1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-06387
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 November 4, 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 December 8, 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 3, 2009, for a hearing on February 19, 2008, and it was convened
as scheduled. 
At the hearing, the government offered six exhibits (Exhs. 1-6) that were admitted
in evidence without objection. Applicant testified on her own behalf but submitted no
documents. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on February 26, 2009. At
the hearing, I granted Applicant’s request to keep the record open until March 20, 2009,
to submit additional evidence. At the request of Applicant, the period was extended until
March 27, 2009. A post-hearing submission was received within the specified time
containing two documents (Exhs. A-1 and 2). The government had no objection to the
submission and the documents were admitted in evidence without objection.
Findings of Fact
In her answer, Applicant admitted all of the ten allegations in the SOR concerning
delinquent debts of approximately $28,000. Applicant is a 45-year-old employee of a
defense contractor who has worked for the company and its predecessor since 1994.
She has risen in responsibility and now is a lead project manager supervising ten
people. She has held a security clearance since 1997 without any adverse incidents.
Applicant is married with four children ages 21, 17, 14, and 13. Her oldest child is
now on his own and is paying his own way. She has been the sole income provider for
the family since 2000 when her husband left his job to stay at home to help with the
children and the household. He still prefers not to work even though the children are no
longer in need of his supervision or at-home care. 
It also was in 2000 that Applicant had the first of two spinal surgeries that caused
her to be placed on medical leave reducing her income by 2/3s. She was out of work for
over five months after that surgery. The second surgery was in 2001 and she was out of
work for six weeks. Each surgery cost $40,000 to $50,000. Her insurance paid 90% of
the cost but she was required to pay the balance. It was during the period of illness and
unemployment that many of the debts were incurred. 
At the time Applicant submitted answers to interrogatories in August 2008, she
had a negative monthly cash flow of $197. Several weeks ago, she received a
promotion and pay increase of $2.50 per hour so her net monthly gross income has
increased by $400 (Tr. 48-49). Also, she has taken steps over the last six months to
reduce her housing costs with a smaller home paying less rent, and uses less utilities.
She is also making wiser purchasing decisions for her family. She no longer pays auto
insurance for her son’s car. She now has a $600 per month positive balance at the end
of the month (Tr. 45-53). She currently has a gross income of $5,300 per month and net
income of $4,100.
3
An analysis of the current status of the delinquent debts listed on the SOR
indicates as follows:
1. SOR ¶ 1.a.: Medical bill of $164 from one of the surgeries on which there has
been no payment (Tr. 21).
2. SOR ¶ 1.b.: Visa charge of $1,485 for repair for her husband’s auto. Payment
plan has been established. The debt is being paid with $198 monthly payments and will
be fully paid in the next 60 days (Exh. 2, pp 4 and 5) (Tr. 22 and 55). 
3. SOR ¶ 1.c.: Medical bill of $604 is one of three bills from her hospitalization for
surgery that she intends to pay (Tr. 25). 
4. SOR ¶ 1.d.: Medical bill of $971 is the second of the bills from surgery (Tr. 25).
5. SOR ¶ 1.e.: Medical bill of $137 is the third of the bills from surgeries (Tr. 25).  
6. SOR ¶ 1.f.: Visa credit card debt of $13,200 on a card that her sister named
her as an authorized user when she was unemployed after her surgeries. The
accumulated debt was approximately $8,000 and the additional amount is for interest
and charges. Applicant charged approximately $4,000 on the card and has offered
without success to pay her sister that amount since she believes the balance is for her
sister’s debts, and her sister’s daughter’s debts. Applicant made the last payment to be
made on the account in 2006 of $500. She has been in contact with the creditor about
resolving the matter but without resolution since the company insisted on full pyment.
Her mother has become involved in the issue, and expressed a willingness to either
help pay the debt or try to resolve the conflict between the two sisters. A[[;ocamt
recognizes that she may have to pay the full amount and will do so if necessary (Tr. 26-
32). 
7. SOR ¶ 1.g.: Although Applicant accepted responsibility for all the SOR debts,
this debt for $62 is unknown to Applicant (Tr. 32).
8. SOR ¶ 1.h.: Medical bill of $197 for emergency room services for Applicant’s
husband which is not paid (Tr. 197). 
9. SOR ¶ 1.i.: Medical clinic bill for $29 that she believes is her son’s bill (Tr. 34). 
10. SOR ¶ 1.j.: Direct TV bill of $196 which she will pay with increased income
(Tr. 35). 
11. SOR ¶ 1.k.: Quest Communications bill for $186 will be paid with increased
monthly income (Tr. 36). 
12. SOR ¶ 1.l.: Cash advance amount of $307 to supplement income when
unemployed will be paid with increased monthly income (Tr. 36). 
4
13. SOR ¶ 1.m.: Auto loan of $10,500 on 2003 Oldsmobile became delinquent
but she has paid the delinquency and, for several months has been paying $499 per
month which is $100 more than the required payment (Tr. 39). She now has paid the
loan down to $6,500 with a recent payment of $1,000 (Exh. A-2). 
14. SOR ¶ 1.n.: Medical expense of $240 for her husband is not paid (Tr. 40). 
15. SOR ¶ 1.o.: Auto insurance payment of $91 for her son’s car has been paid
(Tr. 41.). 
In summary, Applicant has taken positive steps to pay or negotiate the three
largest debts (SOR ¶¶ b., f., and m). The remaining debts total almost $3,000 of which
approximately $2,500 is for medical expenses for herself, her son, and her husband
which she is now able and willing to pay. She does not have any credit cards. Her
principal asset is $11,000 of stock value in an Employee Stock Ownership Plan she has
accumulated over the 15 years of employment with her company. 
Applicant is highly regarded by her supervisor who describes her as having
“diligently worked for this organization and our Government customers for the past 15
years without one blemish on her work record.” He has discussed her financial
difficulties with her and is convinced she can and will resolve the remaining debts. He
expressed amazement that she was faced with a problem as to her security clearance
as she is the most worthy person in the organization. She started her employment as a
data collector and has grown steadily in her responsibilities to the company and its
predecessor company. At one time she supervised 25 persons. She has received
numerous performance awards and letters of commendation for exemplary work (Exh.
A-1).
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. 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.
5
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: 
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
6
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
expenses which resulted in several months of unemployment. 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. However, she was able to work on the three largest
debts by developing a payment plan for one, paying her auto loan at an accelerated rate,
and she is attempting to negotiate the credit card debt with her sister and the credit card
company. 
While the debts have been owed for several years, I conclude that the Applicant
has done all that she could have done with her limited income to resolve the debts until
recently. She has worked for over fifteen years with the same employer and her income
is only now 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.I am confident
she will do so with oversight from her supervisor. Thus, I conclude that she has acted
responsibly and the mitigating condition is applicable. 
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 or a settlement negotiation initiated, they
are the smaller debts and most relate to her medical bills or those of family members.
She has made substantial efforts to resolve the three largest delinquent debts which she
felt were the most important to protect against litigation and repossession. 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
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
7
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 adult with significant responsibility in her work for which she
is highly regarded by her company and her supervisor. She has grown in responsibility
over the years of her employment. She has been generous to her own immediate family
and is burdened by being the sole income provider for her family. Now that one of her
sons is mature and no longer dependent on her, she can resolve her financial obligations
more quickly. She has taken positive and specific steps to reduce her expenses so that
she has more disposable income to resolve the remaining debts and remain solvent. 
The mitigating evidence under the whole person concept is substantial.
Applicant’s excellent record of employment weighs heavily in her favor. There is no
evidence of any security infraction. She has taken actions that she was able to undertake
with her limited income and substantial family obligations after her extensive medical
expenses and periods of unemployment as a result thereof. 
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 demonstrate a plan sand taken
significant steps to implement the plan. All outstanding debts do not need to be
addressed simultaneously, and may provide for payment of debts one at a time. There is
no reason not to trust 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.-o.: For Applicant
8
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