1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
                                                          )       ISCR Case No. 08-05592
SSN:                     )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Donna K. Taylor, Esq.
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant completed a security clearance application (SF-86) on November 5,
2007. On January 22, 2009, 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 a March 11, 2009, response, Applicant denied two of the delinquent accounts
alleged in the SOR were hers and requested a hearing. The matter was referred to
DOHA on April 14, 2009, and the case was assigned to me that day. Department
Counsel and Applicant agreed to a hearing date of April 30, 2009. A Notice of Hearing
was issued to that effect on April 15, 2009. The hearing was rescheduled for May 7,
2009, pursuant to a May 4, 2009, amended notice. I convened the hearing as
 Tr. 54.      1
2
scheduled. Applicant was represented by counsel, gave testimony, and offered six
documents which were admitted without objection as exhibits (Exs.) A-F. Department
Counsel offered four documents admitted as Exs. 1-4 without objection. The record was
held open through May 22, 2009, to give Applicant the opportunity to supplement the
record. The transcript (Tr.) of the proceeding was received on May 21, 2009. Two
additional documents were received by Department Counsel on May 22, 2009, and
forwarded to me on May 27, 2009. They were accepted into the record without
objection as Exs. G-H and the record was closed on May 27, 2009. 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 41-year-old business manager for a defense contractor. She has
worked for the same employer for nearly six years. Single and with some college credits
earned, she has essentially been gainfully employed in some capacity since she was 15
years of age.
In early 2000, Applicant left her home and relocated to a different region of the
country to work on a defense contract. During her annual physical, it was determined
she required surgery for a serious medical condition. The surgery necessitated two
months of recovery before she could return to work. About a year later, she moved to
another region to work for another employer. Around this time she started providing her
twin sister with financial support. It was later determined that she required a second
surgery for a condition often caused by her prior surgery. This procedure required a few
weeks of recovery time, but posed no threat to Applicant’s finances. In 2005, a third
surgery was performed requiring a brief recovery. She assumed all related bills were
covered by her health insurer. 
During the period Applicant was providing financial help to her twin sister, the
amount of money she sent started out being nominal. Her sister and brother-in-law
would then pay Applicant back. Applicant sent money directly from her own pay check,
then repaid her credit card account with her sister’s reimbursement. Eventually, the
assistance grew to as much as $1,600 per month and repayment became protracted.
This occurred about the time of Applicant’s third surgery and impacted Applicant’s
finances.  Eventually, the repayments stopped. Applicant worried about whether her1
nephew and nieces were receiving adequate care, food, and necessities. Especially
close to the young children and getting concerned about their family situation, she
continued sending money until she became overextended financially. At the same time,
her employer cut salaries on her current project. Ultimately, she fell behind on her credit
card bills, although she had sufficient funds for her own day-to-day expenses.
Throughout most of this time, she was unaware her sister was experiencing a drug and
alcohol problem. Her sister’s situation worsened and state authorities moved to
separate the sister from her children. In 2005, the authorities asked Applicant if she
 Tr. 44.      2
 Tr. 56.      3
 Tr. 49-50.      4
 Tr. 57. It was then argued that the primary concern in the case was that the debts at issue “have only      5
recently been resolved.” Tr. 58.
 Ex. D (Letter of Apr. 13, 2009).      6
3
could help. Applicant moved her sister’s four very young children to her own state of
residence and supported them for close to a year.  2
In 2006, Applicant’s sister and brother-in-law joined them. The relatives
eventually moved back to their home to start anew in 2007. Shortly thereafter,
Applicant’s sister returned to substance abuse. In 2008, Applicant moved her sister to
Applicant’s town of residence and enrolled her in a substance abuse program. After she
finished the program, Applicant firmly told her sister that in the future “the most I can
offer them is to come stay with me and I would help them with employment and help
take care of the kids,” now aged 15, 10, 8, and 5. In sum, Applicant expended
approximately $10,000-$12,000 on her sister and her sister’s family.3
During her tenure with her current employer, Applicant has received raises
annually. She has not incurred a debt for which she could not pay in several years. She
currently has no trouble living within her means. Although Applicant has not received
formal financial counseling, she now follows the concepts and strategies set forth by a
popular financial author and speaker with regard to restructuring one’s income. Using
his system, she has already created a $4,000 emergency fund and is checking to make
sure she is totally debt-free with a clean credit report. To her knowledge, her only
delinquent debts were those identified in the SOR.  Applicant has a 401(k) plan with a4
balance of approximately $60,000, a savings account in which she maintains about
$5,000 in available funds, and leftover income after monthly expenses. Her only credit
cards are two American Express accounts. She is timely on her car payment schedule,
which currently has a balance of about $3,000. She is current on her mortgage and
ahead of schedule in her payments. 
At issue in the SOR are five delinquent accounts. The Government “believes the
evidence that [was presented at hearing showed] all of the allegations, with the
exception of ¶ 1.b, have been resolved or paid.  Their status is as follows:5
SOR ¶ 1.a. Telecommunications bill ($682) – In repayment – Before Applicant
reported this credit report entry as fraud, her twin sister disclosed to Applicant that she
created the account for her own benefit. The sister returned the appliances related to
the service and agreed to repay the balance personally. It is currently in repayment.6
 Ex. G (Attorney’s letter, dated May 22, 2009); Tr. 29-30. See also Ex. F (Sister’s letter).      7
 Tr. 11-12, 57, 60.      8
 Ex. G (Attorney’s letter, dated May 22, 2009); Tr. 33-37.      9
 Ex. C (Collection agent letter, dated Mar. 11, 2009); Tr. 12.      10
 Ex.B (Bank statement); Tr. 12. See also Tr. 30-31; Ex. 2 (Financial interrogatory) at 5-6.      11
 Tr. 22-24.      12
 Ex. B (Bank statement); Tr. 23. The $3,000 was transferred through fraud or error by the collection agent      13
twice. Applicant is making arrangements for the return of the second transfer. 
 Ex. E (Rating) at 3-5.      14
 Ex. F (Undated letter of program manager) at 1.      15
4
Applicant will repay any balance still owed as of June 2009 if her sister has not paid the
entire balance by then.7
SOR ¶ 1.b. Credit card ($4,804) – Negotiating with creditor – This account was
sold off and the current holder of the account could not be found despite the diligent
efforts of Applicant and her attorney. Applicant is willing and able to pay any balance
owed.  After the hearing, the holder of the account was discovered. Applicant is now8
waiting for a final balance and is prepared to pay the balance immediately upon
receipt.  9
SOR ¶ 1.c. Collection for cell phone ($990) – Successfully disputed – Never
having had service with this company, Applicant disputed this credit report entry as a
fraudulent entry. After an investigation, the collection agency determined the account
was closed with no balance owed.10
SOR ¶ 1.d. Medical bill ($576) – Paid – Applicant was previously unaware of
this debt related to her final surgery. She had assumed her insurance company had
previously paid this balance, but it had not. She paid off this account in March 2009 and
is now awaiting reimbursement from her insurance company.11
SOR ¶ 1.e. Credit card ($14,437) – Settled – This account was used by
Applicant to cover her personal expenses when she was sending her sister money. It
was compromised for a settlement balance of $3,000.  It was paid on March 4, 2009.12 13
At work, Applicant is rated as a “distinguished” employee on a five point scale
with “distinguished” as the highest rating.  Her employer’s project manager refers to14
Applicant as demonstrating “a high degree of integrity and trustworthiness. . . .”  All her15
references reflect a thoughtful, thorough, committed working professional. 
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      16
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      17
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      18
5
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. 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 a16
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  17 18
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 an 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
 Id.      19
 Id.      20
 Executive Order 10865 § 7.      21
 Revised Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18.      22
 One debt was successfully disputed as not belonging to Applicant.      23
6
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 access19
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.   The decision to deny an individual a security clearance is not necessarily20
a determination as to the loyalty of an applicant.  It is merely an indication that the21
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.22
The Directive sets out several potentially disqualifying conditions under this guideline.
Applicant acquired four of the five delinquent debts at issue while helping her sister
financially.  Previously unaware of half of those four debts, all four remained23
unaddressed until after Applicant received the SOR apprising her of the negative
entries on her credit report. 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). With
such conditions raised, the burden shifts to Appellant to overcome the case against her
and mitigate security concerns. 
The majority of debt Applicant owed was the result of her kindness toward her
twin sister and her sister’s family. While initially misled as to the reasons behind their
financial need, Applicant’s largess was entirely voluntary. The medical bill at ¶ 1.d,
however, was a medically necessary procedure stemming from her last surgical
procedure. She understandably assumed the medical bill had been paid by her health
insurer, which was responsible for the bill. Instead, her health insurer failed to pay the
balance and a derogatory entry was eventually entered on her credit report. Previously
7
unaware of this entry, Applicant has since paid the balance and filed with her health
insurer for reimbursement. With regard to this obligation, Financial 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. 
The majority of the debt owed was created while Applicant helped support her
twin sister’s family. Applicant believes her direct financial assistance amounted to
approximately $10,000 to $12,000. After a few years of offering such support, Applicant
eventually put her sister into a substance abuse center and firmly informed her that any
future assistance would be of a non-monetary nature. 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. 
Applicant has educated herself with regard to personal finances by using a
popular series of books or lectures by a well-known personal finance consultant. His
system is designed to be done personally and at home. While informal in nature, what
she has learned has been employed and has yielded genuine results with regard to
both addressing her past debts and saving for future emergencies. 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)
applies. 
Moreover, three of the five debts at issue have been satisfied or successfully
disputed, representing a satisfaction of over $16,000 of the approximately $21,000 of
alleged debt. What remains is a telecommunications bill currently in repayment by
Applicant’s sister and a credit card collection entity which Applicant only recently
located and has been prepared to pay for the past several months. There is no reason
to doubt her resolve in paying off that debt as soon as she receives a final accounting.
FC MC ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts) applies. No other mitigating conditions apply.
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
8
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 successful professional who excels at her job and has earned the
respect of her superiors. She demonstrated exceptional charity and familial devotion in
her support of her twin sister and solid judgment in guiding her sister to a substance
abuse program. She also showed both courage and resolve in informing her sister that
future financial support would not be forthcoming. Using a popular personal finance
program, Applicant created an emergency fund, satisfied her debts, and amassed
significant savings. She addressed four of the five accounts at issue. Although she was
previously unable to locate the collection agent for the fifth account at issue, her
persistence recently paid off. She recently located that creditor, negotiated a
settlement, is awaiting a final balance, and reserved the funds to satisfy that balance
upon receipt.
As noted by Department Counsel, the main factor speaking against Applicant is
that these delinquent debts remained unpaid until recently. To Applicant’s defense,
however, she was previously unaware of the accounts noted at SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.c, and
1.d, which includes an account entry that was successfully disputed and determined not
to be hers. Information identifying the company that currently holds the account noted
at SOR ¶ 1.b was only recently discovered. While Applicant asserts no excuse or
explanation in her failure to satisfy the obligation noted at SOR ¶ 1.e earlier, the fact
remains that the obligation has been satisfied. 
Moreover, this process does not employ a system of calculators or timetables to
rank or prioritize satisfied debts in terms of the duration of their delinquency. Rather, it
emphasizes consideration of the judgment displayed by an applicant, an applicant’s
efforts to satisfy known debts, the success an applicant had in satisfying those debts,
and consideration of an applicant in light of both the “whole person” concept and the
concerns related to the guideline under consideration. Furthermore, this is not the case
of an applicant who waited until after the hearing to pay off debts before the closing of
the record. Applicant arrived at the hearing enlightened through the study of personal
finance, with money in the bank, a demonstrated resolve to honor any and all debts,
and evidence that the vast majority of her delinquent debt is satisfied. In doing so,
Applicant mitigated financial considerations security concerns. I conclude it is clearly
consistent with national security to grant Applicant a security clearance. Clearance is
granted. 
9
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
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