1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
                                                          )        ISCR Case No. 08-05950
SSN:                     )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant completed a security clearance application (SF-86) dated January 2,
2008. On January 23, 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, which are effective for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
In a February 27, 2009, response, Applicant admitted all 17 of the allegations set
forth in the SOR. Each allegation concerned a different delinquent debt belonging to
Applicant. She later requested a hearing on the matter. DOHA assigned the case to me
on June 1, 2009. Department Counsel and Applicant agreed to a hearing date of June
24, 2009. A notice of hearing was issued to that effect on June 4, 2009. I convened the
hearing as scheduled. Applicant gave testimony and offered one document, which was
accepted without objection as exhibit (Ex.) A. She was given through July 17, 2009, to
 This date was chosen to provide Applicant with additional time to submit her first bankruptcy payment,      1
scheduled for July 15, 2009. Tr. 47.
 Tr. 20.      2
 Tr. 15-16.      3
 Tr. 16.      4
2
submit any additional documentation.  Department Counsel offered five documents1
admitted as exhibits (Exs.) 1-5 without objection. The transcript (Tr.) of the proceeding
was received on July 6, 2009. No additional documents were received by July 20, 2009,
and the record was closed. Based on a review of the testimony, submissions, and
exhibits, I find Applicant failed to meet her burden regarding the security concerns
raised. Security clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 52-year-old management assistant who has worked for the same
defense contractor since November 2007. Applicant earned a high school diploma.
Separated, Applicant is the mother of two children, ages 26 and 17. Her children and a
grandchild live with her.
In 1985, Applicant was a county government employee. She stayed in similar
positions for 14 years, during which time she married. In 1999, she quit her government
job in order to pursue a career in financial services. She acquired several licenses,
some of which required background checks and were expensive to obtain. Applicant
soon realized she quit her government job too soon. Her position as a financial analyst
was commission-based and she earned little money in the beginning. Then, one day in
2000, Applicant’s husband of 11 years left her unexpectedly. The couple divorced in
2002. In the interim, Applicant was unemployed from January 2001 through November
2002. She received unemployment benefits at this time. During this time she also met
her future husband. Applicant later married the man, a painter, but the relationship was
“unsteady” and they eventually separated.  She receives no financial support from him.2
Applicant worked for one company from June 2004 through February 2005, but
quit because she found its business practices to be unethical. She then worked for a
public utility from February 2005 until February 2006, when she was laid off. She
received unemployment compensation for a period before eventually starting her
current job in November 2007. “I was very fortunate to get the job that I have. . . .  It
affords me the living expenses that I need, but [those expenses] takes (sic) all I make. .
. .”  While the salary is stable, she recognized that she needed more income to meet3
her obligations.  This need became more urgent when she received the January 20094
SOR. In early June 2009, she met with an attorney who advised her to file for Chapter
13 bankruptcy protection. She sincerely wants to “get on the right track the right way”
and resolve her financial problems. Her bankruptcy petition was filed and contains the
 W ithout evidence to the contrary, the debts noted at SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.a through 1.d, amounting to      5
about $800, are either not listed in the petition or were subsumed into other accounts and now unidentifiable
based on the petition and credit reports. Likewise, the debt at allegation ¶ 1.l with an individual’s name may
be the account noted in the petition on Schedule D for an automobile sale.
 Tr. 18.      6
 Tr. 22-23.      7
 Tr. 24.      8
 Tr. 25.      9
 Id.      10
 Tr. 26.      11
 Tr. 23, 25.      12
 Tr. 24.      13
 Tr. 23.      14
 Tr. 23-24.      15
 Tr. 30-32.      16
3
vast majority of accounts at issue.  Her payments were to begin on in mid-July 2009,5
consisting of $260 a month to be automatically deducted from her July 15, 2009,
paycheck.  Payments are scheduled to be made for the next 36 months.6
At issue in the SOR are 17 delinquent debts. Most were incurred while Applicant
was unemployed and after Applicant’s first husband left her in 2002.  No payments7
were made on any of the debts in the past year.  She knew about many of the debts,8
although she never consulted a credit report.  She blames her lack of progress on9
“procrastination.”  She regrets having been “irresponsible,” but notes she did not have10
the income to make any progress on her debts.  At one point in the past, she met with11
a man from her church who helps people with their finances. He advised her that she
did “not have the income necessary” to work with him.  He also advised her not to12
contact any of her creditors unless she had the money to make payments.  She initially13
resisted the temptation to file bankruptcy, but eventually felt it “was the only option that
[she] had at the time to clear [her] record and start over.  She stated: “I am determined14
to do it the right way, the legal way, so that was my only option as far as I’m concerned
to get these debts cleared, because I don’t foresee any extra income coming in, other
than my employment [salary] at this time.”  15
Applicant currently earns about $2,200 a month. She receives no portion of her
estranged husband’s income. She receives no child support. Her monthly expenses are
approximately $2,216. She no longer makes $290 monthly payments on one vehicle.
The money saved will go to the bankruptcy trustee payments.  A recent 5% raise16
 Tr. 34.      17
 Tr. 39.      18
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      19
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      20
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      21
4
should increase her income. She also will be moving in the near future to a less
expensive dwelling where her daughter will be helping with some expenses from her
own $7 an hour part-time job and $235 state child support supplement.  Overall,17
Applicant lives simply. She has not had a vacation in many years.
Applicant excels at her work. She has received evaluation ratings of “excellent.”18
Her latest pay raise was the maximum raise provided. She enjoys her current work and
notes that some of her past licenses required that she be bonded.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
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
commonsense 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 a19
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  20 21
 Id.      22
 Id.      23
 Revised Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18.      24
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 access22
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.23
Based upon consideration of the evidence, I find Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) to be the most pertinent to this 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.24
The Directive sets out several potentially disqualifying conditions under this guideline. 
Between 2000 and 2007, Applicant acquired an unwieldy amount of debt which
became delinquent, resulting in her recent bankruptcy filing. These facts are sufficient
to raise 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 Applicant to overcome
the case against her and mitigate security concerns. 
6
Applicant’s delinquent debt was the result of several significant events that
occurred between 2000 and 2007. Her transition to financial services required an
unexpected reduction in income. Her first husband abruptly walked out on her one day
without notice. After her divorce, she married a man who proved to be unreliable and
from whom she is currently estranged. Corporate business decisions caused Applicant
to rely on unemployment compensation for two significant periods. While these
situations can be said to have given rise to much of her debt, they do not explain her
inaction regarding her debts during her times of employment. Applicant testified that
she was “irresponsible” and “procrastinated” in addressing these debts. Consequently,
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”) does not
apply. 
Applicant solicited financial advice and assistance from a member of her church,
but their meeting was less than productive. More recently, however, she met with a
bankruptcy attorney who has since filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection on her
behalf. Her first payment of 36 monthly payments was to begin on or by July 15, 2009,
although no evidence of such payment was submitted by July 17, 2009. Regardless,
some progress has been made. Further, Applicant appreciates the fact she was
previously irresponsible and is now contrite. 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”) apply. No other mitigating conditions apply.
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance
must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the
guidelines and the whole person concept. 
7
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. Speaking in Applicant’s favor, she is a credible and mature professional. She
completed high school and earned her diploma. Applicant devoted a number of years to
government service. She has raised two children and now cares for both her children
and her grandchild. Applicant regrets having procrastinated in addressing her debts.
Speaking against Applicant is the fact that her debt, some of it reaching back to
2000, remained unaddressed until several months after the January 2009 SOR was
issued and it remained unaddressed until slightly before the June 24, 2009, hearing.
Although her bankruptcy filing is a legitimate method for addressing her debts, her
procrastination left no time to create a demonstrable pattern of regular payment or a
track record of reliable payment minimizing the possibility the petition might later be
dismissed. While a year of regular payments on a 36-month plan would go a long way
toward showing such diligence and commitment, there is no proof of any payments
here. Consequently, there is no persuasive evidence that Applicant has truly made
significant progress in actually satisfying her debts. As noted above, any reasonable
doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information
must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive information. With security
concerns regarding her finances unmitigated, I conclude it is not clearly consistent with
national security to grant Applicant a security clearance. Clearance is denied. 
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
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: Against Applicant
8
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
__________________________
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge