1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE   
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 ----------------------------- )     ISCR Case No. 08-09142
SSN: --------------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s financial problems started after he was injured on the job in April
2004.  He paid down credit card balances with a sizeable insurance settlement received
in early 2007, but he fell behind on several accounts. Subsequent difficulties finding full-
time employment hampered his ability to address those debts, and repayment of
delinquent property taxes has taken priority since January 2009. He intends to resolve
his delinquent debts once he is in a position to do so. Clearance is granted.                 
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on May 15, 2008. On February 4, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing the
security concerns under Guideline F that provided the basis for its decision to deny him
a security clearance and refer the matter to an administrative judge. 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
Applicant’s credit reports list several mortgage loans. A joint mortgage loan of $84,500, taken out in1
August 2001, was late 30 days before being paid off through an individual mortgage loan of $124,300 opened
in January 2003. That loan was paid off through a new individual mortgage of $142,000 in March 2004. Twice
Applicant was late 60 days in making his $909 monthly mortgage payment, including in August 2004. In
November 2005, Applicant and his spouse took out a joint mortgage loan of $167,700. They made their $1,115
monthly payments on agreed upon terms and that loan was paid off through refinancing in February 2007. As
of November 2008, the principal balance of their current mortgage was about $193,000 (Ex. 2, Ex. 3).
2
amended (Directive); and the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the
President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department of Defense as of
September 1, 2006.
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on February 11, 2009. He answered
the SOR allegations in writing on February 23, 2009, and requested a hearing. The
case was assigned to me on April 2, 2009. On April 17, 2009, I scheduled a hearing for
May 7, 2009.
The hearing was convened as scheduled. The government submitted four
exhibits (Ex. 1-4), which were admitted without any objections. A table prepared by
Department Counsel to assist in reviewing the financial record information was marked
as a hearing exhibit but considered as an addendum to his oral argument. Applicant
submitted one exhibit, and he and his spouse testified on his behalf, as reflected in a
transcript (Tr.) received on May 14, 2009.
Findings of Fact
DOHA alleged under Guideline F, financial considerations, that Applicant owes
delinquent credit card debt totaling $17,986 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.f, 1.g, and 1.i), a
wireless telephone debt of $186 (SOR ¶ 1.h), and medical debt totaling $1,350 (SOR ¶¶
1.c, 1.d, and 1.e). Applicant admitted the debts with the exception of the wireless phone
debt that he believed had been paid. He expressed his intent to resolve his debts, and
explained that he had been unable to work after injuring himself on the job five years
ago and had difficulty finding employment before he accepted his current position. After
considering the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits entered into the record, I make the
following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 45-year-old assembler who has been employed by a defense
contractor since June 2008 (Ex. 1, Tr. 35-36). He seeks a security clearance for his
duties, never having previously held a security clearance (Ex. 1).
Applicant and his spouse have been married for 16 years. They live with their
three children, ages 15, 14, and 13, who have been educated in a local parochial school
(Ex. 1, Tr. 40-41). Applicant inherited the home that he lives in with his spouse and
children (Tr. 51). They have refinanced their mortgage loan several times, using the
equity in their home to pay off debt obligations (Tr. 60).  They have been late in their1
mortgage payments a few times but not more than 60 days (Ex. 3, Tr. 51). As of
November 2008, the balance of the mortgage loan was $193,000 (Ex. 2). The car and
mortgage loans are in his spouse’s name (Tr. 69-70).
Applicant does not dispute that he and/or his spouse incurred the charges on the account for2
miscellaneous household expenses.
Applicant’s June 2008 credit report (Ex. 3) shows a $2,000 credit card balance paid off as of3
September 2007. He could have used the settlement to satisfy that debt. However, another credit card with
a high balance of $9,800 was reported to have a zero balance as of February 2005, well before he would have
received the settlement monies. Similarly, his Discover card debt of $9,105 had been settled for less than the
full balance as of April 2004. It is unclear to what extent credit card balances were reduced through the
settlement funds.
3
Applicant worked as a production associate for a technology company from
September 1996 to August 2001 when he was laid off (Ex. 4). He was unemployed for
about a year. In September 2002, he went to work as a third shift supervisor for a
manufacturing company (Exs. 1, 4). While at work in mid-April 2004, he caught his arm
in machinery causing serious injuries to his arm and upper extremities that left him
unable at present to lift weight over five pounds on his left side (Ex. A, Tr. 51). His
spouse was a student and caring for their children at the time and was not employed
outside of the home (Tr. 32, 86). He collected workmen’s compensation, almost the
equivalent of his $12 hourly wage, from mid-May 2004 until January 2007 (Tr. 46). His
spouse began working for his employer part-time (about 36 hours a week) in late June
2004 to pay for extra expenses, including clothes for their three children (Tr. 33-34, 46,
48, 85-86). In about January 2005, she took a second job full-time to supplement their
income (Tr. 86). In May 2005, her second job ended and she worked solely for
Applicant’s employer until about October 2005, when she left the company for a more
permanent position with a contract company at higher pay. The plant was subsequently
closed and her job moved. Applicant’s spouse left her job in about November 2006
because she was tired of the long commute. In January 2007, she began working full-
time as a contract temporary employee for a computer manufacturer at $16 an hour (Tr.
86-90). She was paid only for hours worked.
Over the May/June 2006 time frame, Applicant opened the credit card accounts
in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b that he used for miscellaneous household expenses. In June
2006, the account in SOR ¶ 1.h was opened with Applicant as an authorized user for
the same purposes.  In summer 2006, Applicant came down with a methicillin-resistant2
staph infection (MRSA) that required eight weeks of daily intravenous Vancomycin
treatment. Applicant was covered by medical insurance under his spouse’s policy, but
the coverage was limited (Tr. 49, 95-97). The family subsequently qualified for the
state’s medical insurance program (Tr. 112).
In November 2006, Applicant was medically cleared, but he continued to collect
workmen’s compensation pending a hearing on his ability to work. In January 2007, he
was laid off by his employer without being given an opportunity to return to his old job
(Tr. 33-34, 43). In late January or early February 2007, Applicant received an insurance
settlement of about $64,000 after paying attorney fees from his on-the-job injury (Tr.
99). The money went to paying down the balances of about $15,000 in credit card debt
(Tr.71),  car repairs, household items (Tr. 44), including a $1,900 computer for his3
spouse (Tr. 76), their children’s parochial school tuition (Tr. 100), delinquent property
Applicant testified that his mother-in-law gave them about $7,000 to $8,000 for the down payment4
for a car for his spouse (Tr. 45) and that the funds to repay her came out of the settlement. His spouse testified
that $7,000 of the settlement money went for the down payment on Applicant’s car (Tr. 101). She did not
indicate that they borrowed any money from her mother at that time. W hether paid to her mother or to a
lender, it appears that between $7,000 and $8,000 of the settlement monies was used to acquire a 2006
model-year vehicle for the household.
4
taxes (Tr. 75), and their mortgage (Tr. 72). They also paid back a $7,000 to $8,000 loan
from his mother-in-law used to buy a new vehicle in about February 2006 (Tr. 45, 52).4
Applicant’s spouse earned no income for two to three weeks because of a death in the
family (Tr. 73).
Despite several job interviews, Applicant was unable to find full-time employment.
He suspects he was not hired because of his physical limitations (Answer, Tr. 34). From
September to December 2007, Applicant had a contract position, initially as a third shift
supervisor. He moved to second shift when the company ceased third-shift operations,
but he was unable to perform all the tasks required, and he was let go just before
Christmas 2007 (Tr. 34-35). He was out of work until mid-June 2008, when he started
with his present employer at an hourly wage of $11.71 (Exs. 1, 2, 4).
On May 15, 2008, Applicant completed an e-QIP in conjunction with his present
employment. He responded “Yes” to question 28.a concerning whether he had been
delinquent over 180 days on any debts in the last seven years, and to question 28.b
concerning whether he was currently delinquent over 90 days on any debts. Applicant
listed two delinquencies attributed to his unemployment, a $5,000 credit card balance
that was unpaid (SOR ¶ 1.b) and a $1,500 secured loan satisfied in January 2007 (Ex.
1).
A check of Applicant’s credit on June 13, 2008, showed the previously disclosed
credit card debt had a balance of $6,461 (SOR ¶ 1.b). He reportedly owed several other
delinquent debts: a $186 wireless telephone debt from May 2006 (SOR ¶ 1.h), a $1,241
credit card balance in collection since September 2007 (SOR ¶ 1.a), medical debts
incurred because of his infection (Tr. 56) of $700 (SOR ¶ 1.c) and $325 (SOR ¶ 1.d) in
collection since May 2007, another medical debt of $325 in collection since April 2007
(SOR ¶ 1.e), and a $307 revolving charge debt with a mail order company in collection
as of May 2008 (SOR ¶ 1.g). A credit card account on which Applicant was listed as an
authorized user was in collection as of February 2008 with a balance of $3,915 (SOR ¶
1. f) (Ex. 3).
On July 9, 2008, Applicant was interviewed by a government investigator about
his delinquent debts. He disputed only the wireless phone debt, which he speculated
was his father’s account. The credit card accounts were used for the purchase of
miscellaneous household items, and with respect to SOR ¶ 1.g, clothing for his spouse.
He indicated he was capable of meeting his household obligations, and he was getting
caught up to where he could begin to pay off his delinquent debts in the near future (Ex.
4).
5
In October 2008, Applicant’s mother-in-law purchased a car outright for $22,000
for Applicant’s spouse. The car is in Applicant’s spouse’s name. She is supposed to be
repaying her mother at about $321 per month, but had not made any payments as of
May 2009 because she and Applicant were still catching up on other financial
obligations. Applicant’s spouse had been driving a 1999 model-year vehicle that needed
a new transmission (Tr. 106-08).
In response to financial interrogatories, Applicant provided a personal financial
statement on November 5, 2008, indicating a net monthly remainder of $26.40 after
expenses. He was making monthly payments of $929 on his mortgage, $272 on his car
loan, and $190 in parochial school tuition for his children. Applicant provided
documentation showing he had been approved for a hardship payment plan to resolve a
$5,971.82 delinquent debt (SOR ¶ 1.i) by paying monthly an amount that he could
afford; that the creditor owed of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.b wanted to discuss settlement
terms with him;  and the creditor of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.g was willing to accept $184.66
to settle the debt provided payment was received by October 16, 2008. Applicant
indicated that the wireless phone debt in SOR ¶ 1.h had been satisfied, but that he and
his spouse were still trying to get caught up in their current bills. His credit report of
November 7, 2008, listed those outstanding delinquent balances alleged in SOR ¶¶
1.a–1.g, but not the disputed wireless phone debt in SOR ¶ 1.h or the $5,971.82
undisputed loan balance (SOR ¶ 1.i) (Ex. 2).
 In early January 2009, Applicant and his spouse began working on a budget to
determine what they could pay toward their delinquencies (Tr. 36, 68, 81). They had
neither finalized a budget nor made any payments toward resolving their delinquent
debts as of May 2009 (Tr. 54-61). Applicant’s latest contact with a creditor/assignee
about the debt in SOR ¶ 1.a was in late 2008, and he is not sure who is presently
holding that debt (Tr. 54). The collection agency for the debt in SOR ¶ 1.b is demanding
a 20% down payment to even discuss settling that debt (Tr. 55-56). He has made no
effort to contact his medical creditors (SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.d, and 1.e) (Tr. 56-57), the credit
card lender owed the $3,915 (SOR ¶ 1.f) (Tr. 58), or the retailer owed the $307 in SOR
¶ 1.g (Tr. 59). Applicant has disputed the debt in SOR ¶ 1.h with the telephone service
provider (Tr. 59). In early May 2009, he contacted the agent collecting the debt in SOR
¶ 1.i, and was informed that the client wanted the balance paid off within six months.
Applicant was rebuffed in his offer to make small monthly payments (Tr. 60-61).
Applicant and his spouse use a debit card for household purchases now (Tr. 76,
93). Applicant’s spouse has a couple of credit card debts from the past on which she is
making payments (Tr. 94). They have cut back on a few expenses (groceries, gasoline,
school lunches) to save money (Tr. 109).
Applicant and his spouse owed back property taxes on their home of $4,000 that
they have been repaying since January 2009 at $400 a month (Tr. 36-37) with what little
he has of his income tax refund (Tr. 65). Applicant has not had any overtime available at
work since January 2009. His current hourly wage is about $12.30 (Tr. 37). His spouse
still works full-time as a temporary employee for the computer hardware manufacturer
(Tr. 53). In March 2009, the company cut contractor’s pay, including his spouse’s, by
6
2.5% (from $18 to about $17.55 hourly) because of the economy (Tr. 89-90). Applicant
intends to resolve his delinquent debt but with the property tax repayments and lack of
overtime, he does not have the funds to do so at present (Tr. 39). His two sons will be
attending the local public vocational technical high school in the fall (Tr. 41), so he will
no longer be paying parochial school tuition for them. The family has received tuition
assistance from the parochial school since his accident in 2004 (Tr. 41). Applicant and
his spouse applied for scholarships and tuition assistance for their daughter for 2010 in
the hope of reducing the $3,000 tuition bill for next year (Tr. 79). As of early May 2009,
Applicant had $1,200 in his checking account, but had outstanding checks that when
processed would reduce the positive balance to $150 (Tr. 79-80).
Policies
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the
Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security
emphasizing, “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v.
Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 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 overarching 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
that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified
7
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).
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for financial considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18 of the
adjudicative guidelines:
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.
As of February 2009, Applicant owed about $17,800 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.f, 1.g,
and 1.i) in consumer credit debt, and medical debt of $1,350 (SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.d, and 1.e)
that became delinquent when he was unemployed in 2007. The evidence is insufficient
to prove any ongoing liability for the $186 debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.h. A $186 collection
balance appeared on his credit record as of June 2008 (Ex. 3). However, Applicant
indicated during his July 2008 subject interview that he believed the debt was his
father’s. He later claimed in November 2008 that it had been paid, and he provided a
credit report (Ex. 2) that did not include the alleged debt. AG ¶ 20(e), “the individual has
a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of
the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or
provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue,” applies, but only as to SOR ¶ 1.h.
His undisputed delinquent debts raise security concerns under AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations.”
Available information shows that Applicant’s financial problems are recent and
more extensive than reflected in the SOR. About $64,000 in an insurance settlement
received in early 2007 went to paying other debts not alleged in the SOR, including
other outstanding credit card balances, parochial school tuition, and the mortgage. As of
May 2009, Applicant had not made any payments toward his admitted delinquencies
because he was paying $400 per month in delinquent property taxes that were not
alleged in the SOR.  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 does not dispute that he and/or his spouse incurred the charges on the account for5
miscellaneous household expenses.
8
Mitigating condition AG ¶ 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,” is pertinent. Applicant’s financial
difficulties started for the most part after his serious on-the-job injury in April 2004. While
his workmen’s compensation was almost the equivalent of his hourly wage, he lost
potential overtime earnings and his spouse was not employed outside the home. In
June 2004, she began working part-time, and during tax season in 2005, she held a
second job working full-time to pay their expenses. They managed to get by, paying the
minimums on credit card balances (Tr. 72) and paying other obligations late. They were
late at least 60 days twice on their mortgage in 2004/early 2005, but after they
refinanced in November 2005, they made their monthly mortgage payments on time.
Over the May/June 2006 time frame, Applicant opened the credit card accounts in SOR
¶¶ 1.a and 1.b that he used for miscellaneous household expenses. In June 2006, the
account in SOR ¶ 1.h was opened with Applicant as an authorized user for the same
purposes.  Before they had an opportunity to get ahead financially, Applicant became5
infected with MRSA in summer 2006. Medical insurance through his spouse’s employer
did not cover all of his care (see SOR ¶¶ 1.c-1.e). Although he was medically cleared in
November 2006, Applicant was not given the opportunity to return to work before he
was laid off in January 2007. Injury, illness, and job layoff are circumstances that
implicate AG ¶ 20(b).
At the same time, for AG ¶ 20(b) to fully apply, Applicant must have acted
responsibly. The government has some concerns in this regard, because the debts at
issue in the SOR became delinquent apparently after Applicant received about $64,000
in an insurance settlement from his industrial accident. Applicant explained that the
funds went to pay his mortgage and parochial school tuition for his children, to purchase
a computer for $1,900, to reduce outstanding credit card balances totaling about
$15,000 (Tr. 71), for car repairs, and to repay his mother-in-law for a $7,000 to $8,000
loan for a down payment on a vehicle purchased in February 2006. He also indicated on
his SF 86 that he had paid off a secured loan of $1,500 in early 2007. Assuming
monthly mortgage and tuition payments of $929 and $190 similar to what he was paying
in November 2008, this would account for only about $13,048 of the settlement monies.
With another $1,900 going to pay for the computer and $7,000 to $8,000 provided to his
mother-in-law, Applicant would have had about $41,000 of the settlement monies for
credit card and other debt repayments and living expenses. Even if he paid $15,000 on
old delinquent debt not evident in the record available for review, and $1,500 to satisfy
the loan listed on his SF 86, he would have been left with about $24,500. As of
November 2008, he estimated his monthly expenses (excluding mortgage) to be
$2,279. Although his $350 estimate of food for a family of five seems low, the balance of
the settlement should have been sufficient to cover their expenses for the nine months
he was out of work in 2007. Given the insurance settlement monies, Applicant’s
unemployment and history of low-wage earnings do not fully extenuate his failure to
make at least minimum payments on the accounts in the SOR to keep them current in
9
2007. However, Applicant’s financial situation was again negatively impacted by his
unemployment during the first half of 2008 when his spouse was making $16 to $17 an
hour. It is understandable that he and his spouse would still be catching up on their
expenses as of late 2008, in light of his starting hourly wage of $11.17 in his present
job. As of November 2008, he estimated they had only $26.40 per month remaining
after expenses. AG ¶ 20(b) applies.
As of May 2009, Applicant had made no effort to resolve his delinquent debts,
despite his expressed willingness to start paying on his debts by the end of 2008.
Neither AG ¶ 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,”
nor AG ¶ 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts,” apply in this case. Applicant cannot afford the settlement
demands of the creditors at present because he is paying $400 per month toward his
delinquent property tax obligation. After the property tax debt is satisfied in October
2009, his spouse will still be indebted to her mother in an amount of about $321 per
month for a vehicle purchased for them in October 2008. Applicant’s financial situation
should improve in the future because of the efforts to reduce expenses, and the use of
debit rather than credit for purchases, however.
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 conduct
and all the circumstances in light of 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 eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.
The DOHA Appeal Board has addressed a key element in the whole person
analysis in financial cases stating:
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the
concept of “‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of
actual debt reduction through payment of debts.” However, an applicant is
not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and
10
every debt listed in the SOR. All that is required is that an applicant
demonstrate that he has ‘ . . . established a plan to resolve his financial
problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.’ The Judge
can reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation
and his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for
the reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. See
Directive ¶  E2.2(a) (‘Available, reliable information about the person, past
and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching
a determination.’). There is no requirement that a plan provide for
payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable
plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such
debts one at a time. Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts
actually paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in
the SOR.
ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations omitted).
Applicant has not repaid the debts in the SOR, and he and his spouse are indebted to
her mother for a car purchased for them in October 2008. Yet, it is not doubted that
Applicant intends to resolve his debts. He satisfied in full or paid down the balances of
credit card accounts in 2007 with the funds from an insurance claim. He has made his
mortgage payments on time, excepting for a limited period when he was out of work
after a serious industrial accident. Perhaps most significantly, he is not continuing to
incur new delinquencies. Taking his financial situation as a whole, he has a meaningful
track record of paying on his financial obligations.
One could reasonably argue that parochial school tuition, even at the reduced
rate paid by Applicant, was an expenditure that the family could ill afford, especially
during Applicant’s unemployment. Applicant obviously put his family’s desires ahead of
his financial obligations to his creditors, but his financial problems were not due to
extravagance. Showing that he understands the importance of paying his obligations,
his two sons will be attending the local public vocational technical high school in the fall.
He is not likely to jeopardize the job that he needs to support his family by engaging in
illegal conduct to generate funds, or by incurring debt that he has no intent of repaying.
Once he pays off his delinquent property tax debt, he plans to begin making payments
on his other debts.
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
11
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
Conclusion
In light of the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest
to grant Applicant a security clearance and/or assignment to sensitive duties. Eligibility
for access to classified information is granted.
ELIZABETH M. MATCHINSKI
Administrative Judge