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: )
)
    )       ISCR Case No. 08-005048
SSN:                     )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
On 17 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 5 November 2008, and requested a decision1
without hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me 15 May 2009. The record in this case
closed 17 April 2009, the day Applicant’s response to the government’s File of Relevant
Material (FORM) was due. Applicant provided no additional information for evaluation.  
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations. He is a 44-year-old shipper
employed by a U.S. defense contractor since August 2001. He has not previously held a
clearance.
 
The SOR alleges, Applicant admits, and government exhibits substantiate, four
delinquent debts totaling over $15,000. Applicant accrued these debts after filing for
chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in May 1997, and receiving a discharge of his
dischargeable debts—over $20,000—in August 1997.
In a January 2008 subject interview (Item 7), Applicant acknowledged that he
was in a very bad financial position, living week to week. He admitted that he has a
history of not meeting his financial and credit obligations. He attributed his financial
problems to his mismanagement and neglect of his finances. He admitted that he had
not sought any financial counseling and had made no efforts to address his delinquent
debts.
That said, there were more immediate precipitants of his financial problems. For
example, Applicant and his common-law wife of several years separated for a time in
1996, which left Applicant responsible for all the bills. When he was unable to keep up
with the payments, he filed for bankruptcy protection in May 1997. He moved to another
state with his wife and rebuilt his credit. However, in 2001, his wife’s ex-husband lost his
job, which meant she was no longer receiving the child support he was obligated to
send to her. Although she works part time, that income provides little of the family
resources and the loss the child support payments again put stress on the family
budget.
Applicant claims, without corroboration, to have made some sporadic payments
to some of his creditors, but nothing resembling a systematic effort to pay. One of the
creditors charged off his debt to profit and loss, so Applicant feels no obligation to repay
that creditor. Despite a personal financial statement has shows positive monthly cash
flow of over $700, Applicant states he lack the means to repay his creditors.
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
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
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).2
¶19 (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;3
¶20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that4
it is  unlikely to recur . . . 
¶20 (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and5
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 that6
the problem is being resolved or is under control;
¶20 (d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.7
3
the evidence as a whole, the relevant, applicable, adjudicative guideline is 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.2
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.  He received a complete discharge of his3
dischargeable debt in August 1997, yet he has continued to accrue delinquent debt. 
Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations. His
financial difficulties are both recent and multiple.  The debts were more due to his4
financial mismanagement than due to circumstances beyond his control, and he has not
acted responsibly in addressing his debts.  He has not sought credit counseling, and he5
has not otherwise brought the problem under control.  None of the debts have been6
paid, much less in a timely, good-faith effort.  Further, given that he has not sought or7
used effective financial counseling, there is nothing in the record to suggest that
4
Applicant will put his financial problems behind him. I conclude Guideline F against
Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph a-e: 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