DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 09-02065 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing 
(e-QIP) on November 18, 2008, as part of his employment with a defense contractor. 
On June 11, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a 
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns for financial 
considerations under Guideline F. 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 on June 19, 2009. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR in writing on June 30, 2009. He admitted the ten 
allegations under Guideline F with explanation. He requested a hearing before an 
administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on July 10, 2009, 
and the case was assigned to me on July 20, 2009. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing 
on July 30, 2009, for a hearing on August 19, 2009. Applicant signed for the Notice of 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
Hearing on August 5, 2009. I convened the hearing as scheduled. The government 
offered four exhibits, marked Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 4, which were 
received without objection. Applicant and one witness testified on his behalf and offered 
four exhibits, marked Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) A through D which were received 
without objection. The record was left open for Applicant to submit additional 
documents.  Applicant timely submitted four additional documents, marked App. EX. E 
through H.  Department counsel had no objection to the admission of the documents 
(Gov. Ex. 5, Memorandum, dated September 9, 2009), and they were admitted. DOHA 
received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on August 25, 2009. Based on a review of the 
case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified 
information is granted. 
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant signed for the Notice of Hearing on August 5, 2009. Applicant is 
entitled to 15 days notice of hearing (Directive E3.1.8). Applicant discussed with 
Department Counsel the hearing date of August 19, 2009, prior to the mailing of the 
Notice of Hearing. Accordingly, actual notice was given more than 15 days prior to the 
hearing. However, Applicant signed for the Notice of Hearing only 14 days prior to the 
hearing. He waived the 15 days notice requirement (Tr. 4-5). 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is 35 years old and has been a computer programmer for a defense 
contractor for three years. He is a college graduate with a degree in computer science. 
This is his first request for a security clearance. He is married with five children, ages 
four to 17. Three of his children have profound disabilities, one with cerebral palsy, one 
with a seizure disorder, and one with a heart condition. The children are in wheelchairs, 
and receive support from the State for their disabilities (Tr. 18-20). Applicant's monthly 
net pay is $3,100. The family receives $1,500 monthly for support of the disabled 
children, for a total monthly income of $4,600. Their monthly expenses are about 
$4,100, leaving approximately $500 in monthly disposable funds. Applicant has $9,000 
in his 401K account. Other than the delinquent debts listed in the SOR, his other bills 
are current (Tr. 20-31). 
 
Credit reports list the following financial issues for Appellant: a medical debt of 
$1,264 (SOR 1.a); a credit card debt in collection for $680 (SOR 1.b); a credit card debt 
in collection for $956 (SOR 1.c); a credit card debt in collection for $4,787 (SOR 1.d); a 
credit card debt in collection for $418 (SOR 1.e); another credit card debt in collection 
for $261 (SOR 1.f); a credit card debt in collection for $1,831 (SOR 1.g); a credit card 
debt in collection for $500 (SOR 1.h); a debt for an automobile repossession for $306 
(SOR 1.i); and a medical debt in collection for $68 (SOR 1.j; Gov. Ex. 3, credit report, 
dated May 29, 2009; Gov. Ex. 4, credit report, dated December 11, 2008). 
 
3 
 
 
Applicant's wife handles the family finances. Applicant's wife testified that their 
debt problems started when Applicant was a married college student with children. He 
looked for a job after college and incurred continuing expenses for the care of his five 
children. Three of the children have profound disabilities requiring expensive and 
extensive medical care. There was always a lag between the family and medical 
personnel discovering that the children had a disability requiring medical and 
specialized care and the state providing the care or covering the children's medical care 
expenses. The family used credit cards to assist with purchasing needed necessities of 
life and medical care for the children. They were unable to pay all of their debts because 
of the needs of the children (Tr. 10-11, 33-36, 40-41). Applicant and his wife started 
working with a debt management company in mid 2008 for assistance in paying their 
debts. Their first step was to determine the creditors and how much was owed them. It 
took Applicant's wife almost a year to get the required information. Applicant entered an 
agreement with the debt management company in July 2009 for management of six of 
their debts (Tr. 30-31, 41-42; See, App. Ex. D, Debt Management payment schedule, 
dated August 5, 2009).  
 
The delinquent debt alleged in SOR 1.a is a medical bill for Applicant after an 
emergency room visit in 2006 that was not covered by the family insurance plan. One of 
their children was hospitalized when Applicant went to a hospital emergency room twice 
with a reaction to medication. Applicant and his wife did not know that the second trip 
was not fully covered by their insurance plan. The delinquent debt is included in the 
debt management plan (Tr. 31-33). 
 
The delinquent debts at SOR 1.b, 1.c, 1.f, 1.h, and 1.i are credit card debts and 
are included in Applicant's debt management plan (Tr. 40-42; App. Ex. D, Repayment 
Schedule, dated August 5, 2009). Applicant has made payments to the debt 
management company according to the plan (App. Ex. F, Account summary and debits, 
dated September 2, 2009; See, Gov. Ex. 2, Answers to Interrogatories, dated April 22, 
2009, at 4 and 5). The delinquent debt at SOR 1.d is a credit card debt. Applicant's wife 
thought that the debt had been paid but learned that it had not been completely cleared. 
Applicant and his wife entered an agreement with the present collection agency, a law 
firm, to settle the account for $1,256.27, payable at $75 monthly. Payments have been 
made according to the plan (App. Ex. C, Letter, dated July 28, 2009; App. Ex. G, 
Cancelled check, dated August 26, 2009; See, Gov. Ex. 2, Answers to Interrogatories, 
dated April 22, 2009, at 3).  
 
At the time of the hearing, Applicant's wife and the debt management company 
had not been able to identify or verify two other debts, SOR 1.e, and 1.g.  Since the 
hearing, the creditor for SOR 1.g has been identified and added to the debt 
management plan (Tr. 42-43; App. Ex. H, Payment Information, dated September 2, 
2009). The debt management company does not work with the creditor holding the 
delinquent debt at SOR 1.g. Applicant and his wife entered a separate agreement with 
that creditor to pay $50 monthly until the debt is satisfied.  
 
4 
 
 
Applicant learned after extensive inquiries that the medical debt at SOR 1.j was 
an old debt that he and his wife thought had been paid. They have paid the debt in full 
(App. Ex. E, E-mail, dated September 2, 2009). 
 
Applicant presented two letters of recommendation. A friend wrote that he has 
known Applicant for over five years and would trust him with his life. He knows of no 
better person than Applicant to be a friend and hard worker. He gives Applicant his full 
recommendation (App. Ex. A, Letter, dated, August 4, 2009). Another friend writes he 
has known Applicant since high school over 17 years ago. Applicant has always been 
responsible, trustworthy, and loyal. The friend has a security clearance and endorses 
Applicant for a security clearance (App. Ex. B, Letter, dated August 7, 2009). 
 
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 used 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, 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 
 
5 
 
 
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. 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations: 
 
 Under the financial considerations 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 (AG ¶ 18). Similarly, an individual who 
is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his 
obligations to protect classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one 
aspect of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
 A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial 
obligations. Applicant's delinquent debts as listed on credit reports and admitted by 
Applicant are a security concern raising Financial Considerations Disqualifying 
Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC 
AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations).   
 
 I considered the Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC) raised 
by Applicant's testimony. 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), 
and FC MC ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the financial problems 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) apply. Applicant incurred delinquent debt 
when he was a married college student and had children that were profoundly disabled 
and needed extensive medical care. While Applicant and his wife received assistance 
from the state, it was not always timely received, causing them to use credit cards for 
living expenses. Applicant and his wife first considered the needs of their children in 
deciding the priority for the use of their funds. These conditions were beyond Applicant's 
control. Since the children are all now receiving timely assistance from the state and 
Applicant is employed, the circumstances causing delinquent debt are not likely to 
 
6 
 
 
recur. Since the family receives timely state assistance and has sufficient funds to pay 
delinquent debts, they entered a payment plan with a debt management company, and 
have approved payment plans with other creditors to pay debts. Applicant established 
that he acted responsibly towards his finances under the circumstances. 
 
 I considered FC MC 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). Applicant presented documentation to establish he sought 
and received assistance from a debt management organization. He has a plan to 
resolve his finances and is making payments on that plan, so there are clear indications 
that his financial problems are being resolved. 
 
 I considered FC MC ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to 
repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts). For FC MC ¶ 20(d) to apply, 
there must be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” to repay, and “evidence” of a 
good-faith effort to repay. A systematic, concrete method of handling debts is needed. 
Good faith means acting in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and 
adherence to duty or obligation. Applicant presented information to show he is paying 
his delinquent debts. He has an agreed payment plan with a debt management 
company that is paying seven of his ten debts. He has agreed payment plans with two 
other creditors and is paying according to those plans. He paid one debt in full. 
Applicant appears to have sufficient resources to make the agreed payments on his 
delinquent debts. He presented a concrete plan to pay his delinquent debts. His plans to 
pay debts which were incurred by circumstances beyond his control are reasonable, 
prudent, and honest. Applicant presented sufficient information to establish a good-faith 
effort to pay creditors or resolve debts. His finances are under control and he has acted 
responsibly. He mitigated security concerns for financial considerations. 
 
 “Whole Person” Analysis  
 
 Under the whole person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
relevant 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. 
 
 
7 
 
 
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.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered Applicant's good 
reputation for trustworthiness and reliability at work and in the community. I considered 
that most of Applicant's debts are directly attributed to the need to provide support and 
assistance to his disabled children.  
 
Applicant must establish a "meaningful track record" of debt payment, including 
evidence of actual debt reduction through payment of debts. He is not required, as a 
matter of law, to establish that he paid off each and every debt listed in the SOR. All that 
is required is that he has a plan to resolve his financial problems and takes significant 
action to implement that plan. The entirety of his financial situation and his actions can 
reasonably be considered in evaluating the extent to which his plan to reduce his 
outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. Available, reliable information about 
the person's behavior, 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.   
 
Applicant established a meaningful track record of debt payment by presenting 
sufficient information to show he has payment plans in effect for his delinquent debts 
and his payments are current according to the plan. He has sufficient monthly income to 
meet his present obligations. Applicant demonstrated that his plans to pay his 
delinquent debts are credible and realistic. He is managing his finances responsibly 
under the circumstances. The management of present finances and past obligations 
indicates Applicant will be concerned, responsible, and not careless in regard to 
classified information. Applicant is not financially overextended and he is living within his 
means. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with no questions or doubts as to 
Applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. He established his suitability for a 
security clearance. I conclude Appellant has mitigated the security concerns arising 
from his financial situation. 
 
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 
 
8 
 
 
  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 
  Subparagraph 1.j:   For Applicant 
 
Conclusions 
 
 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. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge