DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 09-03955 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing 
(e-QIP) as part of his employment with a defense contractor on October 5, 2007. After 
an investigation conducted by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Defense 
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR), dated 
June 19, 2009, 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 27, 2009. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on July 15, 2009, admitting three and denying six of 
the allegations under Guideline F. He stated eight of the nine debts had been paid, even 
two that he admitted. He requested a hearing before an administrative judge. 
Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on July 27, 2009, and the case was 
assigned to me on October 5, 2009. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on October 7, 
2009, scheduling a hearing for October 22, 2009. I convened the hearing as scheduled. 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
The government offered five exhibits, marked Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 
5, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his behalf and offered 
one exhibit, marked Applicant Exhibit (App. Ex.) A which was admitted without 
objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on November 6, 2009. 
Applicant waived the 15 day notice requirement (Tr. 5-6). I kept the record open for 
Applicant to file additional documents. Applicant timely filed four additional documents 
marked App. Ex. B through E, which were received without objection. Based on a 
review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to 
classified information is granted.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant admitted three factual allegations in the SOR (SOR 1.a, SOR 1.b, and 
SOR 1.e). He stated that the debts listed in SOR 1.a and SOR 1.e have been paid in 
full. He denied the other six allegations noting that they had also been paid in full. I 
included Applicant's admission in my findings of fact. After a thorough review of the 
pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the following essential findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is 31 years old, and has worked as a computer technician for a defense 
contractor for approximately four years, since February 2006. He served two tours in 
war zones for his employer. He was in Iraq from July 2008 until June 2009, and in 
Afghanistan from June 2009 until present. He came to the hearing from his duty station 
in Afghanistan, and was returning to Afghanistan immediately after the hearing. He is 
single with no children. He has credit for over two years of college. He served six years 
in the United States Marine Corps, two in the reserves (1998-2000) and four on active 
duty (2000-2004). He held a security clearance while on active duty. He received an 
honorable discharge. Applicant's monthly pay is approximately $8,400. Since he is 
stationed in a war zone, he has only minimal monthly expenses of approximately 
$2,000, leaving $6,400 in discretionary or disposable income (Tr. 45-51; Gov. Ex. 1, e-
QIP, dated October 5, 2007; Gov. Ex. 3, DD 214, dated February 2004). 
 
After leaving active duty in 2004, Applicant worked as a car salesman from 
November 2004 until January 2005. He left car sales in January 2005 because he was 
not a good sales person, and was unemployed until June 2005. He worked as a 
computer technician for two different employers from June 2005 until February 2006, 
when he started working for his present employer (Tr. 38-40).  
 
Credit reports ( Gov. Ex. 4, Credit report, dated November 7, 2007, and Gov. Ex. 
5, Credit report, dated June 4, 2009) show the following delinquent debts for Applicant: 
a medical debt in collection for $261 (SOR 1.a); a state tax lien for $5,640 (SOR 1.b); a 
credit card debt charged off for $300 (SOR 1.c); a charged off bank debt for $1,456 
(SOR 1.d); a student loan to a university for $700 (SOR 1.e); a charged off credit card 
account for $1,160 (SOR 1.f); a collection account on a car loan for $8,550 (SOR 1.g); 
and two debts placed for collection for the same insurance company for $470 (SOR 
1.h), and $313 (SOR 1.i). The balance owed on these accounts is $18,800. 
 
 
3 
 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.a is a medical debt. The debt was paid in full in 
December 2008 (Tr. 18-22; Response to SOR, dated February 2, 2009, at 15).  
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.b is for a lien from the state from which Applicant 
entered active duty and returned after active duty. The state claims Applicant filed for 
and received unemployment two months before he was eligible and the lien is to recoup 
the unemployment payments. Applicant claims he was entitled to unemployment at the 
time. The state provides veterans free tuition for college, and also pays them 
unemployment. Applicant was enrolled in college receiving the education free as a 
veteran. He believes he is therefore entitled to unemployment. He contested the lien 
starting in February 2008 but the dispute has yet to be resolved. He has sufficient funds 
to pay the debt if the dispute is not resolved in his favor (Tr. 40-42).   
 
The delinquent debts at SOR 1.c and SOR 1.f are two accounts with the same 
creditor. Both debts have been paid in full (Tr. 22-29; App. Ex. B, Credit report, dated 
December 18, 2009, at 18; App. Ex. D, Letter, November 13, 2009).  
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.d has been paid in full. Applicant did not have a 
receipt for this payment since he came to the hearing from overseas (Tr. 29-31).  
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.e is a direct tuition payment owed to a university. 
The debt has been paid in full (Tr. 31-32; App. Ex. C, Letter, dated November 13, 2009). 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.g is for a car loan. The debt was settled for $2,500 
and paid (Tr. 32-33).  
 
The delinquent debts at SOR 1.h for $470 and SOR 1.i for $313 are to the same 
insurance company. The debts have been paid in full (Tr. 33; App. Ex. E, message, 
dated November 13, 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 must be considered 
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. 
 
4 
 
 
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 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 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: 
 
 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 their 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. The delinquent debts listed in credit reports for Applicant are a security 
concern raising Financial Consideration Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) 
(inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not 
 
5 
 
 
meeting financial obligations). Applicant incurred delinquent debt after leaving active 
duty in 2004 while he was in school and moving from job to job.  
 
 I considered Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (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 AG ¶ 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). The mitigating conditions partially apply. Applicant did not 
provide information to show any circumstances causing him to accumulate delinquent 
debt that were unusual or beyond his control. He had periods of unemployment, but 
received unemployment benefits. He had difficulty finding and holding a good paying 
job. However by February 2006, he was employed and accumulating funds to pay his 
debts. He could incur delinquent debt again. However he acted responsibly because he 
has paid almost all of his delinquent debt. Since his debts have been paid, his finances 
do not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.  
 
I considered FC MC AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to 
repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts). For FC MC AG ¶ 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. Applicant has sufficient discretionary funds to pay his delinquent debts. He 
presented sufficient information to show that eight of the nine delinquent debts have 
been paid in full. The remaining debt is being disputed. Applicant contacted his creditors 
and arranged to make payment of the debts demonstrating a good-faith effort to repay 
his creditors. 
 
I considered FC MC 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 
documentation to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions 
taken to resolve the issue). Applicant disputes the state lien based on recoupment of 
unemployment benefits. The state has a program of free tuition and payment of 
unemployment for veterans while they are in school. Applicant was a veteran and was 
receiving a free college education. Since he received the free tuition, he was eligible for 
unemployment. Applicant provided information to show he has a basis for the dispute 
since he was a veteran, attending school for no fee in a state program for veterans, and 
entitled to receive unemployment. While the dispute has not been resolved, Applicant 
has a reasonable basis for his dispute and is prepared to pay the debt if it is not 
resolved in his favor.  
 
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 
 
6 
 
 
the 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.” 
 
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 that Applicant served 
as a Marine for six years, four of those years on active duty. I also considered that he 
served two tours in the war zones of Iraq and Afghanistan for his employer.  
 
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 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 actions to reduce his 
outstanding indebtedness are 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, including 
evidence of actual debt reduction through payment of debts. Applicant presented 
sufficient information to show he is taking reasonable and responsible action to resolve 
his financial issues. He paid eight of the nine delinquent debts. He disputed the one 
remaining debt, and has a reasonable basis for the dispute. While the dispute has not 
been resolved, Applicant has sufficient funds to cover payment of the unemployment 
benefits, if required. Applicant's management of his finances and payment of past 
obligations indicates he will be concerned, responsible, and careful regarding classified 
information. Applicant mitigated security concerns based on his finances. 
 
Overall, on balance the record evidence leaves me without questions and doubts 
as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, 
 
7 
 
 
I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from financial 
considerations.  
 
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 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.i:  For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge