DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February1
20, 1990), 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 (RAG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department
of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant had agreed to the hearing date in a telephone conversation with Department Counsel more than2
15 days before the hearing (Tr. 12-13).
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXXX, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx )       ISCR Case No. 08-07584
SSN: XXX-XX-XXXX )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Emilio Jaksetic, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
On 15 January 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under
Guideline F.  On 17 February 2009, Applicant answered the SOR, and requested a1
hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me 16 March 2009, and I convened a hearing 19
May 2009.  DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 19 May 2009.2
However, it appears that the debts at 1.s. and 1.t. are the same debt. Although having different account3
numbers, the amounts owed are identical.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations, except for SOR 1.b.–1.j., 1.u.–x., 1.aa.,
1.ee–ff., and 1.hh. She is a 32-year-old financial advisor employed by a defense
contractor since November 2003. She has been continuously employed since at least
September 1996, except for a brief period April-June 2001, when she was on maternity
leave, receiving only disability payments as income. She previously held a clearance in
1998 and 1999, when she was an on-site contractor employee at two government
agencies.
The SOR alleges, and government exhibits substantiate, 36 delinquent debts
attributable to Applicant, totaling over $50,000. Applicant admits 19 debts totaling more
than $37,000;  she denies 17 debts totaling nearly $13,000. Applicant asserts, without3
corroboration that she has paid the debts at 1.ff. and 1.hh. She claimed, also without
corroboration, that she is making payments on the educational debts at 1.o., 1.p., 1.q.,
and 1.r. 
Applicant’s post-hearing submission (A.E. A) later documented that, as of May
2009, she had made four payments totaling almost $1,700 on the educational accounts.
However, over $1,300 of this amount was paid through IRS offsets of her tax refunds in
March and June 2008. Applicant made one regular payment in October 2007 by wage
garnishment and one regular payment in November 2007 by direct remittance. There
have been no credits to the account since June 2008.
The remainder of A.E. A documents a judgment that was satisfied in July 2008
that Applicant did not correlate to any of the alleged debts. She was also able to
document settlement offers—for discounts of 50% or more—from the creditors at SOR
1.b., 1.z., and 1.ee, in spring 2009. However, she did not document that she made
payments on any of the offers. Further, the total indebtedness alleged for those three
debts was only $1,100, an insignificant portion of her total debt.
Applicant attributes her indebtedness to a substantial decline in income while she
was on maternity leave from April-June 2001—a period during which she received
approximately two-thirds of her previous income through medical disability. She also
cites the fact that she receives no support from her child’s father. Many of the debts she
disputes are medical accounts for which she had insurance. However, she did not
corroborate her claims that she paid the necessary co-pays and deductibles associated
with those expenses. She denies other debts because she does not recognize the
creditors, but has not taken into account potential successors-in-interest to the original
creditors. When she received the SOR in January 2009, she began sending letters to
her creditors to establish repayment plans, but had not yet actually established any
repayment plans or paid any of the debts.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
¶19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; ( c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;5
3
Policies
The Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (RAG) list factors to be considered in
evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative
judges must assess both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly
raised by the facts and circumstances presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair
and impartial common sense consideration of the factors listed in RAG ¶ 2(a). The
presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or
against Applicant. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a
case can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the
grant or denial of access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and
the evidence as a whole, the relevant, applicable, adjudicative guideline is Guideline F
(Financial Considerations).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an Applicant’s security clearance. The government
must prove, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted
facts alleged in the SOR. If it does so, it establishes a prima facie case against access
to classified information. Applicant must then refute, extenuate, or mitigate the
government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the Applicant
bears a heavy burden of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.4
Analysis
The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has a history of financial
difficulties dating to at least 2001.  She is not financially sophisticated, and it appears5
from the record that if she was not living beyond her means before the birth of her child,
she was living very close to that line—with little margin for error. A brief decrease in her
income, and the addition of her child to her financial obligations was sufficient to drive
her into extensive delinquent debt. This suggests that poor financial practices already
existed.
¶20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that6
it is unlikely to recur . . . 
¶20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and7
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶20.(c)  the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications8
that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
¶20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.9
4
The mitigating factors for financial considerations provide little help to Applicant.
Her financial difficulties are both recent and multiple.  Strictly speaking, the problems6
are not largely due to circumstances beyond her control. Pregnancy alone is not such a
circumstance, and even concluding that the medical necessity of her maternity leave
was unforeseeable, the three-month duration of that decrease in income does not
reasonably account for the nature and extent of the financial difficulties reflected in her
credit reports. In addition, her inability or unwillingness to pursue financial support from
the child’s father further demonstrates her naivete regarding financial matters. 
Even if I confine my analysis to the 19 debts she admits, $37,000 in delinquent
debt demonstrates just how close to the line or below the line she had to be operating
before her maternity leave. Further, her response has been largely unsatisfactory.  She7
has not documented her claimed efforts at credit counseling or exploring bankruptcy,
nor availed herself of any alternative forms of credit counseling. Thus, there is no
evidence that Applicant has undertaken effective financial counseling. She has not
demonstrated that the problem has been brought substantially under control.  The8
payments that have been paid have not been paid in a timely, good-faith manner.9
Indeed, the only corroborated payments were for her educational loans, were largely
effected through garnishment or IRS offset, and most recently occurred in June 2008.
Whatever efforts she has made to address her poor finances have been sporadic,
ineffectual, and largely undocumented. The record does not indicate when, if ever, her
financial situation will be settled enough for her to make clear progress on her
delinquent debts. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant. Consideration of the whole
person factors yields no different result.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph a–s: Against Applicant
Subparagraph t: For Applicant
Subparagraph u–jj: Against Applicant
5
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 denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge