she clarified that her debts were attributable to her
divorcing her husband shortly after retiring from the military. He became addicted to
pain medication after an accident, and left her and the children, forcing her to cope with
two houses, two cars, and four credit cards. She ultimately filed for bankruptcy as
above. However, except for the joint card with her father, all the delinquent accounts
listed in her credit reports are listed as individual accounts.
Applicant’s response to the FORM appears to conflate the circumstances of her
last two divorces in attributing her living beyond her means to circumstances beyond
her control. After her divorce from her second husband in August 1985, she was a
single mother with two small children to raise. There is no evidence of a child support
obligation for the second husband. Debts incurred between August 1985 and October
1994 would appear to have been her sole obligation. The opportunity for joint debt with
her third husband was limited to a fairly short period after their October 1994 marriage,
and in any event should have been discharged as to her in her November 1995 single
debtor bankruptcy discharge. The youngest of Applicant’s children reached the age of
majority in 2001. Applicant consulted with a bankruptcy attorney in April 2008. He
recommended a chapter 13 repayment plan, but Applicant decided to try to resolve as
many debts as she could before proceeding with that course of action.
Policies
The Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (RAG) list factors to be considered in
evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative
Judges must assess both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly
raised by the facts and circumstances presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair
and impartial common sense consideration of the factors listed in RAG ¶ 2(a). The
presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or
against Applicant. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
¶19 (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;4
¶20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that5
it is  unlikely to recur . . . 
¶20 (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and6
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶20 (c)the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that7
the problem is being resolved or is under control;
4
case can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the
grant or denial of access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and
the evidence as a whole, the relevant, applicable, adjudicative guidelines are Guideline
F (Financial Considerations).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an Applicant’s security clearance. The government
must prove, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. If it does so, it establishes a prima facie case against access
to classified information. Applicant must then refute, extenuate, or mitigate the
government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the Applicant
bears a heavy burden of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter 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 judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their 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.3
Analysis
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has an extensive history of
financial difficulties, which are ongoing.  She received a complete discharge of her4
dischargeable debt in November 1995, six months before she was divorced from her
third husband. Yet, she has continued to accrue delinquent debt. Right now, her
finances are a shambles, and appear likely to remain so for some time.
Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations. Her
financial difficulties are both recent and multiple.  She has not established how the5
debts were due to circumstances beyond her control, and she has not acted responsibly
in addressing her debts.  Her credit counseling has been limited to consulting with a6
bankruptcy attorney, and she has not otherwise brought the problem under control.7
¶20 (d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.8
5
Only one of her debts has been paid in a timely, good-faith effort.  Further, given that8
she has not sought or used effective financial counseling, there is nothing in the record
to suggest that Applicant will put her financial problems behind her. I conclude Guideline
F against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph a-k: Against Applicant
Subparagraph l: For Applicant
Subparagraph m-s: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge