This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2, 1992,1
as amended and modified (Directive), and revised adjudicative guidelines which became effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.
                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                              
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 08-08963
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Paul Delaney, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                                                              
______________
Decision
______________
LAZZARO, Henry, Administrative Judge
Applicant mitigated the security concern that was alleged as a result of his January
2008 alcohol-related driving offense. However, he failed to mitigate the security concern
that still exists due to his ongoing financial problems. 
On November 21, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant stating it was unable to find it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.1
The SOR alleges security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations) and
Guideline G (alcohol consumption). Applicant submitted a response to the SOR that was
received by DOHA on December 29, 2008. He admitted all SOR allegations and requested
a hearing.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
2
The case was assigned to me on February 5, 2009. A notice of hearing was issued
on March 5, 2009, scheduling the hearing for April 22, 2009. The hearing was conducted
as scheduled. The government submitted five documentary exhibits that were marked as
Government Exhibits (GE) 1-5 and admitted into the record without objection. Applicant
testified and submitted one documentary exhibit that was marked as Applicant’s Exhibit
(AE) 1 and admitted into the record without objection. The transcript was received on May
1, 2009.     
Findings of Fact
Applicant’s admissions to the allegations in the SOR are incorporated herein. In
addition, after a thorough review of the pleadings, testimony and exhibits, I make the
following findings of fact:
Applicant is a 36-year-old man who has been employed as an electronics technician
by a defense contractor since February 2008. He was employed outside the defense
industry as a mechanic from September 2007 to February 2008, and as a project
coordinator from April 2001 to September 2007. He obtained a high school general
educational development diploma in 1998.
Applicant was married in August 1995. That marriage was ended by divorce in
January 2008. One 12-year-old daughter was born of the marriage. Applicant has joint
custody of the child with his wife. He is currently engaged to be remarried to another
woman.  
Applicant attributes his financial problems to the dissolution of his marriage and the
occurrences that accompanied the break-up of his marriage. His wife apparently became
dissatisfied with their marital life because, in her view, Applicant was spending an
inordinate amount of time working. They discussed the problem, and Applicant quit the job
he had been working at for about six years and took a significantly lower paying job to
spend more time at home. Despite this effort to save their marriage, Applicant’s wife
moved out of the marital residence a few months after he had changed jobs. Further
exacerbating Applicant’s financial problems, his wife, who had assumed sole responsibility
for paying the marital debts, applied virtually all their income to paying only those debts that
were solely in her name. 
Applicant testified his income went from somewhere between $45-65,000 annually
to about $35,000 annually as a result of his change of employment. Additionally, Applicant
no longer had available the approximately $20,000 his wife had earned annually to apply
to the debts he became responsible for through the divorce. 
Applicant remained in the marital home and was solely responsible for the home
mortgage once he and his wife divorced. He provided a somewhat convoluted explanation
of what happened with the home mortgage. Essentially, the mortgage was sold to a
company which, through an administrative error, expended the funds in Applicant’s escrow
account to pay the real estate taxes on someone else’s property. Thereafter, Applicant’s
mortgage payments were improperly not applied to his account and a foreclosure was
imminent despite Applicant’s continuing attempts to rectify the problems with the mortgage
3
company. Applicant was able to sell the house before foreclosure but at a price that left
him only enough funds to satisfy the mortgage and closing expenses. 
The account listed in SOR subparagraph 1.a is from a department store credit card
debt that was charged off in the amount of $445. Applicant testified he has begun to
negotiate with the creditor in an effort to establish a repayment plan. No payment had been
made on the account as of the date of the hearing. Applicant’s January 2009 credit bureau
report (CBR) indicates this account was reported as transferred or sold in December 2008.
   
Applicant testified the account listed in SOR subparagraph 1.b arose from furniture
his ex-wife purchased. He believes she should be solely responsible for this account.
Applicant’s January 2009 CBR indicates this account was reported as charged off and
closed by the credit grantor as of December 2008, with a balance of $2,634 still owing.
Applicant testified he contacted the creditor while working for his previous employer but he
did not earn enough money to make the payments required to resolve the account. 
The account listed in SOR subparagraph 1.c is listed in Applicant’s January 2009
CBR as a current collection account owing in the past due amount of $2,014.  The $42
increase in the amount of this debt from the amount listed in the SOR and Applicant’s
September 2008 CBR is apparently due to accrued interest. Applicant has not made any
payments on this account. 
The account listed in SOR subparagraph 1.d is listed in Applicant’s January 2009
CBR as a current collection account owing in the past due amount of $4,239. The name
of the creditor indicates this is a credit card debt.  The $104 increase in the amount of this
debt from the amount listed in the SOR and Applicant’s September 2008 CBR is
apparently also due to accrued interest. Applicant has not made any payments on this
account. 
Applicant testified the debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.e is a debt owed on a
truck that belongs to his ex-wife’s brother. He also testified his brother-in-law is currently
making payments on the loan. Applicant’s September 2008 CBR lists $8,709 as the
amount owing on this account with $233 being past due. Applicant’s January 2009 CBR
lists $7,479 as the amount owing on this account with $233 still being past due. The $1,230
reduction in the balance owing on the account corroborates Applicant’s testimony that
payments are being made on the loan. 
The account listed in SOR subparagraph 1.f is a debt owed to a credit union in the
total amount of $2,673 that was reported as past due in the amount of $1,490 in
Applicant’s September 2008 CBR. Applicant’s January 2009 CBR discloses the past due
amount had risen to $2,318 as of December 2008. Applicant testified he had made a
payment on the account and he submitted AE 1 in verification of the payment having been
made. AE 1 is a receipt from a court that discloses a judgment was entered against
Applicant on this account, that the total amount due as a result of the judgment was
$3,039.22, and that Applicant made a $100 payment on the judgment on April 7, 2009. 
The account listed in SOR subparagraph 1.g arose from a four-wheel vehicle
Applicant had purchased. Applicant thought this vehicle was insured through his home
4
owner’s insurance policy. However, when the vehicle was stolen from his house the
insurance company refused to pay for the loss. The creditor then demanded full payment
on the outstanding balance owing in the amount of $5,589 due to the loss of the collateral.
Applicant has not made any payment on this loan since the vehicle was stolen. Applicant’s
January 2009 CBR discloses this account was reported as charged off as of January 2008.
Applicant obtained a loan in the amount of $15,000 from his sister and brother-in-
law to purchase an apparently run down house that he plans to repair and sell. He currently
is working on various projects in the house in his spare time. Once he has completed the
necessary repairs, Applicant plans to sell the house and use the proceeds to satisfy his
delinquent creditors. 
Applicant resides with his mother and pays about $450 a month for groceries and
other household expenses. After paying his other recurring monthly expenses, Applicant
has about $84 left from his wages. However, he also claims he is paying $400 per month
on the loan from his sister and brother-in-law and $200 on a credit union loan. He
explained he obtains the money to make the loan payments by picking up odd jobs when
he can and by “rob(bing) Peter to pay Paul” (Tr. 66) when he can’t. 
Applicant was arrested on January 3, 2008, and charged with driving under the
influence (DUI) and resisting arrest. Applicant’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was
0.08 at the time of his arrest. He only went to trial on the DUI charge (apparently the
resisting arrest charge was dropped as part of a pretrial negotiation that required him to
waive his right to a jury trial).  Applicant was convicted of DUI and sentenced to serve five
days in jail, pay about $400 in fines, and attend an alcohol abuse awareness class. 
Applicant wrote a lengthy explanation about the arrest and conviction as part of his
response to the SOR. He had consumed a couple of beers with his mother and others and
then went with his fiance to a residence where they were to attend a social gathering and
spend the night. No one was home when they arrived at the location. Applicant and his
fiance sat in his car in the driveway to the house and consumed a small amount of alcohol
they had brought with them while waiting for others to arrive. Police officers arrested him
as he and his fiance were sitting in the car in the driveway. Applicant credibly testified he
did not resist arrest. 
Applicant was questioned at length about his history of alcohol consumption at the
hearing. He first consumed alcohol when he was about 19 years old. His description of his
alcohol use since that time is consistent with that of what is commonly referred to as a
social drinker. He denies ever driving an automobile when he has consumed anything
more than a very small amount of alcohol.         
POLICIES
The Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines to consider when evaluating a
person’s eligibility to hold a security clearance. Chief among them are the disqualifying
conditions and mitigating conditions for each applicable guideline. Additionally, each
clearance decision must be a fair and impartial commonsense decision based upon the
relevant and material facts and circumstances, the whole person concept, and the factors
 ISCR Case No. 96-0277 (July 11, 1997) at p. 2.2
 ISCR Case No. 97-0016 (December 31, 1997) at p. 3; Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.14. 3
 Department of the Navy v. Egan 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).4
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 (December 19, 2002) at p. 3 (citations omitted).5
 ISCR Case No. 98-0761 (December 27, 1999) at p. 2.6
 ISCR Case No. 94-1075 (August 10, 1995) at pp. 3-4; Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.15.7
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 (January 27, 1995) at pp. 7-8; Directive, Enclosure 3, Item E3.1.15.8
 Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.9
 Id. at 531.10
 Egan, Executive Order 10865, and the Directive.11
5
listed in ¶ 6.3.1 through ¶ 6.3.6 of the Directive. Although the presence or absence of a
particular condition or factor for or against clearance is not outcome determinative, the
adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against this
policy guidance. Considering the evidence as a whole, Guideline F (financial
considerations) and Guideline G (alcohol consumption), with their disqualifying and
mitigating conditions, are most relevant in this case. 
  
The sole purpose of a security clearance decision is to decide if it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for an
applicant.  The government has the burden of proving controverted facts.  The burden of2 3
proof in a security clearance case is something less than a preponderance of evidence,4
although the government is required to present substantial evidence to meet its burden of
proof.  “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance of the5
evidence.”  Once the government has met its burden, the burden shifts to an applicant to6
present evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation to overcome the case against
him.  Additionally, an applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable7
clearance decision.8
No one has a right to a security clearance  and “the clearly consistent standard9
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 access10
to classified information must be resolved in favor of protecting national security.      11
Analysis
Guideline F, 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,
  Although not alleged in the SOR, the existence of this newly listed account is probative of the12
application of mitigating conditions.
6
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. . . .
(Adjudicative Guideline [AG] 18)
Information contained in Applicant’s September 2008 and January 2009 CBRs
corroborate his testimony that the account alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.e is based on
a truck loan on which his brother-in-law is making regular payments. That subparagraph
is decided for Applicant.  
Applicant has made only one $100 payment on any of the other debts alleged in the
SOR. That payment was only made after a judgment had been entered against him for that
debt. With that payment, Applicant still owes $17,860.22 on the six accounts alleged in the
SOR. Those accounts have either charged off, submitted for collection, listed as seriously
past due or have resulted in a judgment being entered against Applicant. Disqualifying
Conditions (DC) 19(a): inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and DC 19(c): a history
of not meeting financial obligations apply.
Applicant’s financial problems arose from the dissolution of his marriage and the
financial problems he experienced as a result thereof. Those problems included a
significant reduction in his income and his ex-wife using their joint funds to solely pay her
debts in anticipation of their divorce. Applicant’s financial problems were exacerbated by
the misapplication of money from his home mortgage escrow account to pay someone
else’s property taxes and the need to thereafter sell his home for less than he might
otherwise have been able to obtain to prevent a foreclosure. 
However, Applicant has done virtually nothing to resolve his lingering financial
problems. He has not sought credit counseling in an effort to bring his financial problems
under control, nor has he made any meaningful effort to resolve any delinquent accounts.
These factors preclude finding that Applicant has acted responsibly since his financial
problems began.  
Also, Applicant failed to present any probative evidence to establish that his goal of
remodelling the house he is currently working on will actually provide him with funds to
apply to his delinquent debts. Also troubling is that his January 2009 CBR discloses a utility
bill owing in the amount of $396 that was just listed as having been submitted for collection
in October 2008.  12
As a result of the above, I conclude Mitigating Condition (MC) 20(a): the behavior
. . . 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; MC 20(b): 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;
MC 20(c): the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there
7
are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and MC 20(d):
the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts do not apply.  
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption
Paragraph 21: Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of
questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. (Adjudicative Guideline [AG] 21)
Applicant’s arrest and conviction for DUI is an aberration in his otherwise law abiding
life. There is no evidence to indicate he ever before abused alcohol. Indeed, his testimony
on the subject establishes he is properly categorized as no more than a social drinker. DC
22(a): alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence,
fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern,
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol
dependent applies. However, that disqualifying condition is overwhelming outweighed by
application of MC 23(a): so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or
it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast
doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.   
The objective of the security-clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense
assessment of a person’s trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information.
Indeed, the “whole person” concept recognizes we should view a person by the totality of
their acts and omissions. Each case must be adjudged on its own merits, taking into
consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking,
and careful analysis.   
Considering all relevant and material facts and circumstances present in this case,
the whole person concept, the factors listed in ¶ 6.3.1 through ¶6.3.6 of the Directive, and
the applicable disqualifying and mitigating conditions, I find Applicant has mitigated the
alcohol consumption security concern but he has failed to mitigate the financial
considerations security concern. He has not overcome the case against him nor has he
satisfied his ultimate burden of persuasion in regard to the financial considerations security
concern. It is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security
clearance. Guideline G is decided for Applicant. Guideline F is decided 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, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.f & 1.e: Against Applicant
8
Paragraph 2, Guideline G: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For 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 is denied.
Henry Lazzaro
Administrative Judge