Authorized by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), Section E3.1.2.2.1
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------- )
SSN: ----------------- )       ISCR Case No. 08-10465
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits and testimony, Applicant’s
request for eligibility for a security clearance is granted.
On or about July 25, 2008, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Sensitive
Positions (SF 86) to obtain a security clearance required in connection with his work for
a defense contractor. After reviewing the results of the ensuing background
investigation, adjudicators for the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued to Applicant a set of interrogatories  to obtain clarification of, and/or additional1
information about potentially disqualifying information in his background. After reviewing
the results of the background investigation, including Applicant’s response to the
interrogatories, DOHA adjudicators were unable to make a preliminary affirmative
 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.2
 Adjudication of this case is controlled by the revised Adjudicative Guidelines, approved by the President on3
December 29, 2005,which were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. Pending
official revision of the Directive, the revised Adjudicative Guidelines take precedence over the guidelines listed
in Enclosure 2 to the Directive.
 SOR ¶¶ 1.n - 1.u erroneously alleged the debts remained as of August 14, 2009. As noted by Applicant in4
his response to the SOR, and by Department Counsel at hearing (Tr. 8 - 9), the date listed was a
typographical error. Accordingly, the parties agreed that the SOR should be amended to indicate that the
debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.n - 1.u were unpaid as of April 14, 2009.
2
finding  that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to allow him access to2
classified information. On April 22, 2009, DOHA issued to Applicant a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which, if established, raise security concerns addressed
in the revised Adjudicative Guidelines  under Guideline F (financial considerations).3
On May 19, 2009, Applicant responded to the SOR and requested a hearing. The
case was assigned to me on July 24, 2009, and I convened a hearing on August 27,
2009. The parties appeared as scheduled. The government presented four exhibits,
which were admitted without objection as Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 4. Applicant
testified but presented no documents. DOHA received the transcript of hearing (Tr.) on
September 4, 2009. The record remained open after the hearing to give Applicant time
to submit additional relevant information. On September 16, 2009, I received Applicant’s
post-hearing submission. It has been admitted into the record without objection as
Applicant’s Exhibit (Ax.) A.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the government alleged that Applicant owes approximately
$50,764 for 24 delinquent debts (SOR ¶¶ 1.a - 1.x) that, as of April 14, 2009,  remained4
unpaid. Applicant admitted with explanation each of these allegations. In addition to the
facts established through his admissions, I have made the following findings of relevant
fact.
Applicant is 45 years old and is seeking a security clearance in connection with
his employment as an engineer for a large defense contractor. He has held that position
since April 2008. He and his wife have been married since October 1995. They have
three children (ages 8, 6, and 4). Applicant’s wife is a stay-at-home mom who home-
schools their children, but brings in no additional income. In early 2008, their middle
child was diagnosed with autism. Notwithstanding the fact the child is high functioning,
Applicant and his wife have had to provide (often at their own expense) physical
therapy, speech therapy, behavioral therapy, occupational therapy, and other medically
related services from neurologists and pediatricians. From about May 2008 through
June 2009, he paid about $800 each month for autism treatment services. In June
2009, he received a grant that now offsets by about $400 Applicant’s monthly medical
expenses.
3
Applicant was steadily employed from March 1998 until May 2007, when he was
laid off. He supported his family through unemployment benefits and whatever he could
earn as a self-employed network and server engineer. After he was laid off, Applicant
had no health insurance until he began his current job, which added to his debts. Even
with the health benefits through his current employer, he incurred additional medical
expenses of about $3,000 when his wife suffered a miscarriage in October 2008. (Gx.
2). The day he began work with his current employer, Applicant was in a car accident in
which his car was totaled, and which caused him to incur additional costs to replace his
ability to get to work. During Applicant’s period of unemployment and under-
employment, Applicant’s father died. His mother died about two weeks before the
hearing. Applicant testified that neither event had much financial impact on him, but that
the only proceeds available to him from their estate will be the sale of their home,
valued at about $36,000. (Tr. 15, 23, 31 - 33, 52 - 53)
After Applicant was laid off, he and his wife used credit cards to offset their loss
of income. They were also unable to stay current on payments to many of their credit
card accounts, which already had balances on them when he became unemployed.
Available information shows that he owes approximately $33,492 for six delinquent
personal credit cards (SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.f, 1.h, 1.I, 1.t, 1.w). Applicant is paying $125
monthly to the SOR ¶ 1.f debt of $2,375. Otherwise, his credit card debts have not been
paid or otherwise resolved. He also owes approximately $15,317 for 10 other retail
credit accounts (SOR ¶¶ 1.e, 1.g, 1.j - 1.n, 1.s, 1.u, 1.x). These debts have not been
paid or otherwise resolved. Applicant disputes that he owes $530 for unpaid rent as
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.c. He asserted that he gave sufficient notice to break the month-to-
month lease of his residence in 2002. This debt remains unresolved. (Tr. 35 - 37) A
$208 delinquent electrical bill alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b arose when Applicant moved into his
current residence in 2005. It remains unpaid, but Applicant testified he has been current
on all of his utilities while in that residence. (Tr. 35)
Five of the listed debts (SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.o, 1.p - 1.r, 1.v) are unpaid medical bills
totaling $1,217. He testified that he has paid the four debts (SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.o, 1.p, 1.r)
that were less than $100 each. His unpaid medical bills arose when he needed care for
his family but did not have medical coverage while he was unemployed. Aside from the
delinquent medical bills listed in the SOR, Applicant testified that he previously paid
between $2,000 and $2,500 in medical bills. (Tr. 27 - 29)
While Applicant was unemployed, he was unable to pay his rent as required. He
managed to pay on time until October 2007, and eventually accrued a $5,000
arrearage, which he has been repaying by adding $400 to his rent payments each
month since he was hired in April 2008. Applicant finished those payments in August
2009. He has also repaid several smaller unpaid medical bills (SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.o, 1.p,
and 1.r; Tr. 35, 41 - 42)
When Applicant responded to DOHA interrogatories in January 2009, he
submitted a Personal Financial Statement (PFS) that showed he had only about $135
remaining each month after expenses, which included $1,900 in debt and back rent
repayments. He is now receiving about $400 each month to offset the cost of treating
 Directive. 6.3.5
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).6
4
his autistic child, and an additional $400 each month, previously paid for back rent, is
now available for debt repayment. (Gx. 2) 
Applicant has not consulted formally with a financial counselor. He has not
sought professional advice about filing bankruptcy or taking other corrective measures.
(Tr. 33 - 34) Applicant has not incurred any additional debt since he has been
employed. The only credit card he now has was issued to him by his employer for work-
related expenses. (Tr. 33)
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,5
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the revised
Adjudicative Guidelines (AG). Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors
listed in ¶ 2(a) of the new guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole person”
concept, those factors are:
(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. 
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not
determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant. However, specific applicable
guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them as they
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified
information. In this case, the pleadings and the information presented by the parties
require consideration of the security concerns and adjudicative factors addressed under
AG ¶ 18, Guideline F (financial considerations).
A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent with the national interest  for an applicant to either receive or continue to6
have access to classified information. The government bears the initial burden of
producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or
revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, the government must prove
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. 
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.7
 See Egan; Revised Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 2(b).8
5
If the government meets its burden, it then falls to the applicant to refute,
extenuate, or mitigate the government’s case. Because no one has a “right” to a
security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.  A person who7
has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the
government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the government has a compelling
interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgment, reliability and
trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or her own. The
“clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access to classified information in
favor of the government.8
Analysis
Financial Considerations
The security concern about Applicant’s finances, as stated in AG ¶ 18, is that 
[f]ailure 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 government presented sufficient information to support the allegation in SOR
¶ 1.a - 1.x; that is, that Applicant accrued almost $50,000 in delinquent personal debt
through April 2008. Applicant is making payments on one credit card debt, and he has
paid some of the smaller medical debts attributable to him. Further, he disputes a debt
for unpaid rent from 2002. However, those debts account for only 2% of the total debt
he owes. Applicant did not submit any information to show that he has paid or resolved
any other of his debts, which have been delinquent for up to two years. I conclude the
record supports those allegations and requires application of the disqualifying conditions
listed at AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history
of not meeting financial obligations).
By contrast, available information shows that Applicant, the sole income earner
for his family, was either unemployed or under-employed for a year before he was hired
by his current employer in April 2008. His loss of income resulted in several delinquent
debts, caused him to fall behind on his rent, and kept him from staying current on
whatever debts he already had when he was laid off. Earlier in 2008, one of his children
was diagnosed with autism, which has resulted in additional expenses despite having
health coverage through work. After he was hired by his current employer, Applicant
began repaying $5,000 in  past due rent, a process he completed before the hearing.
6
He has also paid smaller debts as his income allows. His current finances reflect that he
has not incurred any new debts, and that, thanks to an assistive grant for the treatment
of his autistic child, he has at least $500 remaining after expenses, which include
ongoing repayments of past due debts. 
Available information requires application of the mitigating conditions at AG ¶
20(b) (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); 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); and AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort
to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts).
The ongoing presence of significant of unpaid delinquent debt does not
automatically mean Applicant should be disqualified. This amount of debt certainly
raises the possibility that Applicant could resort to illegal means to get money to pay his
debts. However, the analysis here must also consider, regardless of the amount,
Applicant’s response to his adverse financial circumstances and his overall approach to
money management. Applicant established that he has been paying what he can since
his income returned. His ability to repay his debts has been hampered by expenses
arising from his wife’s miscarriage, a car accident, which totaled his car, and medical
expenses for his autistic child. Available information also shows that he has a positive
monthly cashflow that will enable him to continue making payments. On balance, I
conclude that the security concerns about his unpaid debt are mitigated.
Whole Person Concept
I have evaluated the facts presented and have applied the appropriate
adjudicative factors under Guideline F. I have also reviewed the record before me in the
context of the whole person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is 45 years old and
presumed to be a mature, responsible adult. Indeed, he is a dedicated father and
husband, who is doing what he can to overcome unforeseen financial and personal
setbacks. He knows he must repay a critical mass of personal debt. His first priority was
to repay $5,000 in back rent so he could keep his family in the home they have
occupied since 2005. Applicant was been candid and forthcoming about his finances in
his application for clearance, and in his response to DOHA interrogatories. There has
been no financial or other misconduct on his part, and his difficulties have been limited
to a two year period of unemployment and subsequent recovery. Applicant’s testimony
at the hearing was likewise straightforward. As for documentation of his actions to repair
his finances, the resolution of his past due rent in the year before the hearing supports
his claimed intent to satisfy his debts now that he is again employed. Available
information about his income and expenses shows that much of his monthly expenses
has been directed at debt payments. His continued employment, actions to date, and
positive cashflow make it likely that he will continue to resolve his debts and that he will
not incur new unpayable debts. A fair and commonsense evaluation of this record
7
shows that the security concerns raised by Applicant’s credit history are mitigated, and
his finances do not put him at risk of acting contrary to the national interest.
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.x: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is clearly consistent with the national interest for
Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security
clearance is granted.
                            
                                                    
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge