1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 08-12184
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Brian D. Ashton, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I
conclude that Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(e-QIP) on August 4, 2008. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F on
July 14, 2009. 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
within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR. She answered the SOR in writing
on July 24, 2009, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. DOHA
W hen  SOR allegations are controverted, the government bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient1
to prove controverted allegations. Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. That burden has two components. First, the
government must establish by substantial evidence that the facts and events alleged in the SOR indeed took
place. Second, the government must establish a nexus between the existence of the established facts and
events and a legitimate security concern. See ISCR Case No. 07-18525 (App. Bd. Feb. 18, 2009), (concurring
and dissenting, in part).
GE 1; Tr. 48, 128-129 2
2
received the request on July 27, 2009. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on July 31, 2009, and I received the case assignment on August 5, 2009. DOHA issued
a notice of hearing on August 10, 2009, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on
August 18, 2009. The government offered six exhibits (GE) 1 through 6, which were
received and admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant and one witness
testified on her behalf. She submitted eight exhibits (AE) A through H, which were
received and admitted into evidence without objection. DOHA received the transcript of
the hearing (Tr.) on August 25, 2009. I held the record open until September 1, 2009, to
allow Applicant to submit additional matters.  On September 2, 2009, Applicant’s
counsel requested  a one week extension of time to submit the additional matters. I
granted the request in an Order dated September 3, 2009. Applicant timely submitted
AE I through AE O, without objection. The record closed on September 8, 2009.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Notice
Applicant requested an expedited hearing. In light of this request, Applicant
affirmatively waived her right under ¶ E3.1.8 of the Directive to 15 days notice of the
hearing. (Tr. 9.) 
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.b -
1.m, 1.r, 1.v - 1.z, 1.cc - 1.gg, 1.kk, and 1.oo of the SOR, with explanations. She denied
the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a, 1.n - 1.q, 1.s - 1.u, 1.aa, 1.bb, 1.hh - 1.jj, 1.ll - 1.nn, and
1.pp - 1.vv of the SOR.  She also provided additional information to support her request1
for eligibility for a security clearance.
  Applicant, who is 39 years old, works as a truck driver for a Department of
Defense (DoD) contractor, a position she has held since July 2008. Her interim DOD
security clearance has been withdrawn and she is currently not working. She held a
security clearance with the Department of the Treasury for one year without incident.2
Applicant married her first husband in 1987 and they divorced 18 months later.
They had one daughter, who is now 23 years old and married. Applicant did not receive
child support for her daughter after her divorce. Because doctors diagnosed her
GE 1; Tr. 17, 18,  20, 21.3
Id.; Tr. 22.  Applicant’s former husband has been incarcerated 18 times for non-payment of child support. Tr.4
22.
GE 1; Tr. 18, 20.5
See United States Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. Chapter 8.6
Tr. 175. Applicant testified to a judgment of $1,241 obtained in 1998 by her former landlord. She did not know7
about the judgment until recently. She attempted to contact her former landlord, but she could not find the
landlord, whom she believes is dead. She also attempted to obtain a copy of the complete court record, but
the records have been destroyed. Tr. 93-97. This debt is not listed on the SOR or in the credit reports of
record. See GE 3; GE 4. 
Id. at 22-27.8
3
daughter as bipolar as a young person, her daughter received social security disability
benefits and her former husband does not owe her any back child support.3
Applicant married her second husband in December 1989 and they divorced in
November 1994. They had two sons, who are 20 and 18. Her former husband is
currently paying her $108 a month for child support. In the past, she did not receive
regular child support from her sons’ father, who owes her $17,000 in unpaid child
support.4
Applicant married her current husband in 1995. While they have no children, he
helped raise and provide financial support for her children. Her sons reside at home, but
Applicant’s daughter does not. Applicant has one grandchild.5
In 1991, while married to her first husband, Applicant’s house burned. As a
result, she received funding for low income housing under Section 8 housing.  She6
rented property from 1991 until 1998. At the time she vacated this rental property, she
believed all her rents had been paid and all required repairs were completed and paid.7
In 1993, Applicant attended a local college and culinary institute. She worked as
a sous chef until November 1998. She earned $8 an hour in this position. While at work
in November 1998, she received a telephone call from her sister, advising that her
young daughter tried to commit suicide. Over the next several years, numerous
problems occurred with her daughter, including several more attempts to commit
suicide, removal from the home because her daughter injured Applicant’s younger son,
and special education classes. Because doctors diagnosed Applicant’s daughter as
bipolar, she received many services to manage her daughter’s medical treatment.
Doctors diagnosed Applicant’s younger son with attention deficit disorder. As a result of
these problems and her concerns about leaving her daughter alone, Applicant decided
to stop working and stay home with her children.8
Id.  at 27-32.9
GE 5; Tr. 30, 53-62, 160, 164.10
GE 5; Tr. 160-164, 185-186.11
AE A; Tr. 38-39, 53- 55, 61-62, 160.12
Tr. 37-39.13
4
For a period of time, Applicant’s husband worked two jobs as a trucker. The local
steel mill eventually offered him a full-time job which he accepted in 1998. In 2000,
Applicant’s husband injured his back on the job. He remained away from his job for
three months. During this time, he did not receive any salary or worker’s compensation
payments, as a dispute arose about whether the contractor or subcontractor, for whom
he worked, would pay. He returned to work against his doctor’s advice because his
family needed his income.9
With no income for three months, Applicant and her husband did not pay their
bills. They filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in February 2001. Applicant and her husband
made approximately $12,000 in payments during the bankruptcy. In September 2002,
her husband collapsed because of problems related to his earlier back injury, and he
could no longer work. Applicant’s husband had surgery on his back in November
2002.  10
The bankruptcy included her mortgage. The bank had started foreclosure
proceedings, which had ceased with the filing of the Chapter 13 filing. During the
bankruptcy proceedings, her bankruptcy attorney filed a civil suit against the bank.  She
and the bank resolved this legal action with her providing the bank with title to the house
and a determination she owed no additional money on the house. Applicant’s husband
then purchased a two-bedroom trailer for $2,300, where the family started living in
2002.11
Applicant’s husband did not receive worker’s compensation for a significant
period of time following the reoccurrence of his injury. As a result, they could not make
any additional payments under their bankruptcy plan and got behind in their bills. The
court dismissed their case on March 18, 2003. Applicant’s bankruptcy attorney told
them that they could not file a Chapter 7 petition following the dismissal of the Chapter
13 case. After the dismissal of the bankruptcy petition, Applicant’s husband began
receiving 80% of his salary as his worker’s compensation benefit.12
Applicant and her husband received a $15,000 settlement from their car
insurance carrier in 2003. Applicant enrolled in a four-month truck driving training
program in August 2003. They paid this program’s cost of $9,000 with their settlement
money and used the remaining $6,000 to pay some of their accumulated bills. Applicant
graduated from this program in December 2003.  13
Id. 36, 39-49.14
Id. 132-134.15
Id. 40-42.16
Tr. 138-142, 192.17
This amount includes unpaid medical bills not listed in the SOR. See AE G. 18
AE D; Tr. 97-100, 132-134, 192.19
5
Upon completion of her truck driving training, Applicant returned to work in
December 2003 as a truck driver. Over the next few years, Applicant worked for a
number of trucking companies. She left two truck driving jobs because she could not
earn a living. She drove long-distance for one company and left this job to drive locally
due to family issues.14
In 2004, Appellant’s husband settled his initial worker’s compensation claim for
$21,000. He purchased a larger, used trailer for the family home for $18,000 and paid
some medical bills. They placed the trailer on a rental lot.15
In May 2005, Applicant’s employer provided her with a truck that contained mold.
Because she has asthma, she suffered a severe allergic reaction to the mold. She
missed work for four months. During this time, her husband’s back injury continued to
prevent him from working. Applicant incurred medical bills to treat her asthma, which
she submitted for worker’s compensation payment. Her worker’s compensation case
remains unresolved, as do these bills.16
In August 2006, Applicant’s husband settled his second worker’s compensation
case for $310,000. They purchased a house and land in a rural area for $155,000 cash.
They purchased a used car for $22,000. Because of her husband’s back injury, they
installed a pool for $16,000, which provided therapy for his back, and purchased a
special bed for $6,000. They furnished the house as they had little usable furniture.
They paid $7,800 for her mother’s funeral and placed $50,000 in a retirement annuity.
After these cash purchases, $43,000 remained.  Applicant did not explain why this17
money was not used to pay those medical bills not covered by worker’s compensation
and incurred through December 2006. However, the tax return discussion infra may
explain her financial decisions.  18
After moving to their new house in 2006, Applicant and her husband rented their
trailer under a rent-to-own contract. Under the terms of the contract, the prospective
purchasers agreed to pay the property taxes on the trailer. The prospective purchasers
failed to pay the property taxes and moved. The trailer is for sale. Applicant recently
learned she is responsible for the unpaid taxes for the years 2007 and 2008. She made
arrangements to pay the tax debt of $2,128 over the next year. She paid the initial $720
payment on August 17, 2009. Under the payment plan, she agreed to pay $194 a month
for the next 11 months.  19
Tr. 118, 190.20
Tr. 34, 48-53.21
Id. 50-53, 193.22
AE F; Tr. 113-119.23
AE I; AE J; AE K..24
6
In December 2006, Applicant’s teenage sons sustained serious injuries in a car
accident. Her younger son nearly died in this accident. She incurred medical bills for
their treatment. At the present time, a civil lawsuit is pending. The court has not set a
trial date for this case. The parties are discussing possible settlement, but the terms of
any settlement have not been decided.  20
The doctors released Applicant’s husband to return to work in January 2008.
They decided to work as a husband and wife driving team. Since his return to work, one
of their jobs involved transporting millions of dollars for the Department of Treasury,
which they did without incident. Because the job required them to carry a sawed-off
shotgun and a 9 millimeter gun, as well as ride in a bulletproof truck, Applicant and her
husband found the job very stressful. They decided to end this job.  21
After discussions with other truckers, including husband and wife teams, a review
of costs, and several months of consideration, Applicant and her husband decided to
purchase a truck tractor in May 2009. They determined they could earn more money as
owner-operators. Their truck cost $130,000. They paid $57,000 as a down payment and
anticipate repaying their loan in two and one-half years.  22
Applicant projected their monthly income from owning and operating their truck at
$15,000 to $20,000 a month. Using $16,000 as their income, she determined that their
monthly expenses for operating the truck and paying the truck payment would be
approximately $11,002 and their household monthly expenses would be $4,001, leaving
approximately $997 a month. Her household budget includes two debt repayment plans,
but not the monthly tax debt payment of $194.Their retirement annuity has been cashed
to pay bills, as Applicant and her husband cannot work until the clearance issue is
resolved.23
Applicant submitted her tax returns for 2006, 2007 and 2008. Her 2006 tax return
indicates gross income of $22,000 and a zero taxable income. Her 2007 tax return
indicates gross income of $25,211, a zero taxable income, and $16,560 in medical bills
paid in 2007. Her 2008 tax return indicates gross income of $50,671, taxable income of
$7,314, and $13,567 in medical bills paid in 2008.24
The SOR alleged $26,061 in unpaid debts. Allegation 1.hh referenced a power
company debt of $13,000, which Applicant denied owing. At the hearing, Applicant
provided a letter from the power company, which indicated she did not owe any money
SOR; AE C; AE G; AE M; AE O.25
Response to SOR; AE B; AE L; AE N: Tr. 83-83, 205. 26
7
to it. Subsequent to the hearing, Applicant and her counsel contacted the collection
agency listed as the holder of the debt. The collection agency has not provided specific
information on this debt. Applicant has challenged the debt, in an effort to determine,
what, if any, amount she owes. The majority of the remaining debts, $12,350, concerns
medical bills for Applicant and her family and held by one collection agency. Applicant
believed many of these bills are related to her worker’s compensation claim and her
sons’ automobile accident. Based on Applicant’s evidence, the medical bills in the SOR
breakdown as follows:
Applicant: $8,998 (Allegations 1.c - 1.n, 1.s - 1.u, 1.aa,
1.bb, 1.dd, 1.ee, 1.jj, 1.ll, and 1.oo - 1.rr.)
Husband: $176 (Allegations 1.mm and 1.nn)
Sons: $235 and $1,428 (Allegations 1.r, 1.v - 1.z, 1.cc, 1.ff, and 1.gg)
Applicant’s evidence indicates that her sons’ bills are for medical services provided
between August 2004 and January 2006 and are not related to their accident injuries,
as she believed. I find that her bills between May 2005 and December 2005 are
connected to her work-related asthma problems. These bills total $3,296 (allegations
1.n, 1.s, 1.t, 1.aa, 1.bb, and 1.rr.). I am unable to determine if any of her medical bills
incurred in 2006, 2007 and 2008 are related to her worker’s compensation case. Two
medical bills are her husband’s and were incurred while he did not work.25
Applicant paid the debts listed in SOR allegations 1.ii, 1.kk, and 1.ss. Applicant
requested verification from the hospital that she paid the debts in allegations 1.b and
1.tt, which she believes are duplications of the same debt. She verified a payment to the
hospital in July 2009, under her patient number, which is not the same as the creditor’s
number. The hospital has not responded to her request to confirm her bills are paid. In
the past, Applicant paid some money to the collection agency holding the majority of the
medical debts listed in the SOR. In March 2009, she started a payment plan with this
creditor. She agreed to pay $25 a month and made the payment through September
2009. In the future, the creditor will charge her bank account each month for the
monthly payment. She could not pay the creditor’s recent one-time settlement offer.26
One witness testified on Applicant’s behalf. The witness, an auctioneer, and
Applicant met when Applicant worked selling items at flea markets between 1998 and
2002. The witness requested Applicant to work as a “picker” because Applicant could
select appropriate items for auction. The witness and Applicant developed a strong
friendship. The witness trusted Applicant to care for her elderly mother, as the witness
lived many miles away. Applicant never betrayed this trust by taking money, furnishings
or any items from the home of the witness’s mother. She recommended Applicant for a
AE E; Tr. 197-203.27
8
clearance as she is trustworthy. Applicant’s employer and co-workers described her as
reliable, efficient, hard working, honest, and dependable. Friends described her in
similar positive terms.27
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, 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 commonsense 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, 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. . . .” An
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
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.
 
9
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 relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18:      
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. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant accumulated delinquent debt when her husband sustained
an on-the-job injury and did not receive worker’s compensation payments immediately.
She was unable to pay her obligations for a period of time as the family lacked sufficient
income. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions,
requiring a closer examination.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ Applicant=s
financial worries arose when her husband injured his back at work in 2000. Her medical
bills continued to accumulate and some remain unpaid. This mitigating condition does
not apply. 
Under AG & 20(b), it may be mitigating where Athe 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.@ Applicant’s financial
problems began when her husband injured his back at work in 2000, did not work for
three months, and did not receive worker’s compensation benefits. Her husband re-
injured his back in 2002, causing him to stop working for more than five years. For
sometime after his injury, he did not receive any worker’s compensation benefits. In
2005, Applicant missed four months from her job for a work-related injury. These
10
injuries and the resulting loss of income are beyond her control. Most of the
accumulated debts from this period of time are paid, except some of the medical bills.
Applicant worked at paying the bills she could and obtained a new job skill to help earn
an income for the family. She acted reasonably under the circumstances. This
mitigating condition applies.
Evidence that Athe 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@
is potentially mitigating under AG & 20(c). Applicant did not receive financial counseling.
This mitigating condition is not applicable.
Similarly, AG & 20(d) applies where the evidence shows Athe individual initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.@ Applicant paid
several smaller bills listed in the SOR. She has developed a payment plan for the
unpaid medical bills and two debts not listed in the SOR. Since her husband’s injuries in
2000 and 2002, Applicant has worked diligently, and continues to work, to resolve all
the unpaid bills. She has made major progress in her debt resolution. Her finances are
sound. This mitigating condition partially applies.
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 to allegation 1.hh. The power company confirmed that Applicant does not
owe it any money. Applicant rightfully challenged the validity of this debt with the
creditor. In addition, since more than $3,000 of the debt listed are connected to
Applicant’s worker’s compensation case, her denial of these debts is legitimate as the
debts should be paid as part of her claim. Her medical bills for her worker’s
compensation case have been referred for payment.
Finally, AG ¶ 20 (f) “the affluence resulted from a legal source of income” must
be considered. Applicant’s husband received a large sum of money in 2006. He
received this money when he settled his second worker’s compensation case. This
money came from a legal source and explains why Applicant’s debts are not larger.
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 an applicant’s
conduct and all relevant 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
11
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 decision to grant or deny a security
clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both favorable and
unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the evidence of record,
not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is established and then
whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility for a security
clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct, but on a
reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a nexus
exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
The evidence in support of granting a security clearance to applicant under the
whole person concept is more substantial than the evidence in support of denial. In
reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s
unpaid medical bills are significant. The remaining unpaid taxes and telephone bill are
not large and will be resolved shortly. Applicant’s financial problems began when her
husband injured himself at work and could not work for three months in 2000. During
this period of time, Applicant did not work because of serious issues with her daughter
and younger son, and her husband received no income or worker’s compensation
benefits. They filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition to stabilize their finances and help
them repay their debts. They did not achieve their goal as her husband suffered a
serious relapse of his prior back injury in September 2002, which prevented him from
working for more than five years. The bankruptcy petition was dismissed and their
house returned to the bank.
The loss of income and their house forced Applicant and her family to live in a
small trailer for two years. In 2003, their finances began to improve somewhat. With the
money her husband received from insurance, Applicant received training to return to the
workplace to help contribute to the household costs. They also paid some bills.
Applicant returned to the work place in December 2003. Some months later, her
husband received a $21,000 settlement in his first work injury case. He used most of
this money to buy a larger trailer for the family housing and paid some bills. 
Over the next two years, Applicant’s income fluctuated because some jobs failed
to pay a reasonable income, if at all. In 2005, she missed four months from work
because of her work-related injury. Throughout this period of time, Applicant and her
husband paid their basic bills, but did not resolve all their medical bills. They did not live
beyond their financial means; rather they lived simply, trying to manage their family
issues and finances. The problems with her daughter and younger son placed
significant demands on the family.
12
In 2006, Applicant’s husband received a large settlement for his second work-
related back injury. They used this money wisely, not foolishly. They purchased a
house, not a luxury house, which allowed them to move out of their trailer. Because the
preceding years had been lean, they needed basic furniture for their new house. The
severity of her husband’s back injury necessitated the purchase of an expensive bed
and a pool for exercise. As they live in a rural area, a club with a pool is not available
nearby. Their purchases, which are not extravagant, reflect a consideration for housing
stability for their family and providing basic life needs. They did not use this money to
buy expensive vacations, boats, jewelry, or other luxury items.
Over the last few years, Applicant and her husband strived to attain family
stability and financial security after years of poverty-level living and financial instability.
Their income rose above the poverty level between 2006 and 2008. During this time,
they paid $30,000 in medical bills. They made financial choices that they believed best
served their family, without resorting to overuse of credit cards or loans to buy goods
they could not afford. Applicant and her husband think about how to spend their money
and do so wisely. She is resolving the outstanding medical bills slowly. Thus, these bills
cannot be a source of improper pressure or duress. Of course, the issue is not simply
whether all her debts are paidBit is whether her financial circumstances raise concerns
about her fitness to hold a security clearance. While some debts remain unpaid, they
are insufficient to raise security concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(1).) Applicant and her
husband transported millions of dollars for the Department of the Treasury, without
attempting to take any of this money to help themselves. Her witness trusted Applicant
to care for her elderly mother and her trust was well placed. In looking at the totality of
the hardships Applicant has endured in the last 11 years and her response to her
difficulties, there is little likelihood or concern that Applicant would betray the trust given
to her as a Department of Defense contractor.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from her finances under
Guideline F.
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
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
13
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.t: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.u: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.v: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.w: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.x: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.y: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.z: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.aa: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.bb: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.cc: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.dd: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ee: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ff: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.gg: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.hh: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ii: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.jj: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.kk: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ll: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.mm: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.nn: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.oo: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.pp: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.qq: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.rr: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.ss: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.tt: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.uu: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.vv: For Applicant
14
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge