1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 06-21256
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant completed a security clearance application (SF-86) on February 6,
2006. On September 9, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising 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, which are effective for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
In an undated response to the SOR, received by DOHA on October 9, 2009,
Applicant admitted three of 21 allegations set forth in the SOR and requested a hearing.
DOHA assigned the case to me on November 3, 2009. The parties agreed to a hearing
date of December 18, 2009. A notice of hearing was issued to that effect on November
13, 2009. The hearing was convened as scheduled. Department Counsel introduced six
documents, which were accepted into the record without objection as exhibits (Exs.) 1-
6. Applicant gave testimony and offered eight documents, admitted into the record
without objection as Ex. A-H. Applicant was given until January 8, 2010, to supplement
 SOR allegation ¶ 1.a.      1
 Ex. 1 (SF-86), but see Tr. 59. Applicant testified his divorce occurred in 2005.      2
 Tr. 64.      3
 Id.      4
 Tr. 49-50.      5
 See Tr. 62. Applicant was also unemployed for about four weeks in 2003.      6
2
the record with any additional documents. The transcript (Tr.) of the proceeding was
received on December 28, 2009. On January 7, 2010, a 14-page document was
received from Applicant without objection and accepted into the record as Ex. I. The
record was closed on January 8, 2010. Based on a thorough review of the testimony,
submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant failed to meet his burden regarding the
financial considerations security concerns raised. Security clearance denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 57-year-old senior systems engineer working for a defense
contractor. He has worked for the same employer since August 2007. Applicant earned
a high school diploma and has completed two years of college. He is married and has a
child from a previous marriage.
Applicant was separated from his first wife in 2001. Paying for two households
and providing spousal and child support proved to be financially devastating. His ex-
wife would not sign a balloon loan on the family home which would reduce Applicant’s
house payments and forestall foreclosure. Applicant was advised to file for Chapter 7
bankruptcy as a method to gain approval for refinancing his home. Once his home was
secure, he let the bankruptcy action be dismissed.  Applicant was granted a divorce in1
January 2004.  His spousal support has since been reduced to about $300 a month in2
support.
In February 2005, Applicant married his current spouse, who works part-time in
daycare. Applicant pays for their household expenses while his wife pays for groceries
and miscellaneous expenditures, such as eating out.  His daughter, now a teen, moved3
in with them in about 2006. Consequently, he ceased paying child support around that
time.  His daughter suffers from diabetes, for which medical attention has been required4
and, on at least one occasion, has demanded emergency medical treatment.  In 2007,5
he was laid off for about two months during a reduction in force at his previous place of
employment.6
Since his separation, Applicant has accumulated some debts which became
delinquent. Most of those debts appear to have been owed since the early to mid-
2000s. Regarding those debts which Applicant wrote after the hearing that payments
had been made or would soon be made, he stated that evidence could be later
 See Ex. I (Post-hearing submission) at 1-4. At the hearing, however, both parties were told the record      7
would close upon my receipt of any post-hearing submissions, the deadline for which was January 8, 2010.
Tr. 69-70.
 Tr. 52-53.      8
 Tr. 21.      9
 Tr. 22.      10
 Tr. 22; Ex. A (Receipt).      11
 Tr. 23.      12
 Ex. I, supra, note 7 at 2.      13
 Tr. 25; Ex. B (Receipt).      14
 Tr. 25; Ex. I, supra, note 7 at 2.      15
 Tr. 26; Ex. C (Receipt).      16
 Tr. 26; Ex.DI (Receipt).      17
3
“provided upon request.”  Regarding those accounts Applicant cannot identify, he7
testified that he formally disputed their entry, but failed to submit evidence of such
disputes.  As noted in the SOR allegations, ¶¶ 1.b – 1.u., the debts at issue are:8
1.b. CREDITOR (MEDICAL) – $431 owed. Unknown account. Applicant stated that he
has disputed this debt’s inclusion on his credit report, but has yet to receive a
response.  9
1.c. CREDITOR (MEDICAL) – $360 owed. Unknown account. Applicant stated that he
has disputed its inclusion on his credit report, but has yet to receive a response.  10
1.d. CREDITOR – $199 owed. Paid. 11
1.e. UTILITY – $915 in collection. Under investigation. Applicant stated that he
remembers paying this utility balance, but did not retain evidence of payment.  After12
the hearing, he attempted to obtain alternative proof of payment from the collection
agency, but stated that he has not yet received a response.13
1.f. CREDITOR – $7.00 owed. Paid.14
1.g. CREDITOR (MEDICAL) – $827 owed. Prepared to pay. Applicant states he has
made arrangements to pay off this balance in two payments in February and March
2010.15
1.h. CREDITOR – $272 owed. Paid.16
1.i. CREDITOR – $117 owed. Paid.17
 Tr. 27; Ex. I, supra, note 7 at 3.      18
 Tr. 28.      19
 Ex. I, supra, note 7 at 3.      20
 Id.      21
 Tr. 30-32. W hile it was agreed among the parties that this may indicate that the debt was resolved, it was      22
also agreed that Applicant would provide some evidence that the matter was appropriately addressed. Tr. 30-
33. None was forthcoming.
 Ex. I, supra, note 7 at 3.      23
 Tr. 37.      24
 Tr. 39.      25
4
1.j. TELECOMMUNICATIONS – $57 owed. Unpaid. Applicant contacted this creditor.
He was told that the account was so old, no record of the debt was maintained.18
1.k. SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING BOAT – $44,833 owed. Unpaid/Unresolved.
This entry is related to a recreational boat purchased by Applicant and his ex-wife in
1992. He made regular payments on the purchase until 2002, about the time he was
separated and money was scarce due to support payments.  After several months of19
being behind in his payments, the vehicle was voluntarily repossessed. Applicant
testified the boat was auctioned, but has been unable to discover the purchase price of
the boat or discern what liability he now has, if any, on the vehicle.  He is still20
researching the status of this debt “to resolve this matter in the best interests of all
parties involved.”  His current credit report does not include this debt, but earlier credit21
reports note a date of last activity in May 2004.22
1.l. CREDITOR – $2,146 owed. Payment plan arranged. Applicant received a
settlement offer from this creditor on January 4, 2010. He was poised to pay the agreed
upon amount ($2,343.63) after the record closed.  23
1.m. TELECOMMUNICATIONS – $314 owed. No evidence of payment. Applicant
testified that he paid this balance “a long time ago,” but provided no evidence of
payment.24
1.n. CREDITOR – $60. No evidence of payment. Applicant testified that he paid this
balance, but provided no evidence of payment.25
1.o. CREDITOR – $3,082. No evidence of payment. Applicant provided evidence that
he satisfied an account with this creditor, but his credit report notes that he has had
more than one account with that creditor. Lacking evidence that the card upon which
Applicant paid the balance is the card at issue, he was to provide evidence confirming
 Tr. 40-47.      26
 Ex. I, supra, note 7 at 3.      27
 Tr. 47.      28
 Tr. 47-48.      29
 Tr. 48.      30
 Id.      31
 Tr. 49-50.      32
 Tr. 51.      33
 Ex. I, supra, note 7 at 3.      34
5
that the account at issue has been paid.  Although Applicant later wrote that the26
creditor had confirmed that this account was addressed, he provided no documentary
evidence to this effect.27
1.p. CREDITOR – $2,283. Unpaid. Applicant is trying to determine the status and origin
of this obligation.28
1.q. CREDITOR – $301 owed. Paid. Applicant stated that he paid this balance a
number of years ago through a settlement offer. While he no longer retains a copy of
the receipt, the parties’ examination of the credit reports lead to the conclusion that the
debt was paid.29
1.r. CREDITOR (MEDICAL) – $1,149 owed. No evidence of payment. Applicant
testified that while he is willing to pay this debt, he “has done everything in [his] power
to find out who this is owed to [but] hasn’t been able to identify the creditor on [it.].”30
The debt no longer appears on his credit report.  He believes it may be related to31
medical for his daughter, who first suffered from diabetes and required emergency
medical care around the time the debt was acquired.  32
1.s. PUBLISHING ACCOUNT – $93. No evidence of payment. Applicant has been
aware of this entry on his credit report “for a while,” but has never ordered anything
from this company.  At the hearing, he expressed his willingness to pay the balance.33
After the hearing, he wrote that he submitted a check for $93.99 to the company, but
had not yet received evidence the check had cleared or had been received.34
1.t. TELECOMMUNICATIONS – $587. No evidence of payment. Applicant provided
evidence of payment to this entity which he then believed showed payment of the debt
at issue. Some question remained, however, as to whether his evidence corresponded
 Tr. 53-55.      35
 Id. at 4.      36
 Id.      37
 Tr. 57-58.      38
 Ex. I, supra, note 7 at 5-6.      39
 Id.      40
 Id. at 10. See also 65-66. Applicant was apprised of the fact that financial counseling is a consideration      41
in the mitigating of financial considerations security concerns.
 Tr. 64.      42
6
with the account at issue.  After the hearing, Applicant confirmed that this is a separate35
account and valid debt. He wrote that payment was to be made in February 2010.36
1.u. CREDITOR (MEDICAL) – $264. Unpaid. Applicant has tried to identify this creditor,
but has been “unable to discover any additional information” regarding this debt.37
Regarding Applicant’s current finances, he testified that he does not “live
beyond” his means and he is not irresponsible, “these things happened do [sic] to a
divorce and a change of family life. And if you look at my current credit and my
obligations, they’re all paid on time, every month. I haven’t been late on anything in
several years now.”  His budget indicates that each month after expenses, he has a38
net monthly remainder ranging from $1,311 to $6,060 per month.  Although his savings39
account only has about $60, his wife maintains a savings account with a balance of
approximately $54,000. Applicant does not participate in a 401k or other retirement plan
with his present employer, but he participates in a stock purchase plan which will roll
into a 401k-type program in 2010.  He was scheduled to meet with a certified financial40
planner two weeks after the record closed.  Applicant has not considered a debt41
consolidation plan after a bad experience in the 1990s in which he “found out the hard
way that those trash your credit almost as bad as not paying your bills. So [he has]
stayed away from that stuff since then.”  42
Policies
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
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions. These guidelines are not
inflexible rules of law. 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. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      43
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      44
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      45
 Id.      46
 Id.      47
7
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.
The government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in
the SOR. 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. . . .”  The burden of proof is something less than a43
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  44 45
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.
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). “The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access46
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.47
 AG ¶ 18, which also notes, “An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage      48
in illegal acts to generate funds.”
 Neither this forum nor this tribunal is designed for or amenable to open-ended monitoring of financial      49
progress in terms of evidentiary submissions. 
8
Based upon consideration of the evidence, Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) is the most pertinent to this case. Conditions pertaining to this
adjudicative guideline that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as
well as those which would mitigate such concerns, are set forth and discussed below.
Analysis
Under Guideline F, “failure or an inability to live within one’s means, satisfy
debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
an 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.”  The guideline sets out several potentially disqualifying conditions. Here,48
Applicant was alleged to have approximately $58,000 in delinquent debt. He provided
evidence that he has paid approximately $900 of that sum. A debt of about $44,833
may have been resolved through the repossession of a boat, reducing his debt to
approximately $12,260, but Applicant failed to provide evidence that the debt has been
satisfied. Given the debts at issue and the lack of evidence of payments, Financial
Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts) and FC DC AG ¶ 9(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations)
apply. With such conditions raised, the burden shifts to Applicant to overcome the case
against him and mitigate security concerns. 
The vast majority of debts at issue were incurred and became delinquent several
years ago. Most remained neglected until the issuance of the SOR. Although Applicant
may not have known all of these accounts were derogatory entries on his credit report,
he has at least been aware of the derogatory publishing company debt “for awhile.”
Consequently, it may be assumed he has consulted his credit report at some point in
the past few years or otherwise knew of its contents. Further, he was informed at the
hearing that the record would close in January 2010. He ultimately chose to rely on
post-hearing representations that additional evidence regarding payments made in
2010 could be later provided “upon request” in lieu of making arrangements to either
pay some or all of the debts during the three weeks provided, or request further time to
present appropriate evidence of payment.  Such representations do not equate to49
documentary evidence showing that a debt has been paid, settled, satisfied, or
otherwise resolved. 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)
does not apply. 
In 2001, when Applicant filed for bankruptcy to save his home from foreclosure,
he had recently separated from his first wife. The debt at issue mostly arose between
that time and 2004, when Applicant was finally divorced. Finances continued to be tight,
9
albeit to a lesser degree, until his daughter came to live with him in about 2006 and he
was no longer responsible for child support. Additionally, he was unemployed for about
two months in 2007. Such factors give rise to FC MC AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that
resulted in the behavior 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) applies.
Applicant was apprised of the fact that financial counseling was a consideration
that could be applied toward the mitigation of finance-based security concerns, but he
failed to begin or complete such counseling before the record was closed.
Consequently, FC MC ¶ 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) does not apply.
Applicant provided documentary evidence of payment constituting about $900 of
the approximately $58,000 at issue. Such effort is minimal. Giving him the benefit of the
doubt regarding the boat debt, which may have been resolved, Applicant still owes over
$12,000. Under either scenario, FC MC ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith
effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) would not apply.
Applicant’s progress on his debt balance rests highly on whether the boat debt
has been addressed. Applicant failed, however, to timely submit evidence that this debt
is no longer owed or that it has been substantially reduced. Consequently, his
outstanding debt still appears to remain somewhere between about $12,000 and
approximately $57,000. Either sum is significant and sustains security concerns.
Moreover, while he has made some nominal progress in actual payments to some of
his creditors, he failed to provide evidence regarding accounts he testified he has
disputed. Furthermore, while his testimony was consistently credible, he failed to
substantiate his claims that those payments set to be made in the near future were
actually transacted before the record closed, or to, on his own initiative, request leave to
submit such evidence as soon as it became available. Lacking tangible evidence of
more significant progress on the debts at issue, financial considerations security
concerns remain unmitigated.
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. 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
10
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, as well as the “whole person”
factors. Applicant is a mature, educated, and credible witness who incurred significant
debt during and after his 2001 separation from his first wife. He did so because spousal
and child support, plus the maintenance of two households, proved to be financially
onerous. In the interim, his debt became delinquent. By 2006, however, payment of
child support was obviated when his daughter came to live with him. Around that same
time or shortly thereafter, payments to his ex-wife were reduced to about $300 a month.
Despite the lessening of these financial burdens, his debts remained neglected while
Applicant otherwise continued to live significantly within his means.
The evidence shows that Applicant knew about at least some of the debts at
issue, but took no, or exercised minimal, effort to address them before the SOR was
issued. He eschewed the pursuit of a consolidation loan and chose not to seek financial
counseling to help him address his debt. He provided only minor evidence that prior to
the hearing he had applied any of his substantial monthly net income toward satisfying
his delinquent debts. With regard to those debts Applicant testified he has disputed, he
presented no evidence of formal dispute with either his creditors or the credit reporting
bureaus. With regard to the largest debt alleged, the boat judgment, he apparently
failed to seek documentation confirming that his debt was either reduced or relieved. 
In short, while it is very possible that a significant portion of the debt at issue has
been properly disputed or otherwise addressed, Applicant only provided documentary
evidence that approximately $900 dollars of the approximately $58,000 at issue has
been paid. In these cases, the burden is placed squarely on the Applicant to provide
mitigating evidence. In that burden, Applicant failed. While Applicant’s representations
indicate sufficient evidence of significant progress may be available in the near future
that would adequately mitigate security concerns, consideration of the debts
enumerated in the September 2009 SOR is not open-ended. For lack of adequate
documentation, financial considerations security concerns remain unmitigated.
Clearance is denied.
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
Subparagraph 1.a  Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b  Against Applicant
11
Subparagraph 1.c  Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d  For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e  Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f  For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g  Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h  For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i  For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j  Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k  Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l  Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m  Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.o  Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.p  Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.q  For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r  Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.s Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.t  Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.u  Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance denied.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge