1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 08-07352
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Based on a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility
for access to classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SCA) on December 20,
2007. On January 23, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under financial
considerations (Guideline F). The action was taken pursuant to 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
made effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued on or after
September 1, 2006.
 W ithout SOR 1.i., the total past due amount is $32,415 SOR 1.i. is also included because the last activity1
on this debt (GE 3) is August 2003, about five months before Applicant began his overseas job. After adding
SOR 1.i., the total is $47,170.
2
Applicant submitted his answer to the SOR on February 20, 2009. DOHA issued
a notice of hearing on March 6, 2009 for a hearing on March 25, 2009. At the hearing,
four exhibits (GE I through 4) were admitted in evidence without objection to support the
government's case. Applicant testified and submitted four exhibits (AE A-AE D). In the
time allowed for him to furnish additional documentation, he submitted AE E through I.
DOHA received the transcript, and the record closed on April 10, 2009. 
Applicant is 45 years old. He remarried in February 2009. He has one child from
a previous marriage. He served in the United States Air Force from March 1983 to
December 2003. According to his security clearance application (SCA) (GE 1), he is
presently in the active reserves. He has worked as a computer operator for a defense
contractor since August 2007. He seeks a security clearance.
Findings of Fact
The SOR lists 12 delinquent accounts under the financial considerations
guideline, totaling $50,242. The debts became delinquent between 2002 and 2008 (GE
3, 4). Applicant admitted all factual allegations except for SOR 1.j., a worthless check
his former wife wrote. She provided restitution for the check in 2008 (Tr. 73; GE 4). SOR
1.j is found in Applicant’s favor, and reduces the total indebtedness to $50,139.
Applicant’s primary position regarding the listed debts is that his former wife, whom he
was married to from January 24, 2004 (GE 1) to November 6, 2008 (AE A), was not
paying the bills after he left for his overseas job on January 26, 2004. Applicant claims
he did not find out about the delinquent bills until June 2007 when he was stateside on
business at the United States Air Force base in the region (Tr. 61). He testified he found
his house a mess and his mortgage behind by 10 months (Tr. 41). GE 3 shows
Applicant’s mortgage was delinquent three times in 2006. AE B (credit report) indicates,
according to the Credit Report Key located at the end of the exhibit, that his mortgage
was delinquent 13 times in seven years before January 2009, and overdue by 90 days
on 8 occasions. Yet, the 24-month history on the account, dating from December 2008,
shows the mortgage delinquent by 30 days on three occasions in 2008, and no
occasions in 2007. 
Applicant never checked on the status of any of the debts; he claims he never
received notice of any debt problem because all the mail came to his home address in
the United States (U.S.), and he was not using any credit cards at his overseas work
location (Tr. 43). 
In response to the overdue debts identified in SOR 1.a., 1.b., 1.e., 1.k.,  that1
either were past due or became delinquent before Applicant left on his overseas
employment on January 26, 2004, he realized the debts were delinquent though he
 In his SCA (GE 1), Applicant answered “No” to debt questions 27a. (debts over 180 days in the last 7 years)2
and question 27b. (debts at least 90 days delinquent). He then stated he was currently reviewing his finances
and divorcing his wife, after returning from overseas where he had been working for three years.  
3
never contacted the creditors after the debts became delinquent (Tr. 46). He believed
his wife would be making payments on those debts as well (Id.). He stated that:
Yes, because at the time I was getting ready to retire, and at the time my
money was very tight for me, which is one of the main reasons why I too,
that job in [European country], was to get out of debt because my income
in [European country] was not only very good, but it was also tax free
because of the amount of time I stayed there, hence, there again, trying to
take care of my financial responsibilities and the work that I do. That’s
what my goal was (Tr. 45).
SOR 1.a. - credit card ($12,009). The last activity or last payment on this account
was in July 2003 (GE 3). Applicant still owes this debt.
SOR 1.b. - credit card ($11,852). The last activity on this account was June 2003
(GE 3). Applicant still owes this account. 
SOR 1.c. - credit card ($856). The last activity on this account was October 2005.
The debt remains unpaid. 
SOR 1.d. - telephone account ($166). The last activity on this account was in
December 2007.  On March 30, 2009, Applicant was notified his payment of $167.47
paid the account in full (AE G).
SOR 1.e. - deficiency balance ($1,483). The last payment on this debt was
December 2002 (GE 3). Applicant indicated under question 27b. of his SCA (GE 1) that
his car was repossessed in December 2003.  In his post hearing submission dated April2
2, 2009, Applicant explained that the collection agency for the creditor had gone
bankrupt, and he would continue to pursue the proper source to pay (AE I). Applicant is
responsible for the account. 
SOR 1.f. - ($255). The last activity on this account was December 2003 (GE 3).
On March 27, 2009, Applicant paid this $255 (AE E) in full satisfaction of this creditor. 
SOR 1.g. - satellite television ($503). The last activity on this account was in
March 2008, and the account became delinquent in November 2008 (GE 3). Applicant
testified he was disputing the debt, and referred to the documentation from the debt
consolidation firm (Tr. 47; AE C). On March 29, 2009, Applicant paid the creditor $503
by credit card to eliminate the delinquent amount, and on March 30, 2009, Applicant
was advised his account was zero (AE F). There is no additional information in the
record regarding Applicant’s dispute with the SOR 1.g. creditor. 
4
SOR 1.h. - credit card ($646). The last activity on this account was in November
2005. Applicant owes this debt. 
SOR 1.i. - credit card ($14,755). The last activity on this account was August
2003. Applicant still owes the debt. 
SOR 1.j. - insufficient funds check ($103). The check was paid by Applicant’s
wife in 2008 (AE H). The account is resolved in Applicant’s favor. 
SOR 1.k. - credit card ($7,071). The last activity on this account was February
2003. 
SOR 1.l. - unidentified ($543). The last activity on this account was in June 2006.
Applicant is responsible for this debt. 
Of the 12 listed delinquent accounts that Applicant blamed his wife for not
paying, activity or payment on five accounts (SOR 1.a., 1.b., 1.e., 1.i., and 1.k.) stopped
before Applicant left on his overseas job in January 2004. The total amount of past due
debt on four of the five accounts is $32,415. The total for five accounts is $47,170. The
remaining seven delinquent debts total $2,969. 
In his interrogatory responses (GE 2), Applicant indicated he had taken no action
on the debts because he received legal advice recommending he obtain a final divorce
order to avoid the possibility of having to pay for debt for which he was not legally
responsible (GE 2; Tr. 44). No additional evidence was provided regarding the legal
advice. 
Although Applicant testified he started negotiating with the debt firm (AE C)
during the Christmas holidays of 2008 (Tr. 62), the documentation from the debt
consolidation firm is dated March 3, 2009 (AE C). Applicant testified he made his first
payment ($1,000) to the firm in February 2009. No additional documentation was
provided regarding the actual service contract or payment. 
Applicant recalled having financial counseling in 1987 while in the service (Tr.
63). In the future, if he cannot afford an item he intends to buy, he is not going to charge
it, and he is not going to take out a loan (Id.). 
Applicant remarried in February 2009. His debt consolidation plan (AE C)
includes delinquent debts of his current wife totaling about $17,000. Applicant does not
know why his wife has financial problems (Tr. 56). 
Applicant is scheduled to begin training on the day after the hearing for a job that
is located in the Middle East. He is confident he will not have the same financial
problems while working overseas that he had with his former wife because the debt firm
payments come directly out of his checking account, and his current wife has no access
to the checking account (Id.). In addition, the periods of employment rotations are only
5
60 to 90 days (AE D), so he can periodically return to the United States, an option that
he claimed was not available to him in his previous overseas job (Tr. 56-57).
Having carefully observed Applicant as he testified about his financial problems,
and his claim his wife was supposed to pay the bills while he was working overseas, his
credibility is undermined by the amount of debt he knew he had before he departed on
the overseas job in January 2004, the overall lack of independent evidence to support
his testimony concerning his former wife’s financial responsibilities while he was working
overseas, and the sketchy evidence describing his financial practices.
Character Evidence
Applicant’s first witness (A) has become good friends with him over the last three
years because of common interests, and both serving in the military. Witness A is aware
of Applicant’s debt problems and his participation in a debt consolidation agency.
Witness A’s belief Applicant’s former wife was a drug user is based on the information
Applicant provided him, and on Witness A’s visit to Applicant’s house where he saw
drug needles on the floor (Tr. 20). He also believes Applicant’s former wife is the reason
for Applicant’s financial problems (Id.). 
Witness B has known Applicant for 10 to 12 years. They met at a horseshoe
tournament. Applicant told Witness B he was sending money home from his overseas
job, but his wife was not paying the bills. (Tr. 27). According to Witness B, Applicant
also explained he had contacted a debt consolidation agency. 
Witness C, retired from the military after serving 27 years, sees Applicant socially
about 15 to 20 times a month. Applicant told Witness C he has a plan and is paying off
his creditors (Tr. 32). Witness C believes Applicant is trustworthy (Tr. 33).
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 flexible rules of law. Recognizing the complexities of human
behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. The Administrative Judge's ultimate adjudicative goal is a fair,
impartial and common sense decision. According to the AG, the entire process is a
careful, thorough evaluation 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.
6
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.
Reasonable 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 sensible, 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.l.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.l.l5, 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
is not restricted to normal duty hours. Rather, the relationship is an-around-the-clock
responsibility between an applicant and the federal government. 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.
Analysis
Financial Considerations (FC)
¶ 18. The Concern. "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. Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes
including espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is
also a security concern. It may indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal
acts."
FC disqualifying condition (DC) ¶ 19.a. (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts),
and FC DC ¶ 19.c. (a history not meeting financial obligations) are applicable to the
circumstances of this case. When the SOR was published in January 2009, Applicant
owed more than $50,000. After tabulating the delinquent accounts in SOR 1.a., 1.b.
1.e., 1.i., and 1k., more than $47,000, or more than 90% of the larger amount was
delinquent in January 2004 when he left for his overseas job. 
7
Evidence of financial problems may be mitigated by FC mitigating condition (MC)
¶ 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
reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment), however this condition does not apply.
Several of the debts are six years old, and one became delinquent as recently as 2008.
The lack of documented evidence showing payments of the overdue accounts until four
or five days after the hearing continues to project an adverse impact on Applicant’s
judgment and reliability.  
FC MC ¶ 20.b. (the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person's control and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances) generally applies when loss of employment or other unexpected event
hinders or prevents an individual from handling his financial responsibilities. The
mitigating condition also requires the individual to act responsibly under the
circumstances. The unexpected event in Applicant’s view is his wife’s failure to pay the
bills as agreed. Applicant’s second claim is he had no way of knowing the bills were not
being paid between January 2004 and June 2007, when he returned on business, and
inspected his house. Though I do not challenge Applicant’s probable agreement with his
wife to pay the bills while he was away, the sizable amount of the past due debt should
have persuaded Applicant to exert more management over the debts himself. I do not
find Applicant’s lack-of-notice claim believable. In sum, FC MC ¶ 20.b. is inapplicable for
mitigation as Applicant did not act responsibly under the circumstances to address the
overdue debts. 
FC MC ¶ 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) does not apply. Though Applicant testified he received counseling in 1987,
there is no evidence that reveals whether he has ever incorporated the counseling in
the management of his finances and/or the handling of his delinquent debt. Moreover,
there are no clear indications his financial problems are under control. Notwithstanding
his claims of negotiating with the debt firm during the Christmas holidays in 2008, his
documentation shows he joined the debt plan in March 2009. Terms of the plan and the
$1,000 payment Applicant purportedly made are not substantiated. The absence of
evidence to support Applicant’s testimony about the debt plan, as well as the brief
period of time Applicant has been enrolled in the plan, remove FC MC ¶ 20.c. from
consideration. 
Applicant receives no consideration under FC MC ¶ 20.d. (the individual initiated
a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) because he
waited more than two months after he received the SOR to take any action on the listed,
delinquent debts. Considering the size of his overall debt, the length of time some of the
debt was delinquent, and the lack of attention he devoted toward his debt since January
2004, it is too early for me to conclude that his financial indebtedness is no longer a
security concern. 
8
Whole Person Concept (WPC)
I have examined the evidence with the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in
my ultimate finding against Applicant under the FC guideline. I have also weighed the
circumstances within the context of nine variables known as the whole person concept.
In evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the administrative judge should
consider the following factors:
¶ 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 the participation was 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.
In January 2004, Applicant was about 40 years old. The credit reports show he
owed more than $32,415 on four past due accounts. With the addition of SOR 1.i., that
also became past due before January 2004, the total of past due debt was more that
$47,000. The existence of an agreement with his wife to pay the debt is not contested.
However, Applicant’s delinquent debt situation in January 2004 was different from the
ordinary individual working overseas with delinquent debt. Applicant knew he had the
delinquent debt before he went to work overseas. The credit reports indicate the debt
was generated before he married his former wife in January 2004. 
There was much testimony from Applicant’s three friends about his former wife
being a drug user in June 2007 (when Applicant claims he initially discovered the debt
problems), and leaving Applicant’s home in disorder with drug needles on the floor. His
former wife may have had a drug problem which exacerbated the payment of debts.
However, Applicant’s significant past due debt predated their marriage, and the
testimony supporting her drug problem has little probative value. On balance, the former
wife’s drug abuse and financial irresponsibility do not extinguish Applicant’s
indebtedness which he knew about in January 2004. 
Applicant also claimed that as a result of legal advice, he did not act on the
delinquent debt sooner. In addition to lacking documentation to support the claim,
Applicant’s claim is not credible due to his knowledge of at least four (and probably five)
delinquent debts when he left for overseas employment in January 2004. 
I have carefully weighed all the evidence. In January 2004, Applicant knew he
was carrying a significant amount of past due debt, yet he let his former wife pay the
bills. He should have monitored the bill paying so that he could intervene to ensure the
bills were being paid. Instead, he acted irresponsibly under the circumstances in not
handling the past due debts in a prudent manner. His enrollment in the debt plan in
early March 2009, and his payment of four small debts (10% of the total debt) four days
9
after the hearing do not provide me with sufficient confidence to believe he is truly
committed to paying the remaining debt. Though he has provided encouraging
statements about how he plans to manage his future financial decisions, his record of
financial irresponsibility makes it probable his current financial problems will persist.
Judging by the totality of the circumstances, I conclude the FC guideline against
Applicant.
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 (Financial Considerations, Guideline F): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d. For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.e. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j. For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k. Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l. Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                      
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge
10