1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE   
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 ------------------------- )     ISCR Case No. 08-01501
SSN: ----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on June 28, 2006. On September 24, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing the
security concerns under Guideline F that provided the basis for its decision to deny her
a security clearance and refer the matter to an administrative judge. 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 as of
September 1, 2006.
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on September 29, 2008. She
submitted an undated written answer to the SOR and requested a hearing. The case
was assigned to me on November 17, 2008, to conduct a hearing and to determine
whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security
clearance for Applicant. On November 21, 2008, Applicant requested that her hearing
2
be held in mid to late January 2009, to give her more time to prepare. On December 16,
2008, I scheduled a hearing for January 9, 2009.
I convened the hearing as scheduled. Five government exhibits (Ex. 1-5) and
seven Applicant exhibits (Ex. A-G) were admitted. Applicant and one witness, a family
friend who holds a high position with Applicant’s employer, testified on her behalf, as
reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on January 28, 2009. Based on a review of the
SOR, Answer, transcript, and documentary exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is denied.
Findings of Fact
DOHA alleged under Guideline F, financial considerations, that Applicant owes
delinquent debt totaling $55,872 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.q). Applicant denied the debts
alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.d, 1.k, 1.l, and 1.o, totaling about $2,118. She admitted the
other debts. After considering the evidence of record, I make the following findings of
fact.
Applicant is a 31-year-old environmental safety and occupational health
engineer, who has been employed by a defense contractor since May 2006 (Ex. 1, Tr.
100). Applicant seeks a secret-level security clearance for her duties, never having
previously held a security clearance.
In the fall of 1995, Applicant began her undergraduate studies (Tr. 64-65). She
financed her education through student loans totaling about $22,153 with one lender
and $1,000 with another (Exs. 4, 5), work-study at the college during her sophomore
year, and employment as a writing consultant at a learning center from September 1997
to February 2000 (Ex. 1). In February 1998, Applicant took out an $8,083 automobile
loan on which she made regular payments (Ex. 5). Applicant was awarded her B.A.
degree in biology and environmental studies in February 2000 (Ex. 1, Tr. 65). That
September, she began pursuing graduate studies in neuropsychology part-time while
working in a low-paying student co-op position, initially as a wildlife biologist for the U.S.
government from March 2000 to August 2001, and then at the same duty location as a
surveyor under the employ of a university (Ex. 1, Tr. 65-66).
Applicant was unemployed from October 2001 to August 2002, when she
returned to her previous part-time position as a surveyor. In November 2002, she left
that position for a graduate research position at the university where she was pursuing
her studies. After the spring semester of 2003, she discontinued her academic studies
so that she could focus on her employment search (Tr. 73). She realized that her
finances were getting out of control and she needed more income (Tr. 84). She kept her
research assistant position until November 2004 (Ex. 1), but had to rely heavily on credit
cards to pay her expenses (Tr. 73). Several of her financial obligations became
seriously delinquent during the 2002 to 2004 time frame. Also, the university sought
$1,134 in unpaid class fees (SOR ¶ 1.l) for a course that she never took (Exs. 3, 4, 5,
Tr. 80-83).
3
Applicant worked full-time as a project biologist for a commercial company
starting in December 2004 at an annual salary of $32,000 (Tr. 85). Her financial
situation improved in that she did not continue to take on new debt until October 24,
2005, when she suffered a substantial loss of personal property in Hurricane Wilma.
She lacked rental insurance and incurred an estimated $15,000 in out-of-pocket costs to
replace her clothing, home furnishings (dishes, furniture, etc.), and computer (Tr. 54-
57). About $2,000 was spent to repair and clean her water-damaged automobile (Tr.
57). Applicant borrowed about $10,000 from family members that she repaid by late
2007 at priority over her delinquent consumer credit accounts (Tr. 57-58).
In January 2006, she was laid off by her employer (Ex. 1, Tr. 57). She incurred a
couple of medical debts at that time (SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.c) that she thought were covered by
insurance (Tr. 66-67). In March 2006, she started working as an environmental scientist
for another company, but she left that job for her current employment in May 2006 (Ex.
1) at a salary of $55,000 annually (Tr. 101). On June 28, 2006, Applicant completed an
e-QIP for a secret-level security clearance. In response to questions 28.a (any debts
over 180 days delinquent in the last seven years) and 28.b (any debts currently
delinquent over 90 days), Applicant listed eight debts (SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.d, 1.f, 1.h, 1.i, 1.j,
1.q, and 1.m) totaling $30,611. She indicated payment status was to be determined with
respect to each of the debts (Ex. 1).
A check of Applicant’s credit on July 11, 2006, revealed she had repaid the
$1,000 student loan satisfactorily. Her other student loan account was in good standing
with a $22,030 balance, but several of her delinquent consumer credit accounts had
been placed for collection, as set forth in the following table (Ex. 5).
Debt as alleged in SOR Delinquency history Payment status as of Jan
09
¶ 1.a. $11,663 credit card
debt in collection
Credit card last activity
Nov 03, $8,130 balance
for collection Jul 05 (Ex.
1), $8,431 balance as of
Oct 05 (Exs. 3, 4, 5),
$11,663 balance as of Oct
07 (Ex. 4), $12,938
balance in collection as of
Jul 08 (Ex. 3).
Contacted creditor after
Aug 1, 08 (Ex. 2, Tr. 61-
62), inquired about settling
for lesser amount, creditor
unwilling to waive interest
(Tr. 62). No payments as
of Jan 09 (Tr. 64).
¶ 1.b. $500 medical debt in
collection
Incurred in Jan 06, sent for
collection Jul 06 (Exs. 3,
4), balance $595 as of Dec
08 (Ex. 3).
Researched debt after Aug
1, 08, insurance claim that
had not been paid (Ex. 2,
Tr. 66, 68), plans to
contest debt (Tr. 69). 
4
¶1.c. $35 medical debt in
collection
Incurred Jan 06, for
collection Jul 06, balance
$35 as of Jul 06 (Exs. 3,
4).
Researched debt with
hospital after Aug 1, 08,
but has not contacted
assignee. She made
several co-pays and
creditor missed one (Tr.
70).
¶ 1.d. $713 apartment
rental debt in collection
Incurred Apr 04, for
collection Sep 04, $713
balance as of Jan 05 (Exs.
1, 3, 4, 5).
Disputes on basis paid
rent in full and premises
leveled after she vacated
(Ex. 2, Tr. 70-71).
¶ 1.e. $220 medical debt in
collection
Debt from May 02, for
collection Oct 03, unpaid
as of Jun. 04 (Exs. 3, 4, 5).
Not contacted creditor by
Jan 09, no payments (Ex.
2, Tr. 72-73).
¶ 1.f. $8,295 credit card
debt charged off
Account opened Aug 00,
last activity Nov 02, $7,427
past due, balance $8,295
as of Jun. 06, still owed as
of Nov 08 (Exs. 1, 3, 4, 5).
Contacted creditor after
Aug 1, 08 (Ex. 2, Tr. 73),
inquired about settling for
a lesser amount, creditor
unwilling to waive interest.
No payments as of Jan 09
(Tr. 73-74).
¶ 1.g. $486 credit card
debt in collection
Opened Jun. 02 for
purchases on e-Bay, $486
high credit for collection
May 03 after she missed
one payment (Ex. 5, Tr.
75), unpaid as of Dec 08
(Ex. 3).
Disputed amount with
creditor in past as balance
spiked after she missed
one payment, no recent
contact (Ex. 2, Tr. 75);
does not deny an unpaid
balance. 
¶ 1.h. $1,402 retail charge
card debt in collection
Opened Nov 00, $762 past
due balance for collection
May 03 (Ex. 5), $979
balance as of May 04 (Ex.
1), $1,402 balance as of
Apr 08 (Ex. 4).
Contacted creditor as of
Aug 08 to discuss
repayment of $1,449.20
balance (Ex. 2). Debt paid
in full Nov. 24, 08 (Ex. E,
Tr. 75-76).
¶ 1.i. $3,107 credit card
debt in collection
$1,800 debt from Jun. 03
for collection Sep 04 (Ex.
1), balance $2,100 as of
Jul 06 (Ex. 5), $3,121
balance as of Aug 08 (Ex.
2).
Creditor pursued
garnishment, payments of
$200 twice monthly since
Oct. 10, 08 to collect
$3,312.27 balance (Ex. G,
Tr. 76-78, 109-10, 112).  
5
¶ 1.j. $9,449 retail charge
card debt in collection
$7,432 debt as of Nov 02,
for collection Jul 03,
$8,844 balance as of Jun.
05 (Ex. 1), $8,913 balance
as of Jun. 06 (Ex. 5),
balance $9,794 as of Dec
08 (Ex. 3).
Not contacted creditor by
Aug 08 (Ex. 2). Hoping to
reduce sizeable interest
through help of legal
services retained through
employee benefit plan (Tr. 
78-79).
¶ 1.k. $149 collection debt $101 telephone debt from
Jun. 02 for collection, $149
balance as of Apr 08 (Ex.
4).
Contacted creditor by
telephone and requested
proof of $151.04 debt
balance as of Aug 08 (Ex.
2, Tr. 79-80). No response
from the creditor as of Jan
09 (Tr. 80).
¶ 1.l. $1,134 debt to
university past due
Incurred Jan 03, $1,134
balance Jun. 06 (Ex. 5)
and Apr 08 (Ex. 4).
Disputed with creditor
several times (Ex. 2, Tr.
80), fee for class she did
not take nor register for
(Tr. 81).
¶ 1.m. $8,701 automobile
loan debt in collection
Opened Jul 02, fell behind
a couple of payments,
voluntary repossession
(Tr. 84),  $8,701 balance
charged off Sep 03 (Exs.
1, 4, 5).
Undisputed, had not
contacted creditor by Aug
08 (Ex. 2).
¶ 1.n. $175 collection debt $175 debt from Jul 02 for
collection Jan 03, $175
balance as of Apr 03 (Ex.
5). 
Not contacted creditor (Tr.
90).
¶ 1.o. $87 collection debt $87 debt balance on an
installment loan from Apr
03 (Ex. 5).
Intended to research debt
as of Aug 08 (Ex. 2). Had
not done so as of Jan 09
(Tr. 90), does not appear
on May 08 or Jan 09 credit
reports (Exs. 3, 4).
¶ 1.p. $8,777 credit card
debt in collection
Revolving charge opened
Aug 01, $8,777 balance
charged off Sep 02 (Ex. 5).
Balance $18,214.43 as of
Jan 09 due to interest (Ex.
2).
Contacted creditor as of
Aug 08 to discuss
repayment, disputes
$18,214.43 balance as too
high (Ex. 2), no payments
as of Jan 09 (Tr. 91).
6
¶ 1.q. $979 retail charge
debt in collection
Opened May 00, $979 for
collection Jul 03, account
closed Jan 04 (Exs. 1, 5).
Not contacted creditor by
Aug 08 (Ex. 2). No
payments (Tr. 92).
In about February 2007, Applicant received an 8 percent increase in pay when
she went from her job in the quality department to her present position of environmental
safety and occupational health engineer (Tr. 100-01). In August 2007, she was
interviewed by a government investigator about her delinquent debt. She expressed a
willingness to resolve the debt. In response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant
indicated on August 1, 2008, that she had contacted those creditors in SOR ¶¶ 1.h, 1.i,
and 1.p to discuss repayment terms. She requested proof of the telephone debt in SOR
¶ 1.k, and disputed those debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.l. Applicant denied knowledge of
the medical debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.c, but indicated she would find out how to
resolve them. At DOHA’s request, she completed a personal financial statement in
which she estimated a net monthly remainder of $39 after paying $100 each month on
her student loan principal balance of $21,617.13 (Ex. 3, Ex. D). Applicant added that
she had paid off her private debt to family and friends, was not accruing new debt, and
had only one active credit card account on which she was paying more than the monthly
minimum. She expressed an intent to make payments on her debts when she was
financially able to do so (Ex. 2).
In February 2008, Applicant attended a presentation at her local library about
debt management (Tr. 97). She also telephoned at least one consumer credit
counseling service, apparently sometime in 2008 (Tr. 97). In about July 2008, Applicant
attended a seminar at work concerning employee benefits, including a program
providing legal coverage in debt collection actions (Ex. F, Tr. 43, 96). In October 2008,
during the enrollment period, she signed up for the coverage at a cost to her of $10 per
month, with her eligibility to run for one year starting January 2009 (Tr. 44, 98).
Applicant intends to have an attorney within the plan negotiate with her creditors to get
the interest charges waived on her debts and to arrange for settlements on her behalf
(Tr. 44, 95).
Despite an annual salary of $60,000 for her work with the defense contractor (Tr.
86), Applicant’s budget is “usually pretty tight.” (Tr. 89). Applicant’s rent is now $900 a
month. It had been $1,200 until November 2008 when she moved to be closer to work
and to reduce costs (Tr. 90, 99). Her utility costs are about $230 plus a disposal fee.
Cable television, Internet, and telephone (home and cell) total about $250 per month
(Tr. 87). She paid off her car a couple of years ago, so she does not have a car
payment, although she pays about $130 every three months in car insurance (Tr. 89).
She needs to budget for a car payment as her automobile “is on its way out.” (Tr. 88).
Applicant pays $100 per month on her student loan, which had a principal balance of
$21,774.04 as of December 12, 2008, and it was in good standing (Ex. D). She spends
about $150 per month on medications (Tr. 89).
As of December 2008, Applicant was reported by Equifax Information Services
to owe a balance of $1,259 on her active credit card account which had a limit of $1,200
(Ex. 3). Applicant made payments within the last two months to bring her balance to
7
about $800 (Tr. 93). Applicant admits that she exceeded her credit limit because of
recent travel and holiday gifts (Tr. 93).
A high-ranking employee for the defense contractor testified on Applicant’s behalf
at her hearing. An old family friend, he provided her some assistance in the application
process but did not participate in the decision to hire her. They have worked on a couple
of projects together, including some company sensitive internal efforts to remove
hazardous chemicals from the production process. Applicant has given him no reason
to doubt her personal integrity, judgment, or reliability (Tr. 116-23). He understood that
Applicant had some financial problems after the hurricane, but he remains unaware of
the extent (Tr. 124).
Applicant’s direct supervisor since January 2007 has had the opportunity to
closely observe Applicant’s work performance and handling of company sensitive
information. He considers her to be a valuable member of their section. In the past year,
she was responsible for coordinating and arranging several program events using
company funding and she executed her duties “flawlessly.” (Ex. A).
A professional colleague, who has spent time in Applicant’s apartment, attests
that Applicant appears to be living within her means. In their work interactions, Applicant
has exhibited willingness to abide by rules and regulations required by the government,
their employer, and subcontractors (Ex. B). The company’s security manager is also
aware of no reason to question Applicant’s integrity or her ability to safeguard classified
information (Ex. C).
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 overarching 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.
8
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
that 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).
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern about finances 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.
Applicant disputes the validity of the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.k, 1.l, and
1.o. All of these debts appear on one or more of her credit reports. At the same time,
Applicant can successfully rebut the credit listing by credible evidence that she has “a
reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt that 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” (see AG ¶ 20(e)). Applicant relies
solely on her testimony, which is accepted given her overall candor about her debts.
Applicant asserted that the $595 medical debt (SOR ¶ 1.b) should have been paid by a
former insurer (Tr. 68). The medical debt was incurred in January 2006, and she was
laid off that same month. Her explanation of insurance error is plausible. She credibly
explained that she had made several co-pay payments of $35 (SOR ¶ 1.c) and one was
simply not credited to her account. Concerning the $713 debt claimed by a previous
landlord (SOR ¶ 1.d), Applicant surmises the debt is likely from charges after she
vacated but the apartments have since been leveled (“The reason why I had to move
out is because they were demolishing the house, so I don’t know what charges they
could have charged on a house that they demolished and then built stuff on.” Tr. 71).
9
The legitimacy of the debt does not turn on whether she can successfully contact her
former landlord or the collection agency, but it is unclear what the debt was for or
whether the creditor would pursue the debt. There has been no effort by the creditor to
report a past due balance to Equifax since January 2005 (see Exs. 3, 4). The $149 debt
(SOR ¶ 1.k) owed for telephone charges from June 2002 is still listed as an open
collection debt. However, Applicant has requested proof of the debt, which she has
consistently denied. As for the $1,134 debt balance (SOR ¶ 1.l) from March 2003,
Applicant testified that the university assumed incorrectly from a $100 credit on her
account that she had registered for a class that she had not taken; that the university
understood the error and it would not bar her from obtaining her transcript. Applicant
does not recognize the $87 debt (SOR ¶ 1.o) and it does not appear on her recent
credit reports.
Applicant does not dispute that she incurred delinquent balances on several
credit card accounts (SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.f, 1.g, 1.h, 1.i, 1.j, 1.m, 1.p, and 1.q), a $220
medical debt in 2003, or a deficiency balance on an automobile loan for a vehicle that
was repossessed when she could no longer afford to make the payments. Although
unaware of the nature of the $175 debt in SOR ¶ 1.n, she does not dispute its validity.
She has satisfied the debt in SOR ¶ 1.h, and paid about $1,200 through wage
attachment toward the debt in SOR ¶ 1.i. Yet, even after these payments, her total
undisputed delinquent debt balance exceeds $50,000. If the creditor of the debt in SOR
¶ 1.p demands the full $18,214, her outstanding delinquent debt totals more than
$60,000. Significant security concerns are raised by “inability or unwillingness to satisfy
debts” (AG ¶ 19(a)) and by “a history of not meeting financial obligations” (AG ¶ 19(c)).
To the extent that over extension on consumer credit cards reflects spending beyond
her means, AG ¶ 19(e), “consistent spending beyond one’s means, which may be
indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-
income ratio, and/or other financial analysis”), this behavior was confined to when she
was in college and graduate school and lacking full-time, well-paying employment.
Concerning potential mitigation of the undisputed delinquent debt, most of the
accounts became delinquent in 2002 and 2003, when she was in graduate school and
held part-time employment. Yet, 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,”
cannot be fully applied in mitigation. She remains under a significant debt burden that
she has only recently begun to resolve.
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,” is implicated. She ran up about $35,793 on
eight credit card accounts before they were charged off and/or referred for collection
(SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.f, 1.g, 1.h, 1.i, 1.j, 1.p, and 1.q).  Without income or expense information
available for 2002/03, it is unclear to what extent Applicant relied on consumer credit for
schooling versus living or discretionary expenditures while she was in graduate school.
However, lack of income was a factor in incurring the debt. Furthermore, personal
10
property losses incurred during the October 2005 hurricane forced her to borrow about
$10,000 that was repaid at priority over her old debts. Yet, the financial setback caused
by the hurricane cannot reasonably be relied on to explain the delay in addressing her
delinquent indebtedness over the latter half of 2007 into 2008. She began working for
her current employer in May 2006 at an annual salary of $55,000. In February 2007, her
income increased to $60,000. She satisfied her personal loans to family members by
late 2007, but had made no payments on any of her undisputed delinquencies as of her
response to DOHA interrogatories in August 2008.
It is only within the past year that she has taken meaningful steps to resolve her
debts. In about February 2008, Applicant attended a presentation at her local library on
debt management. In July 2008, she learned of a potential employment benefit in that
she could retain an attorney to negotiate on her behalf with her creditors. During the
open enrollment period in October 2008, she enrolled for this calendar year. Albeit in
response to a garnishment action by the assignee, she began making payments of
$200 per paycheck starting October 10, 2008, on the debt in SOR ¶ 1.i. In November
2008, she satisfied the debt in SOR ¶ 1.h. AG ¶ 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” applies in part, but it
would be premature to apply 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.”
With her student loan debt at about $21,774 and delinquent debt now amounting
to as much as $61,729 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.e-1.j, 1.n, 1.p, and 1.q), Applicant is not likely to
resolve her debts in the foreseeable future. As of her hearing, it was unclear whether
any of her creditors would waive the interest charges on her past due debts. Even after
moving closer to work in November 2008 to reduce her expenses, her budget was still
“pretty tight.” Her credit report of January 2009 (Ex. 3) shows she was $59 over her
credit limit of $1,200 on her only active credit card account as of December 2008,
although Applicant testified that she made several payments in excess of the monthly
minimum to where her account is now below its limit.
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 conduct
and all the circumstances in light of 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.
11
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.
The DOHA Appeal Board has addressed a key element in the whole person
analysis in financial cases stating:
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the
concept of “‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of
actual debt reduction through payment of debts.” However, an applicant is
not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and
every debt listed in the SOR. All that is required is that an applicant
demonstrate that he has ‘ . . . established a plan to resolve his financial
problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.’ The Judge
can reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation
and his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for
the reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. See
Directive ¶  E2.2(a) (‘Available, reliable information about the person, past
and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching
a determination.’) There is no requirement that a plan provide for
payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable
plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such
debts one at a time. Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts
actually paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in
the SOR.
ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations omitted).
Applicant has taken a credible first step toward resolving her debt by enrolling in a legal
care benefit program at work. However, it remains to be seen whether she or her
attorney will be able to negotiate debt repayment terms that she can reasonably afford.
Payments made in fall 2008 to satisfy the debt in SOR ¶ 1.h are not enough to establish
“a meaningful track record” in light of her serious delinquency on several accounts over
the past five to six years. Applicant has proven that she can handle company sensitive
information appropriately, but it does not completely dispel the judgment concerns
raised by her irresponsibility in her personal financial affairs. Based on the record before
me, I cannot conclude that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant
Applicant a security clearance at this time.
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
12
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.l: For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.m: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of 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.
ELIZABETH M. MATCHINSKI
Administrative Judge