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. 08-06317
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., 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 denied.
On April 5, 2007, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance required for his work as
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 two sets of interrogatories  to clarify or augment information about1
potentially disqualifying information in his background. After reviewing the results of the
background investigation, as well as Applicant’s responses to the interrogatories, DOHA
 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.
2
adjudicators were unable to make a preliminary affirmative finding  that it is clearly2
consistent with the national interest to allow him access to classified information. On
July 30, 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 August 24, 2009, Applicant responded to the SOR and requested a hearing.
The case was assigned to me on September 21, 2009, and I convened a hearing on
November 20, 2009. The parties appeared as scheduled. The government presented
five exhibits, which were admitted without objection as Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 5.
The Applicant testified on his own behalf, presented one witness, and proffered three
exhibits that were admitted without objection as Applicant’s Exhibits (Ax.) A - C. The
record remained open after the hearing to give Applicant time to provide additional
relevant information. DOHA received the transcript of hearing (Tr.) On December 1,
2009. The record closed on December 8, 2009, when I received Applicant’s post-
hearing submission, which has been admitted without objection as Ax. D.
Findings of Fact
The government alleged under Guideline F that Applicant owes approximately
$20,016 for 18 delinquent debts (SOR ¶¶ 1.a - 1.r), and that as of July 30, 2009, those
debts remained unpaid. In his response to the SOR, Applicant denied all of the SOR
allegations. Having reviewed the pleadings, examined the exhibits, and assessed the
testimony provided, I make the following findings of relevant fact.
Applicant is 37 years old, and has worked as a security guard for a defense
contractor since January 2007. His co-workers and a supervisor are happy with his job
performance, and they recommend him for a position of trust. (Ax. D) He and his wife
have been married since August 2008, but have lived together and co-mingled their
finances since July 2006. She has two children (ages 19 and 13) from before the
marriage. (Tr. 16, 50, 79) Applicant worked as a production technician for a
manufacturing company from August 1999 until he was laid off in April 2001. Applicant
served on active duty in the U.S. Army from September 1989 until August 1993. He held
a security clearance for much of his military service. (Gx. 1) When he was discharged,
he was given a 30% disability benefit, which paid him about $225 each month. His
disability later increased to 60%, and he now receives about $800 each month from the
Veterans’ Administration (VA). (Tr. 32, 56) 
After Applicant was laid off in April 2001, he supported himself on unemployment
benefits of about $200 weekly and his 30% disability payments. When his
3
unemployment ran out in September 2001, he broke the lease for the apartment he was
renting and moved in with his mother. Because he was unable to find full-time
employment, he decided, in January 2002, to enroll in college. His tuition and expenses
were paid by the GI Bill. In December 2004, he received an associate’s degree in
criminology. Thereafter, he received VA vocational training as part of his disability
benefits. However, until he was hired by his current employer in January 2007, he was
only able to find occasional work through brief stints as a temporary agency employee.
(Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 36 - 38, 41 - 43)
At the time he was laid off, Applicant was leasing a car from Chrysler. The lease
began in 1999, but in 2001 he returned the car when it became apparent that he could
not keep up with the payments. He was told at the time that he would owe nothing more
on the car, but later received a $1,000 bill. However, a delinquency later appeared on
his credit report (Gx. 4) that showed a $5,728 debt to Chrysler (SOR ¶ 1.k) This is either
a remainder due after resale or the balance due on a lease. Applicant testified that
when he contacted Chrysler about this debt, he again was told that he owed them
nothing. (Gx. 2; Tr. 29, 51) In support of his claim that he does not owe the debt alleged
at SOR ¶ 1.k, he presented a copy of the title of a Chrysler showing Applicant as the
owner, and that a lien against the car was released in 2003. (Ax. C) This debt still
appears in Applicant’s credit history as a charged off debt. (Ax. A)
When Applicant broke his apartment lease in 2001, he incurred a debt for $1,050
(SOR ¶ 1.e), which is being enforced through a civil judgment that he has not yet paid.
He also incurred a $191 debt for unpaid cable television (SOR ¶ 1.q) and a $325 debt
for unpaid phone service (SOR ¶ 1.d). Also attributable to Applicant are a $1,078 unpaid
cell phone bill (SOR ¶ 1.p) and a $443 unpaid insurance bill (SOR ¶ 1.o). Applicant
stated that he does not recognize these debts, but also acknowledged that he had cable
service around the time he broke the lease, and that at one time he had car insurance
and cell phone service with the listed creditors. (Gx. 2; Gx. 4; Tr. 64)
Applicant was engaged to be married until sometime in 2002. Before he broke up
with his fiancee, he had financed the purchase of furniture and an engagement ring.
Both accounts (SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.l) remain unpaid and total about $5,090. As to the
jeweler where he bought the ring, that company is out of business. As to the furniture
account (SOR 1.h), available information shows this debt was charged off as a business
loss. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Gx. 4)
In 1999 or 2000, Applicant’s Chrysler had to be repaired by the dealer. Applicant
was under the impression that his warranty or lease agreement covered the cost of a
rental while his car was in the shop. However, Chrysler did not pay for the rental as he
expected and he owes $114, which has been referred for collection. (Gx. 2; Tr. 58 - 60)
Applicant also owes about $4,337 to Capital One Bank for four unpaid credit card
accounts. Two of the debts (SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.g) are being enforced by civil judgments.
The other two (SOR ¶¶ 1.I and 1j) were referred to collection. Applicant insisted he has
only had one Capital One account, but the credit report obtained during Applicant’s
background investigation showed four different entries identified by four different
 Directive. 6.3.4
4
account numbers. The two accounts that are not the subject of civil judgments have
been charged off as business losses. (Gx. 2; Gx. 4)
Of the remaining debts listed in the SOR, Applicant has no knowledge of unpaid
the medical debts at SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.r, which total $1,679. He is trying to get more
information about the $156 unpaid medical debt at SOR ¶ 1.b, but he insists most of his
medical treatment between his Army discharge and the start of his current employment
was provided by the VA. Finally, Applicant has no knowledge of the $44 debt listed at
SOR ¶ 1.n.
Around the time he was laid off in 2001, Applicant tried making arrangements
with his creditors for repayments or other resolutions. However, he was unsuccessful,
largely because he had no money with which to make any reasonable payments. In
2007, after he met with a government investigator during his background investigation,
Applicant sought help from a credit counseling service, but they could not help him
because of his low income and because most of his delinquent debts had been written
off. On December 1, 2009, Applicant enrolled in a debt management plan, but he is
paying only about $23 each month to satisfy two debts. Applicant also stated that he
has disputed some of the debts alleged in the SOR, but he did not provide any
information to support his claims. (Ax. D; Tr. 34, 69 - 71)
Applicant and his wife together earn between $85,000 and $95,000 each year.
She manages their monthly finances and they have greatly reduced their monthly
expenses through detailed monitoring of their spending. She testified that they usually
have about $1,000 remaining each month after expenses. (Tr. 74 - 79)
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,4
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. 
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).5
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.6
 See Egan; Revised Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 2(b).7
 Directive, E3.1.148
5
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 to5
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. 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 who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary6
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.7
Analysis
Financial Considerations
The security concern about Applicant’s finances, as stated in AG ¶ 18, is that:
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 Applicant denied all of the allegations in the SOR, thus placing on the
government the burden of presenting sufficient information to prove those controverted
facts.  The government has presented sufficient information to support all of the8
6
allegations in SOR ¶ 1.a - 1.r; that is, that Applicant accrued $20,016 for 18 delinquent
debts. Available information, including his response to interrogatories and his response
to the SOR, further shows that Applicant has not yet paid or otherwise resolved those
debts. Accordingly, 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 showed that Applicant’s financial problems
began when he was laid off in 2001. He was unable to pay his rent and related
expenses, or pay his car note and related expenses. Other debts already in existence
when he became unemployed went unpaid as well. He remained unemployed, in part,
due to his choice to go to school, but was still unable to find work for almost three years
after he obtained his associates’ degree. However, since finding full-time work in
January 2007, he has done little to actually pay or otherwise resolve his debts. It is
understandable that credit counseling or debt management services could not help him
when he was making little or no money, but he did not renew his efforts with a debt
management service until around the time of his hearing.
Applicant has not documented his claims that he disputed some of his debts, and
his claim that he does has no knowledge of the debts that are being enforced through
civil judgments is untenable. Without substantial evidence to the contrary, it must be
accepted that creditors were able to demonstrate to a judge that the Applicant owed but
had not paid the debts in question. Accordingly, available information does not support
application of the mitigating conditions at 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); 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); AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith
effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts); or 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 documented proof to substantiate the basis of
the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue). Applicant has not
mitigated the security concerns about his finances.
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 37 years old, has
served his country honorably, and has performed well in his current job. He also
appears to be in the process of improving his finances. Now that he is married, he has
both financial and personal stability that will help him avoid a recurrence of his past
financial problems. However, without better documentation of his efforts, questions
 See footnote 4, supra.9
 See footnote 7, supra. 10
7
remain about his willingness to follow through on his stated intentions to resolve his
past-due debts. Applicant is not expected to be completely debt free, but he is
expected, when able, to act in a reasonable way in response to his adverse financial
circumstances. Because he has not done so, a fair and commonsense  evaluation of9
this record shows that concerns remain about Applicant’s finances, thus perpetuating
the doubts raised by the government’s information about his ability or willingness to
protect the government’s interests as his own. Because protection of the national
interest is paramount in these determinations, such doubts must be resolved for the
government.10
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.r: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest
for Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security
clearance is denied.
                            
                                               
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge