1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-08220
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant completed a security clearance application (SF-86) dated August 1,
2007. On December 12, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising 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 for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
In an undated response, Applicant admitted 13 of the 19 allegations noted in the
SOR and requested a hearing. The matter was referred to DOHA on March 4, 2009,
and the case was assigned to me that day. Department Counsel and Applicant agreed
to a hearing date of April 2, 2009. A notice of hearing was issued to that effect on
March 16, 2009. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Applicant gave testimony and
offered seven documents which were admitted without objection as exhibits (Exs.) A-G.
 Tr. 16.      1
 Tr. 17.      2
 Tr. 18.      3
2
Department Counsel offered four documents admitted as Exs. 1-4 without objection.
The record was held open for two weeks to permit Applicant to supplement the record.
Five additional documents were accepted into the record without objection as Exs. H-L
on April 17, 2009. The transcript (Tr.) of the proceeding was received that same day
and the record was closed. Based upon a review of the testimony, submissions, and
exhibits, I find Applicant met her burden regarding the security concerns raised.
Security clearance is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 28-year-old performance enhancement specialist for a defense
contractor. She is currently completing a doctorate in sport and exercise psychology.
Married, she has a two-year-old son and is soon expecting a second child. 
In 1998, at age 17, Applicant began college with the hopes of ultimately earning
a doctorate in sports psychology. Although a gifted student, her family could not afford
to send her to college. Consequently, she relied on student loans and various jobs to
finance her education. Mindful of cost and focused on attaining a doctorate, she
completed her undergraduate degree in two-and-a-half years. By working full-time
during her master’s degree program over a three-year period, she kept abreast of her
past debt and helped defray her current academic costs. She also invested in a
townhouse as an alternative to paying rent. When she moved from the area to pursue
her doctorate in 2004, she sold the property for a profit and paid off her credit cards.
As a doctoral student, Applicant received a research assistantship which paid
$10,000 per school year for 20 hours of work per week. Her future husband quit school
in order to work and help pay for her education. Together, they purchased a foreclosure
property in which to live. The home was bought for far less than its worth, but it needed
repairs and new appliances they had not anticipated. Consequently, they got “into a
little bit of a hole that unfortunately [they] weren’t really able to get out of as far as
debt.”  1
In 2005, Applicant’s fiancee was promoted to retail management. The extra
income helped with current obligations, but little was accomplished toward older debts.2
Applicant accelerated her studies in order to join the work force as soon as possible. 
Applicant and her fiancee married in the summer of 2006. She finished her
doctoral course work in May 2007, around the time the couple had their son. Free from
classes, she immediately set out to find a job. She applied for many positions. One was
for a lucrative position for which she thought she was under-qualified, but was her
“dream job.”  She was ultimately offered the position. The recruiters were so impressed3
 Ex. 4 (Credit report, dated Nov. 14, 2008) at 2-3; Ex. 2 (Interrogatories) at 11. Applicant testified that her      4
school incorrectly reported her as having graduated, thus triggering her student loans prematurely. Tr. 51-53.
Otherwise, student loans are generally deferred until six months following withdrawal or graduation and
forbearance can generally be requested for financial hardship. See www.salliemae.com (Apr. 2, 2009).
 Tr. 21.      5
 Tr. 26.      6
 Tr. 22.      7
 Tr. 26.      8
 Tr. 27-28; Applicant’s Answer to the SOR; Ex. F (Statement, dated Mar. 10, 2009). Note that allegation      9
1.f and 1.s are duplicate entries. Tr. 28.
 Ex. H (Applicant’s narrative, dated Apr. 16, 2009); Ex. L (Bank statements).      10
 Tr. 29-30; Ex. J (Direct loans letter, dated Apr. 1, 2009); Ex. 1 (Loan facilitator payment history). See      11
http://www.finaid.org/loans/ (Jun. 17, 2009), noting the average cumulative debt for undergraduate through
doctoral degree is approximately $53,500.
3
with her, they gave her the location she requested and considered her their top
candidate. They continue to be impressed with her performance, promoting her to
higher levels of responsibility. In August 2007, Applicant and her husband put their
home on the market and moved to an area between their places of employment,
requiring both of them to commute an hour each way. Real estate sales were sluggish
and progress on the home sale dragged on. Her new job helped her to start addressing
her student loans, which became due in December 2008 despite the fact she was still
qualified as a doctoral student and despite her request for forbearance based on her
finances.  4
In April 2008, their house finally sold. Applicant’s husband accepted a lower
paying job in order to shorten his commute and save commuting costs. With both
spouses working, they quickly started addressing their delinquent debts.  Realizing they5
needed help in this task, she sought financial counseling advice from a nearby military
installation. Applicant found this assistance to be “a lot of benefit.”  She also pursued6
assistance through a debt counseling service. She pays the service $186 every two
weeks and the service works out settlements with some of her creditors.  Despite these7
efforts, Applicant feels she needs more guidance and is currently seeking additional
counseling to tackle her remaining debts.8
At issue in the SOR are 19 debts, set forth in allegations ¶¶ 1.a through 1.s.
Applicant previously satisfied the debts identified at ¶¶ 1.b, 1.e, 1.f, and 1.s,
representing about $3,000.  Since the hearing, she submitted evidence that she has9
been making payments on the $2,164 debt noted in allegation ¶ 1.r.  The10
approximately $35,000 in student loans noted in allegations ¶¶ 1.g, 1.h, 1.i, 1.j, and 1.k
were recently consolidated and are in repayment.  Allegations ¶¶ 1.c and 1.q were11
 Tr. 28.      12
 Ex. 2 (Interrogatories) at 4.      13
 Ex. E (Recommendation, dated Feb. 10, 2009).      14
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      15
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      16
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      17
4
determined to be duplicates.  Remaining unaddressed are the debts noted in SOR12
allegations ¶¶ 1.a, 1.c, 1.d, and 1.l – 1.p, representing approximately $21,000.
Applicant’s field is highly specialized and potentially very lucrative. By the
beginning of 2009, she was earning in excess of $60,000 per year.  At work, Applicant13
receives commendable appraisals. She was recommended for, and received, a
competitive certification appropriate to her field. Her supervisor fully recommends her
for a security clearance, noting her character and both her moral and ethical integrity.14
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. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this 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.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a15
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  16 17
 Id.      18
 Id.      19
 Executive Order 10865 § 7.      20
 Revised Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18.      21
5
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). “The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access18
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.   The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily19
a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the20
applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense
have established for issuing a clearance.
Based upon consideration of the evidence, I find Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) to be the most pertinent to the case. Conditions pertaining to this
adjudicative guideline that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as
well as those which would mitigate such concerns, are set forth and discussed below.
Analysis
Guideline F – Financial Considerations
Under Guideline F, failure or an inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts,
and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or an
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.21
The Directive sets out several potentially disqualifying conditions under this guideline. 
Applicant acquired a number of delinquent debts as she matriculated her way
from undergraduate student to doctoral candidate. She admits a number of those debts
 Additionally, Applicant’s claim that her student loans were accelerated for payment prematurely, prior to      22
her graduation and despite her request for forbearance, is generally consistent with the federal government
student loan program. 
6
remain unaddressed. Such facts are sufficient to give rise to Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts”)
and FC DC AG ¶ 9(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”) apply. With such
conditions raised, the burden shifts to Appellant to overcome the case against her and
mitigate security concerns. 
In 2004, Applicant and her fiancee bought a foreclosure property at far below its
value, but it turned into a “money pit” fixing the condition of the house and updating
appliances. Moreover, payment on her student loans became due despite the fact she
had yet to finish her doctoral program. Additionally, their home took a protracted period
of time to sell in a sour economy. Throughout this time, she and her husband tried to
offset their debt through their paychecks and their real estate profits.  Financial22
Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (“the conditions that resulted
in the behavior 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”) applies. 
Today, approximately two-thirds of Applicant’s delinquent debt is paid or in
repayment. This includes her student loans, which were prematurely designated for
repayment despite her current student status and finances. They represent over half of
her total debt. 
Today, the noble pursuit of higher education is a costly investment few can attain
without acquiring significant debt. Here, Applicant’s expedited doctoral pursuit was the
main reason she acquired her debt. Throughout her graduate studies, she and her
husband diligently tried to minimize their debts. Given the cost of higher education,
however, debt was accepted as inevitable. With the exception of completing her
doctoral thesis, her formal education is now complete. She is now in a position to move
ahead and reap the benefits of her specialized training and diligent studies with a
lucrative job. Meanwhile, her husband works full-time, adding to the family coffers.
Given these circumstances, 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”) applies. Moreover, based on Applicant’s testimony, advice from financial
counselors and from the credit service have aided her in addressing some of her debts
and in consolidating her student loans. Consequently, 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”) and FC MC ¶ 20(d) (“the
individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts”) both apply. No other mitigating conditions apply.
7
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 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, as well as the “whole person”
factors. Applicant is a young wife and mother who is uniquely goal oriented. At 17, she
independently commenced a self-financed educational path toward a doctoral degree.
She completed her undergraduate degree in only 5 semesters, then worked full-time
while earning her master’s degree. She and her husband toiled through her doctoral
program with a singular goal of preparing her for a lucrative position in a highly
specialized field. Earmarks of her achievement include her recent attainment of her
“dream job” and her ability to have kept her educational debt to far below the national
cumulative average of $53,500 for undergraduate through doctoral matriculation. 
Today in that dream position, Applicant makes a lucrative salary augmented by
her husband’s own income. Together, they started addressing her delinquent debt
before receipt of the December 2008 SOR. She arranged to have her student loans
consolidated for easier repayment, which she has already commenced. She solicited
assistance from a debt counselor who has helped address some accounts through her
bi-weekly payments to that entity. She received financial counseling advice and
recognizes she needs to continue with more formal debt counseling to help her address
the remainder of her delinquent accounts. Such proactive efforts are consistent with her
past efforts, where she demonstrated ingenuity and diligence in her methods of
addressing her academic debt. For example, she worked full-time to catch up on some
of her undergraduate debt and help finance her master’s degree. She also invested in a
townhouse in lieu of paying rent, leaving her able to sell that property for a profit when
she moved to begin her doctoral program. That profit was used to address the credit
card debt she had acquired during her master’s program.  
 AG ¶ 2(a)(8).      23
 AG ¶ 2(a)(1)-(3), (7).      24
 AG ¶ 2(a)(1).      25
 AG ¶ 2(a)(9).      26
8
The delinquent debt at issue is not the result of “poor self-control, lack of
judgment, or an unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations” nor does it serve as
the best commentary on her character traits, including her “reliability, trustworthiness
and ability to protect classified information.”  She has not resorted to bankruptcy, has23
expressed the intent to honor her debts, none of her debts appear to be frivolous, and
her lifestyle is not extravagant. The surrounding facts clearly show that this debt was
incurred as, and calculated to be, a temporary measure to help finance her
matriculation in a specialized field.  There is no apparent potential for pressure,24
coercion, exploitation, or duress based on this debt. While the debt is high, the student
loans are relatively modest for educational tracks leading to the doctoral level.  The25
unaddressed debt, while high, is not disproportionate given her years of study and her
current field of practice. Having made good on her obligations in the past, there is little
reason to believe she and her husband cannot again catch up on their most recent –
and final – round of educationally related obligations.  This is especially true given the26
progress made between her receipt of the SOR in late December 2008 through March
2009 and her current pursuit of additional financial guidance. With security concerns
regarding her finances mitigated, I conclude it is clearly consistent with national security
to grant Applicant a security clearance. Clearance is granted. 
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
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: For Applicant
9
Subparagraph 1.m: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s: 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is granted.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge