DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 08-05573 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Sensitive Position (SF 86) on October 5, 
2007.  On December 15, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) for Applicant detailing security concerns for 
financial considerations under Guideline F.  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.  Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on January 2, 2009. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR in writing on January 12, 2009.  He denied three of 
the allegations under Guideline F since the accounts had been paid in full.  He admitted 
the remaining four allegations.  He requested a hearing before an administrative judge.  
Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on April 6, 2009, and the case was 
assigned to me on April 7, 2009.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing on April 16, 2009, 
for a hearing on May 11, 2009.  I convened the hearing as scheduled.  The government 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
offered three exhibits, marked Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 3, which were 
received without objection.  Applicant testified on his behalf.  The record was held open 
at Applicant's request so he could submit documentation of debt payments and a debt 
management plan.  Applicant timely submitted three documents marked Applicant 
Exhibits A-C received without objection (See, Gov. Ex 4, Memorandum, dated May 14, 
2009; Gov. Ex. 5, E-mail, dated June 4, 2009; Gov. Ex. 6, E-Mail, dated June 11, 2009). 
DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on May 19, 2009.  Based upon a 
review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to 
classified information is granted. 
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Department Counsel notified Applicant in early April 2009 that he had his request 
for hearing and sought Appellant's availability for a hearing.  After both parties consulted 
with me, I issued a Notice of Hearing on April 16, 2009, for a hearing on May 11, 2009.  
At the hearing, Applicant was unsure when he received the written official notice of 
hearing.  Subsequent to the hearing, the receipt for the Notice of Hearing was received 
with Applicant noting he received the Notice on May 30, 2009.  Applicant misdated the 
receipt for the hearing since he stated at the hearing on May 11, 2009, that he had 
received the notice.  Applicant, after being advised of his right to 15 days notice of a 
hearing, specifically waived the 15 day notice requirement (Tr. 5-7).   
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough reviewed of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact.  Applicant admitted four and denied three of the 
allegations under Guideline F.  He provided additional information to support his request 
for eligibility for a security clearance. 
 
Applicant is 35 years old and has been a security official for a defense contractor 
at an isolated Department of Defense facility since January 2008.  Prior to obtaining that 
job, he was a car salesman.  He is a college graduate, with some credits towards a 
Master's degree.  He is not married.  Applicant only made sufficient salary to support his 
minimum monthly expenses until he started working for the defense contractor in 
January 2008.  His monthly net pay is now approximately $3,000.  He has no living 
expenses because of his location at the isolated facility where all of his basic living 
needs are provided by his employer.  He owns a car for which he recently made the 
final payment.  Since a personal car is not allowed at the isolated location, the car is in 
storage where he formerly lived.  The funds used for car payments are now available to 
make payments on other debts. (Tr. 22-24, 31-35, 37-42, 54-56; Gov. Ex. 1, Security 
clearance application, dated October 5, 2007). 
 
Credit reports (Gov. Ex. 2, Credit report, dated July 29. 2008; and Gov. Ex. 3, 
Credit report, dated December 10, 2008) show that Applicant had the following 
delinquent debts; consolidated student loans of $58,346 in collection (SOR 1.a); a 
charged off credit card account for $253 (SOR 1.b); another charged off credit card 
 
3 
 
 
account for $2,870 (SOR 1.c), a student loan to a university in collection for $2,914 
(SOR 1.d); a cell phone account in collection for $422 (SOR 1.e); a student loan from a 
state agency in collection for $7,575 (SOR 1.f); and another student loan from the same 
state agency in collection for $4,410 (SOR 1.g). 
 
Applicant admitted SOR allegations 1.a, 1.c, 1.f, and 1.g.  He denied SOR 
allegations 1.b, 1.d, and 1.e, since they had been paid.  Department counsel 
acknowledged that the debts listed in allegations 1.b, and 1.e had been settled and 
paid.  The latest credit report shows these two accounts have been paid (Tr. 13, 17-18; 
See, Gov. Ex. 3, Credit report, dated December 10, 2008).  Applicant provided 
information that the student loan to a university has been paid (Tr. 18-19, 43-44; App. 
Ex. A, Account statement, dated May 12, 2009).   
 
Applicant attended various colleges using student loans to receive a degree.  He 
was a full-time student with a part-time job most of the time.  Sometimes, he attended 
on a part-time basis while working full time.  He received a Bachelor's degree in History 
in 1998.  About 90% of his schooling costs were covered by student loans.  Three of the 
four admitted delinquent debts are for student loans totaling about $70,000 (Tr. 43-44; 
SOR 1.a, 1.f, and 1.g).  Most of Applicant's student loans were consolidated into one 
loan of approximately $58,346.  He had difficulty finding employment in his chosen field 
of law enforcement because he has petit mal epilepsy.  He would be selected for a 
position but he was unable to pass the physical.  When he did not find a law 
enforcement position, he worked in lower paying security positions.  His student loans 
were deferred for a time but went delinquent in spring 2005 because of his lack of full-
time employment (Tr. 19-28).  
 
The collection agency for the consolidated student loan creditor started 
garnishment action to collect on Applicant's student loans.  After Applicant learned of 
the garnishment action, he entered an agreement in March 2009 with the collection 
agency to establish a plan to pay approximately $627 monthly for twelve months.  After 
making the $627 payments for a year, the loan will be transferred to the Department of 
Education, and the interest rate for the student loans will be lowered with corresponding 
lower monthly payments.  Applicant has made two payments of $627 towards this plan 
(Tr. 35-42; App. Ex. B, Agreement, dated June 4, 2009).   
 
Applicant has not reached a settlement or made any payments towards the two 
student loans held by the state agency for $4,410 and $7,575 as noted in SOR 1f, and 
1.g.  Applicant intends to start paying these loans in June 2009 when he returns to the 
isolated location.  He has the funds to make these payments since he no longer has a 
car loan payment.  He anticipates these loans will be paid by the end of 2010 (Tr. 49-
50).   
 
Applicant has a settlement agreement with the collection agency for the credit 
card debt at SOR 1.c.  He will pay $1,000 by the end of June 2009, and $1,330.58 by 
the end of July 2009.  Applicant's plan is to pay $2,000 from his approximately $3,000 of 
monthly disposable income to pay student loans and the other credit card payments.  
 
4 
 
 
He will save the remaining $1,000 each month (Tr. 51-54; App. Ex. C, Letter, dated 
June 4, 2009). 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
 
 
 
5 
 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Consideration: 
 
 Under financial considerations, 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 (AG ¶ 18).  Similarly, an individual who is financially 
irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in their obligations to 
protect classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life 
provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
 A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms.  Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance.  An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial 
obligations.  Applicant's delinquent student loan debts and a delinquent credit card debt 
as admitted by Applicant and listed on the credit reports are a security concern raising 
Financial Consideration Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or 
unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial 
obligations).   
 
 I considered the Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC) raised 
by Applicant's testimony.  FC MC 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) 
does not apply.  Applicant had periods of unemployment but that did not prevent him 
from purchasing an expensive car.  While some of the debts have been paid, the 
remaining debts are current and have only been recently addressed.  For example, 
Applicant has only recently reached an agreement to settle the remaining credit card 
debt and payments under the plan have not yet started.  His debts did not arise under 
unusual circumstances and were incurred voluntarily by Applicant to finance his 
education. 
 
 FC MC ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the financial problems 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) has some application.  Applicant's chosen 
career field was law enforcement.  He was unable to find employment in that field 
because of a medical condition.  He did work some low paying security jobs while 
seeking a law enforcement position.  He also worked selling cars.  He purchased an 
 
6 
 
 
expensive car which could indicate he did not act responsibly under the circumstances.  
However, he has managed to pay off this car which does show responsible behavior.  
  
 FC MC ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay the 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) applies.  For FC MC ¶ 20(d) to apply, 
there must be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” to repay, and “evidence” of a 
good-faith effort to repay.  A systematic, concrete method of handling debts is needed.  
Applicant has the ability to pay the debts, has shown a strong desire to pay them, and 
has shown a good-faith effort to pay them.  Applicant paid three of the debts and was 
able to complete payment of a car loan.  He settled the one remaining credit card debt 
and will make two payments on the debt in the next month to complete payments.  He 
has been making payments according to a plan on the consolidated student loans.  
While he has not started paying the remaining two student loans with the state agency, 
he will start shortly.  He has a concrete sustainable plan to pay his debts.  Applicant has 
mitigated security concerns based on his finances. 
 
 “Whole Person” Analysis  
 
 Under the whole person concept, the Administrative Judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
the circumstances. An 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 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.  I considered that Applicant had 
difficulty finding good employment at a good salary in his chosen field because of a 
medical condition.  His lack of meaningful employment opportunities created financial 
problems.  I considered that the majority of his delinquent debts are for student loans 
used to further his job potential.  Applicant has paid three of the seven listed debts, and 
has payment plans to pay two other debts, including the largest a student loan.  He has 
not begun to pay towards two other student loans.  Normally promises to pay in the 
future do not indicate that an individual made a good-faith effort to resolve delinquent 
debts.  Applicant developed plans to pay his remaining debts and he is making 
 
7 
 
 
payments according to those plans.  Even though he has not initiated action on two 
student loanse, his meaningful track record of debt payments so far, coupled with the 
fact that he has the needed assets to make payments according to his plan, shows that 
he will continue in good-faith to resolve his debts.  Applicant understands that he must 
continue to resolve his delinquent debts to maintain access to classified information.  
His actions to resolve his debts do not indicate poor self control, lack of judgment, or 
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations.  He is not financially overextended.  
Overall, on balance the record evidence leaves me with no questions or doubts as to 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance.  For all these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from financial 
considerations.  
 
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 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.b:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.c:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.d:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.e:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.f:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.g:   For Applicant 
 
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.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge