1 
 
 
                            
                   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
                                                            )  ISCR Case No. 08-08900 
                                                            )                                 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Esquire, Department  Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
ANTHONY, Joan Caton, Administrative Judge: 
 
 After a thorough review of the written record in this case, I conclude that 
Applicant failed to rebut or mitigate the Government’s security concerns under Guideline 
F, Financial Considerations. Her eligibility for a security clearance is denied. 
 
Applicant completed and certified an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations 
Processing (e-QIP) on May 27, 2008. On April 24, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings 
and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing   
security concerns 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 within the Department of Defense for 
SORs issued after September 1, 2006.  
  
 On May 21, 2009, Applicant answered the SOR in writing and requested that her 
case be determined on the record in lieu of a hearing. The Government compiled its File 
 
2 
 
 
of Relevant Material (FORM) on July 16, 2009. The FORM contained documents 
identified as Items 1 through 8.  By letter dated July 16, 2009, DOHA forwarded a copy 
of the FORM to Applicant, with instructions to submit any additional information and/or 
objections within 30 days of receipt.  Applicant received the file on July 20, 2009. Her 
response was due on August 19, 2009. She did not submit any information within the 
required time period. On October 8, 2009, the case was assigned to me for a decision.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 The SOR contains 24 allegations of financial delinquency under AG F, Financial 
Considerations (SOR ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.x.). In her Answer to the SOR, dated May 21, 
2009, Applicant admitted 12 of the Guideline F allegations of financial delinquency (¶¶ 
1.a., 1.c., 1.e., 1.f., 1.g., 1.h., 1.k., 1.m., 1.n., 1.s., 1.v., and 1.x.). Applicant’s admissions 
are admitted herein as findings of fact.  
 
 In her answer to the SOR, Applicant denied 12 Guideline F allegations (¶¶ 1.b., 
1.d., 1.i., 1.j., 1.l., 1.o., 1.p., 1.q., 1.r., 1.t., 1.u., and 1.w.). The allegations were 
corroborated in credit reports in the record, which were marked as Items 3, 7, and 8. 
Eight of the allegations that Applicant denied were based on information she supplied in 
response to Question 28 on her e-QIP, which was marked as Item 4 in the record. The 
following record evidence establishes Applicant’s responsibility for the delinquent debts 
that she denied: SOR ¶ 1.b. (Item 8 at 2; Item 3 at 48-49, 59); SOR ¶ 1.d. (Item 8 at 2; 
Item 7 at 10; Item 3 at 26, 51-52, 62); SOR ¶ 1.i (Item 7 at 4; Item 3 at 13); SOR 1.j. 
(Item 4 at 37; Item 7 at 5,7; Item 3 at 60); SOR ¶ 1.l. (Item 4 at 33; Item 7 at 7, 12); SOR 
¶ 1.o. (Item 4 at 37; Item 3 at 49, 61; Item 7 at 9; Item 8 at 1); SOR ¶ 1.p. (Item 4 at 35; 
Item 8 at 2; Item 7 at 9; Item 3 at 22, 51, 62); SOR ¶ 1.q. (Item 4 at 35-36; Item 7 at 10; 
Item 3 at 50); SOR ¶ 1.r. (Item 4 at 34-35; Item 8 at 2; Item 7 at 10; Item 3 at 24, 51, 
62); SOR ¶ 1.t. (Item 9 at 2; Item 7 at 11; Item 3 at 26, 52, 62); SOR ¶ 1.u. (Item 4 at 36; 
Item 7 at 11); and SOR ¶ 1.w. (Item 4 at 38; Item 7 at 12).   
 
 Applicant, who is 29 years old, has been employed since October 2007 as an 
electrical designer by a defense contractor. She has never been married. She is the 
mother of two children. Her daughter was born in 2002, when she was in a relationship 
which has since dissolved. She entered a second relationship in about 2005, and her 
son was born in 2006. Applicant currently lives in a spouse-like relationship with her 
son’s father. The household also includes her partner’s daughter. (Item 3 at 3-4; Item 4.)  
 
 In January 2009, Applicant responded to DOHA interrogatories and provided a 
personal financial statement. She reported that her net monthly income from salary was 
$2,177. She reported that her partner’s net monthly salary was $1,210. She also 
reported that she received $248 each month in child support. Applicant’s total net 
monthly household income was $3,635. (Item 5 at 5.) 
 
 Applicant’s monthly fixed expenses are as follows: rent, $900; groceries, $344; 
clothing, $20; utilities, $420; car expense, $191; insurance, $3.60; medical expense, 
$6.00; and alimony/child support/day care, $676, for a total of $2,560.60. (Item 5 at 5.) 
 
3 
 
 
 Applicant owes about $1,200 in student loans. She pays $51 each month on her 
student loan debt. In her financial statement she identified the student loan debt as 
“current debts” and stated: “All other debt is past due debt not currently paying on.” She 
reported a monthly remainder of $1,024. (Item 5 at 5.)  
 
  The delinquent debts alleged on the SOR total $23,430. In explanatory materials 
she provided with her answer to the SOR, Applicant reported that she was in good 
standing with her creditors until 2001, when she became pregnant and lost her job. She 
was unemployed for at least two months. In May 2002, her automobile was 
repossessed, and she owed a delinquency of $7,042. The delinquent automobile debt is 
alleged at SOR ¶ 1.l. and has not been satisfied. Applicant reported the repossession 
on her e-QIP. In her answer to the SOR, Applicant denied the debt and stated that it 
was no longer on her credit report. (Item 1; Item 3 at 1, 3; Item 4 at 33.) 
 
 Applicant’s financial difficulties continued. She separated from her daughter’s 
father and found it difficult to make ends meet as a single parent. She moved to a new 
community in 2005 in order to find a better job. In 2006, she became pregnant again 
and decided to live with her current partner. She remained at home for a time to care for 
her two children and her partner’s child. Her partner found work but was soon laid off. In 
the spring of 2007, Applicant applied for her current job. She was hired in October 2007. 
(Item 3 at 3-4.) 
 
 Applicant has worked hard at her job as an electrical designer. In a letter to 
DOHA in January 2009, she reported that she would receive a bonus of $750 in 
February 2009. She also reported that she had filed her 2008 income tax return and 
expected to receive a refund of $4,200. She stated that she intended to use her bonus 
and her tax refund to pay her delinquent debts.  (Item 6 at 2.) 
 
 Of the delinquent debts alleged on the SOR, four were debts of less than $100 
(SOR ¶¶ 1.n., 1.q., 1.s., and 1.w.). Seven delinquent debts alleged on the SOR were in 
amounts between $100 and $300 (SOR ¶¶ 1.e., 1.k., 1.o., 1.p., 1.r., 1.u., and 1.v.). Two 
delinquent debts alleged on the SOR were in amounts between $600 and $700 (SOR 
¶¶ 1.d. and 1.m.). Three additional delinquent debts were for larger amounts: SOR ¶ 
1.g. ($3,279), SOR ¶ 1.h. ($6,913), and SOR ¶ 1.l ($7,042). (Item 1.) 
 
 The record establishes that Applicant paid or settled two of her delinquent debts 
in February 2009: the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.j. ($311) and the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 
1.o. ($255.) 
  
 In her answer to the SOR, Applicant claimed she had made arrangements to pay 
the debts alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.k. and 1.m. However, she failed to provide 
documentation to corroborate her assertions. (Item 3 at 1-2.) 
 
  Applicant claimed she had contacted the national credit bureaus and her state’s 
Department of Health and Human Services to dispute several of the debts alleged on 
the SOR. In her answer to the SOR, she claimed to have disputed the debt alleged at 
 
4 
 
 
                                           
SOR ¶ 1.b., but she also reported that the credit bureaus concluded that the debt was 
hers, and, as a consequence, she was contemplating possible legal action.1 She 
disputed SOR ¶ 1.d. as “not accurate. She claimed she filed a dispute with the national 
credit bureaus to contest the debt alleged SOR ¶ 1.f. as “outside the statute of 
limitations for [her] state,” but the credit bureaus did not find in her favor and she was 
contemplating possible legal action. She also claimed she disputed the delinquent 
medical debts alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.p., 1.r., and 1.t. because they were incurred when 
she had medical insurance. (Item 3 at 1-2.) 
 
 Applicant also denied responsibility for the delinquent debts alleged at SOR ¶¶ 
1.l., 1.q., 1.u., and 1.w. because they no longer appear on her credit reports. She 
claimed that she had disputed the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.w. as erroneous, and, as a 
result, the credit bureaus had removed it from her credit reports. Applicant’s credit 
report of March 6, 2009, corroborates her claims that she initiated disputes regarding 
the delinquent debts alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.d., 1.p., 1.r., and 1.t. However, she provided 
no documentation to support her assertion that she disputed the medical debts alleged 
at SOR ¶¶ 1.p., 1.r., and 1.t. with her state Department of Health and Human Services, 
nor did she provide documentation to corroborate her claim that she filed disputes with 
the national credit bureaus regarding the delinquent debts alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.b., 1.f., 
1.i., and 1.w.  (Item 3 at 1-2; Item 8)     
 
  In her answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that she consulted a workplace 
counselor and had “received advice and guidance on how [to] remedy [her] financial 
situation.” She also stated she had spoken with a mortgage banker about repairing her 
credit so that she could purchase a home “in the near future.” (Item 3 at 2.)  
 
         Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the 
Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security, and 
it has emphasized that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the 
Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the 
authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine 
whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. 
at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant 
an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.”  Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended and modified.    
 
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 
 
1 In her answer to the SOR, Applicant claimed that the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.i was a duplicate of the 
debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.b. However, she did not provide documentation to corroborate her claim.  (Item 3 
at 1.) 
 
5 
 
 
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, the administrative judge applies these guidelines 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 in seeking to obtain 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 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).  
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
6 
 
 
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 substantial delinquent debt and was unable 
or unwilling to pay her creditors. This evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially 
disqualifying conditions. 
 
Several mitigating conditions could apply to Appellant’s case. If the financially 
delinquent 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,” then AG ¶ 20(a) might apply. If 
“the 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,” then AG ¶ 20(b) might apply. If “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,” then AG ¶ 20(c) might apply. If “the individual 
initiated a good faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” then 
AG ¶ 20(d) might apply.  Finally, if “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,” then AG ¶ 20(e) might apply. 
 
Applicant has a history of financial delinquencies that dates to at least 2001 and 
2002. Her delinquencies are recent and on-going. They have occurred under 
circumstances that are likely to recur.  
 
Applicant reported that she was fired from a job in 2001 and was unemployed for 
at least two months. In subsequent years, she and her partners have experienced some 
financial hardship and voluntary and involuntary unemployment. However, she has 
been steadily employed by her present employer since October 2007. In her financial 
 
7 
 
 
statement of January 2009, she reported a monthly remainder of $1,024. In 
correspondence with DOHA in January 2009, she stated that she planned to use her 
$4,200 income tax refund and her yearly bonus of $750 to pay her delinquent debts. 
Despite having the resources to pay or settle many of her smaller delinquent debts, 
Applicant provided evidence to corroborate payment of only two of the 24 debts alleged 
on the SOR. The record does not reflect that the circumstances that gave rise to her 
delinquencies were beyond her control. Applicant has made promises to pay or settle 
most her debts in the future. However, in determining an individual's security 
worthiness, the Government cannot rely on the possibility that an applicant might 
resolve his or her outstanding debts at some future date. ISCR Case No. 98-0614 at 5 
(App. Bd. Jul. 12, 1999).  
 
While Applicant spoke with a counselor about her financial situation, she failed to 
provide clear indications that her financial problems are being resolved or are under 
control. Additionally, she argued that the statute of limitations in her state precluded the 
collection of some of the debts alleged on the SOR. Applicant’s argument reflects a 
misunderstanding of the responsibilities required of one who is trusted to protect 
classified information. Indeed, DOHA’s Appeal Board has emphasized that “reliance on 
the non-collectability of a debt does not constitute a good-faith effort to resolve the debt 
within the meaning of the Directive.”  ISCR Case No. 07-16841 at 5 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 
2008). 
 
Applicant asserted that she had disputed several of her delinquent debts. Her 
credit report corroborated that she had disputed four debts alleged on the SOR. She 
also asserted that several other debts had been removed from her credit report as the 
result of her disputes. However, she provided no documentation to corroborate the 
status of the debts that were no longer listed on her credit reports, and she failed to 
provide documentation to substantiate the disputes or whether they had been resolved. 
 
 I conclude that AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply to the facts of Applicant’s case. I also 
conclude that while Applicant receives some credit under AG ¶¶ 20(b), 20(c), 20(d), and 
20(e), the partial application of these mitigating conditions is insufficient to mitigate the 
facts of her case. 
 
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. 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 
 
8 
 
 
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.        
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant has obviously worked hard 
to excel at her work. Her employer has appreciated her efforts and has recognized them 
with a bonus. However, she has failed to pay or satisfy the majority of her financial 
delinquencies, many of which are several years old. 
 
Additionally, Applicant’s financial delinquencies occurred when she was a mature 
adult. She failed to satisfy her creditors even when she had sufficient funds to do so. 
She promised to pay her debts at some time in the future, but she has failed to put 
forward plans which show that she and her creditors have agreed to specific payments 
at specific times to satisfy her indebtedness. She has also argued that some of her old 
debts are no longer legally collectible. Her failure to take affirmative action to pay or 
resolve the majority of her delinquent debts continues to raise security concerns about 
her judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. 
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts at the present 
time as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For these 
reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from her 
financial delinquencies.  
 
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 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.i.: Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 1.j.:   For Applicant 
   
  Subparagraphs 1.k. through 1.n.: Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 1.o.:   For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.p. through 1.x.: Against Applicant 
  
    
 
9 
 
 
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 eligibility for a security 
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
                                                     
_________________ 
Joan Caton Anthony 
Administrative Judge