1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-06049
SSN:----------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
ABLARD, Charles D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated security concerns regarding Guideline F (Financial
Considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP), on July 30, 2007. On October 16, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns
for Applicant under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). 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.
2
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on November 10, 2008, and requested a
hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed,
and I received the case assignment on January 30, 2009. DOHA issued a notice of
hearing on February 2, 2009, for a hearing on February 18, 2008, which was convened
as scheduled. 
At the hearing, the government offered four exhibits that were admitted in
evidence without objection (Exhs. 1-4). Applicant testified on her own behalf and
submitted 15 documents that were admitted without objection (Exhs. A-O). DOHA
received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on February 25, 2009.
Findings of Fact
Applicant accumulated delinquent debts totaling $22,000 which were alleged in
22 allegations in the SOR. In her answer, she admitted three of the allegations and
denied the remaining ones. She amended her answer after additional information
became available to her and submitted it at the hearing (Exh. B). She is a 43-year-old
employee of a Department of Defense contractor who has worked for the company
since August 2007. She was married in 2005, and has four step-children. 
Applicant’s delinquent debts arose as a result of major back surgery in 2004 that
caused her to be unable to work full time for four years until she began her present job.
During that four year period she earned only $30,000 (Exh. C). She believed her
insurance would cover most of the medical costs. However, after a dispute regarding
the choice of a doctor, the company paid only half of the $30,000 in medical and
hospital charges (Exh. A and Tr. 17). The result was that she had extensive debts that
became delinquent. She has now consolidated all the remaining medical debts and is
making monthly payments through a debt consolidation service (Exh. K). 
An analysis of the current status of the delinquent debts listed on the SOR
indicates that the largest number of debts and the largest amounts of approximately
$18,000 are for the medical expenses incurred as a result of the surgery in 2004. The
following is a list of the debts listed on the SOR and their status:
1. SOR ¶ 1.a.: Credit card debt of $109 paid in full in October, 2008 (Exhs. E and
N).
2. SOR ¶ 1.b.: Animal hospital debt of $73 paid in full in December 2008 (Exh. F).
3. SOR ¶ 1.c.: A second debt to another animal hospital of $88 paid in full in
November 2008 (Exh. G). This is a duplicate of SOR ¶ 1.u.
4. SOR ¶ 1.d.: Medical bill of $78 paid November 2008 (Exh. G). 
5. SOR ¶ 1.e.: Medical bill of $43 paid November 2008 (Exh. G). 
3
6. SOR ¶¶ 1.f. and g.: Medical bills of $477, and $288 settled for $508 in
December 2008 (Exh. H). 
7. SOR ¶ 1.h.: Credit card debt of $528 paid in November 08 (Exh. G). 
8. SOR ¶¶ 1.i.: Hospital bill of $2,664 now included in debt consolidation program
(Exh. J).
9. SOR ¶¶ 1.j.,r.,and s.: Three debts totaling $578 that are not on credit reports
and are being disputed by Applicant (Tr. 51 and 52). 
10. SOR ¶ 1.k.: Medical bill of $144 paid in December 2008 (Exh. I, and Tr. 27). 
11. SOR ¶¶ 1.l.,m.,n.,o.,and p.: Medical bills totaling approximately $16,000 now
consolidated in debt management program with monthly payments (Exh. K).
Before the consolidation program was initiated, Applicant was making partial
payments on these accounts through a collection service bureau (Exh. J). 
12. SOR ¶ 1.q.: Medical bill of $259 paid in full in December 2008 (Exh. L). 
13. SOR ¶ 1.t.: Medical bill of $62 paid in full in October 2008 (Exh. N). 
14. SOR ¶ 1.v.: Court costs of $135 for divorce proceeding paid in full in March
2008 (Exh. O). 
In summary, Applicant has paid most of the smaller accounts, except for the
three that she disputes. She began her payments to the credit consolidation service in
November 2008 with payments of $654 per month for several months. Since a number
of bills have now been paid through the program, the monthly payments have been
reduced to $400 which will result in all delinquent accounts being paid in the next five
years. Applicant is an hourly rate employee who is paid $15.50 per hour. She is paid
between $800 and $1,000 bi-weekly. Her husband is paid $1,800 bi-weekly. They pay
different expenses from their respective incomes. Payments on her debts come from
her income which is adequate to make the required monthly payments necessary to
resolve the debts (Tr. 63). 
Applicant’s husband inherited money from his mother recently and some of it was
used to pay some of her debts. She also had cosmetic surgery in 2007 before she had
fully determined the extent of the medical debts incurred from 2004. That bill was
financed with the help of her husband and is paid (Tr. 66).
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
4
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. 
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG ¶ 18: 
5
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 "inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG ¶ 19(c), "a history of not meeting financial obligations may raise
security concerns.” Applicant incurred delinquent debts over several years and most
were unresolved. The government established sufficient facts to raise a security concern.
The guideline also includes examples of mitigating conditions (MC) that could
mitigate security concerns arising from financial considerations. Under AG ¶ 20 (b), the
security concern may be mitigated where 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. Applicant had extensive medical
problems which resulted in several years of low income. Those factors were the primary
cause of most of the indebtedness. Until recently, her income was insufficient to allow
her to resolve all the debts.
While the debts have been owed for several years, I conclude that the Applicant
has done all that she could have done with her income to resolve the debts until recently.
She has worked since 2007 for her employer and her income is sufficient to allow her to
resolve all of the accumulated debts. She understands the impact of debts on her ability
to hold a security clearance. Thus, I conclude that she has acted responsibly and the
mitigating condition is applicable. 
Under AG ¶ 20 (c) the security concern may be mitigated if the person received
counseling or the problem is being resolved or under control. Applicant is in a debt
consolidation program and the financial problem is being resolved with many debts now
paid and the remainder in the program. These facts are sufficient to apply the mitigating
condition. 
Under AG ¶ 20(d) the security concern may be mitigated when the individual
initiated a good faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.
Although some of the debts have not been paid most of them relate to her medical bills.
She has made substantial efforts to resolve the debts, and, from the evidence presented,
I find this mitigating condition is also applicable.
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
6
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. I considered the
potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and
circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a mature and responsible person who
incurred medical expenses through no fault of her own. She has taken steps to resolve
many of them, and has a program to resolve the remainder. She and her husband have
adequate income to avoid further indebtedness, and there is little likelihood of a
recurrence of financial problems. There is no potential for pressure or exploitation. 
The Appeal Board has addressed key element in the whole person analysis for
financial cases as being establishment of a “meaningful track record” This does not
require that every debt be paid, but that an applicant demonstrated a plan and took
significant steps to implement the plan. All outstanding debts do not need to be
addressed simultaneously. An applicant may provide for payment of debts one at a time.
There is no reason not to trust this applicant to do what she intends to do, or to in any
way compromise national security. (ISCR Case No. 07-06482 App. Bd. May 21, 2008). 
I take this position based on the law, as set forth in Department of Navy v. Egan,
484 U.S. 518 (1988), a careful consideration of the whole person factors and supporting
evidence, application of the pertinent factors under the adjudicative process, and
interpretation of my responsibilities under the guidelines. Applicant has mitigated or
overcome the government’s case. For the reasons stated, I conclude she is eligible for
access to classified information.
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
    Subparagraphs 1.a.-v.: For Applicant
7
Conclusion 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Access to classified information is granted. 
CHARLES D. ABLARD 
Administrative Judge