1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 08-09575
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I
granted Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
Applicant executed and signed her Security Clearance Application (SF 86) on
June 2, 2008. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guidelines E and F on
May 26, 2009. 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 answered the SOR in writing on June 20, 2009 and requested an
administrative determination. After receiving the file of relevant materials, she submitted
W hen  SOR allegations are controverted, the government bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient1
to prove controverted allegations. Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. “That burden has two components. First, the
government must establish by substantial evidence that the facts and events alleged in the SOR indeed took
place. Second, the government must establish a nexus between the existence of the established facts and
events and a legitimate security concern.” See ISCR Case No. 07-18525 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 18, 2009),
(concurring and dissenting, in part) (citations omitted).
GE 1; Tr. 25.2
GE 1; AE A; Tr. 25-26.3
2
a request for a hearing before an administrative judge on September 6, 2009. DOHA
received the request shortly thereafter. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on October 23, 2009, and I received the case assignment on November 2, 2009. DOHA
issued a notice of hearing on November 17, 2009, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on December 8, 2009. The government offered four exhibits (GE) 1 through
4, which were received and admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified
on her own behalf. She submitted fourteen exhibits (AE) A through N, which were
received and admitted into evidence without objection. DOHA received the transcript of
the hearing (Tr.) on December 22, 2009. I held the record open for Applicant to submit
additional documentation. She timely submitted four exhibits, AE O through AE R,
without objection. The record closed on January 8, 2009.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Notice
Applicant received the hearing notice on November 24, 2009. (Tr. 9.) I advised
Applicant of her right under ¶ E3.1.8 of the Directive to 15 days notice before the
hearing. Applicant affirmatively waived her right to 15 days notice. (Id.) 
Findings of Fact
In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a
through 1.f of the SOR, with explanations. She admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 2.a
of the SOR, but denied she intentionally falsified her answer.  She also provided1
additional information to support her request for eligibility for a security clearance.
  Applicant, who is 37 years old, works as a photo editor for a Department of
Defense contractor. Applicant began her journalism career in 1990 as a newspaper
receptionist. She developed her work skills, which resulted in new positions as an
editorial clerk, online producer, and her present position beginning in May 2008.2
Applicant married in 1999 and divorced in 2004. She has no children. She has
attended college, but does not have a degree. She plans to continue her education with
a bachelor’s degree as her goal.3
Tr. 28-29.4
Id. 26, 30.5
AE C; Tr. 26-27.6
Tr. 30.7
GE 1; AE M; Tr. 27, 31-33.8
3
After her divorce, Applicant’s household income decreased from $80,000 (joint
income) to $25,000 (her income only). She and her former husband agreed that he
would assume responsibility for their house and she would keep her car. She moved
into an apartment with a roommate and shared living expenses. She managed her
finances.4
Within a few months of her divorce, Applicant learned that her mother was
seriously ill and needed her assistance. In December 2004, Applicant took a leave of
absence from her job to care for her mother, who lived many miles from her. Before she
left, Applicant paid her share of her rent and utilities. She did not have a car payment.
Her plane ticket home was expensive.   5
She assumed that her grandmother could assist her with the care of her mother.
When she arrived at her mother’s home, she realized that her grandmother was in ill
health and not able to help with her mother’s care. Rather, Applicant began caring  for
her grandmother and mother. Her grandmother died six months later.6
Applicant’s mother’s only source of income is Social Security payments.
Medicare paid for a significant portion of her mother’s medical expenses, but did not pay
for all her mother’s medical expenses. Applicant used her credit card to pay these
expenses, particularly medicines.7
A few months after her return from caring for her mother, Applicant received a job
offer with a promotion, which she accepted. Her new job required her to move to
another city about 100 miles away. Applicant rented an apartment in her new location.
She paid $1,150 a month in rent, plus utilities. Because of the rent costs, Applicant
terminated this lease prior to its end date. Applicant signed a notice to vacate
agreement on September 22, 2007, which gave management the right to inspect her
unit for damage prior to her moving. She did not receive notice of any damage. The
agreement showed that she owed $2,338 for terminating the lease. She understood the
termination costs were two months’ rent ($2,300) and her $500 security deposit. She
paid this money and lost her security deposit. After giving notice of her early
termination, the apartment complex assessed additional charges for unknown costs.  8
With her new job, Applicant thought her life was good. She then realized,
however, that her finances were out-of-control. Applicant contacted a credit resolution
company and her creditors to develop a plan for her debt payment. She worked out
GE 2; AE H; Tr. 37, 39.9
GE 2; Tr. 31-36.10
Id.; AE N; AE P; Tr. 38.11
GE 2; GE 3; GE 4; AE J; AE R; Tr. 40-41, 53-56.12
4
payment plans with several creditors on her own. The credit resolution company agreed
to manage three debts for her (allegations 1.b, 1.c, and 1.d). She started payments of
$53 a month to this company in April 2007. A portion of this money pays a fee to the
credit resolution company. The remainder of the money is placed in a savings account
until the company has sufficient money to negotiate a settlement of one of the debts.
She now pays this company $58 a month. Applicant described her debt repayment plan
as a 10-year plan, and this is true for her credit resolution plan.9
The SOR lists six debts. The debt in allegation 1.a concerns the apartment lease
Applicant terminated in September 2007. In her response to interrogatories, Applicant
provided a check that showed she paid $300 to this creditor in July 2008. Because she
paid the creditor $2,300 in 2007, she disputes this debt and does not believe she still
owes this creditor $3,600. She attempted to negotiate this debt with the creditor without
success. Applicant has not provided copies of her 2007 payments.10
The three credit card debts listed in allegations 1.b, 1.c, and 1.d are included in
her payment plan with the credit resolution company. Since April 2007, Applicant has
paid this company nearly $1,900, but it has not paid a debt for her. Applicant negotiated
a settlement and separate payment plan with the creditor in allegation 1.d. The creditor
agreed to settle the debt for $2,970 and accepted a monthly payment of $117 beginning
December 31, 2008. Applicant has complied with the terms of this payment plan.11
SOR allegation 1.e concerns a credit card debt for $6,500. The owner of the debt
has changed several times. Applicant negotiated a repayment plan with the current
owner of this debt in the summer of 2008. She made an initial payment of $200 in
September 2008, and has paid $150 a month on this debt since her first payment. Her
monthly payment is automatically deducted from her checking account. This creditor
agreed not to charge her additional interest or late fees, which enables her to eventually
pay this debt. Based on her payments provided, Applicant has reduced this debt by at
least $2,600 as of January 2010. She did not provide proof of her $150 payment in
January 2009, but given her payment record, I infer this payment has been made.12
SOR allegation 1.f concerns another credit card debt in the amount of $9,000.
Applicant negotiated a payment plan with this creditor in the early summer of 2008. She
made an initial payment of $200 in July 2008, and paid an additional $1,000 on this
debt. Although Applicant has been making regular payments on this debt, the balance
has not substantially changed because the creditor continued to assess interest and
fees. The owner of this debt recently changed. The new owner of the debt has agreed
not to charge her interest on her balance. This change should allow her to reduce and
GE 2; GE 3; G3 4; AE Q; Tr. 41, 53-56.13
GE 2; AE G.14
GE 2; AE O.15
GE 1; Tr. 42-43, 48-49.16
AE K; AE L.17
5
ultimately pay her debt. She pays $100 a month on this debt, with plans to increase her
payment after February 2010.13
Prior to issuing the SOR, the government mailed financial interrogatories to
Applicant, listing three additional debts not listed in the SOR. In her response, Applicant
verified that she paid the small debt and that she developed a payment plan on a credit
card debt of $3,542. She paid $200 a month on this debt, with a final payment to be
made in  February 2010. She plans to apply this $200 to her above debt plans
beginning in March 2010. She developed a payment plan for $50 a month to resolve a
credit card debt of $1,100. This debt is paid. (Tr. 51) Applicant also resolved another
credit card debt.14
Applicant earns $4,150 a month in gross income and $2,846 a month in net
income. Her monthly living expenses total approximately $1905. Her monthly debt
repayment totals $608 a month, for total monthly expenses of $2,513. She has $335 a
month remaining. She does not have a car payment, but did not list her monthly
gasoline expense, although she did list car insurance expenses. Applicant spends
nearly 25% of her net pay on debt repayment plans.15
When she completed her security clearance application, Applicant answered “no”
to the questions in Section 28 about past due debts. Because she had hired a credit
resolution company, had started payments in 2007, and made efforts to pay her debts,
Applicant believed her debts were current. She did not have a credit report when she
completed her application.16
Applicant’s senior editor and director describe her as an excellent employee.
Both trust her. Her senior editor opines that she is dependable and intelligent. Her work
ethic and integrity are solid. Her company vice-president and general manager wrote a
letter of commendation to her for her work in an initiative. Applicant serves as a board
member on a community board, a volunteer position.17
 
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
6
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, 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.
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, 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 . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining 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
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).  
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18:      
7
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 delinquent debt after paying her mother’s
medical expenses, and was unable to pay the obligations for a period of time. The
evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), mitigation may occur when
Athe 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.@ Applicant=s financial worries arose
five years ago and have continued. This mitigating condition is not applicable. 
Under AG & 20(b), it may be mitigating where Athe 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.@ As noted above,
Applicant’s financial problems arose when her mother became seriously ill five years
ago, compelling her to take a leave of absence from her job and return home to care for
her mother. Applicant paid her mother’s medical bills not covered by Medicare with her
credit card. By 2006, she realized her finances were “out-of-control.” She initiated
discussions with her creditors to develop repayment plans and contacted a credit
resolution company to help her correct her financial problems. For the last three years,
she has worked to resolve her debts. She acted responsibly by contacting her creditors
and working towards the resolution of her debts. This mitigating condition applies. 
Evidence that Athe 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@
is potentially mitigating under AG & 20(c). Similarly, AG & 20(d) applies where the
evidence shows Athe individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.@ Applicant contacted a credit resolution company in 2006 and
started a payment plan with this company in April 2007. This company agreed to help
her resolve three debts listed in the SOR. She continues to pay this company $58 a
month, which she must do for another 7 years. On her own, Applicant negotiated a
payment plan with two additional creditors listed in the SOR and one other creditor not
listed in the SOR. Applicant continues to pay her agreed-upon monthly payments on
these debts. Applicant, on her own, also negotiated a separate payment plan for one
debt under her payment plan with the credit resolution company and has complied with
8
her payment plan for over a year. By initiating payment plans before the SOR was
issued and complying with her plans for a lengthy period of time, Applicant showed a
good faith effort to resolve her debts. She lives within her monthly income and has not
incurred excessive debt since 2006. I conclude these potentially mitigating conditions
apply to SOR allegations 1.b through 1.f.
Applicant disagrees with the validity of the debt listed in SOR allegation 1.a
because she already paid the creditor more than $2,500. Applicant has not filed a
formal disagreement with the credit reporting companies nor has she presented any
verification that she wrote to this creditor and disagreed with the debt. Mitigating
condition under 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” does not apply to SOR allegation 1.a. 
The $3,600 in SOR allegation 1.a. is not paid nor is it under a payment plan.
Through her evidence, Applicant established her penalty for terminating the apartment
lease was $2,338. Her testimony that she already paid $2,300 to this creditor in 2007 is
credible in light of her payment history with her other creditors and the efforts she
initiated to resolve her debts in 2006, 2007, and 2008. She made additional $300
payment in 2008, but has not paid any more money on this debt as she disagrees with
the creditor’s claim she owes $3,600. Thus, this debt cannot be a source of improper
pressure or duress.
Guideline E, Personal Conduct
AG ¶ 15 expresses the security concern pertaining to personal conduct:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
AG ¶ 16(a) describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be
disqualifying:
(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from
any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or
similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance
eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities; and (e)
personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct, that
creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such as (1)
engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person's personal,
See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov.17, 2004)(explaining holding in ISCR Case No. 02-2313318
at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 9, 2004)).
9
professional, or community standing, or (2) while in another country,
engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country or that is legal in that
country but illegal in the United States and may serve as a basis for
exploitation or pressure by the foreign security or intelligence service or
other group;
For AG ¶ 16(a) to apply, Applicant’s omission, concealment or falsification in her
answer must be deliberate. The government established that Applicant omitted a
material fact from her e-QIP when she answered “no” to Questions 28a, about debts
over 180 days delinquent, and 28b, about debts currently 90 days overdue. This
information is material to the evaluation of Applicant’s trustworthiness to hold a security
clearance and to her honesty. In her response, she denies, however, that she had an
intent to hide this information from the government. When a falsification allegation is
controverted, the government has the burden of proving it. Proof of an omission,
standing alone, does not establish or prove an applicant’s intent or state of mind when
the omission occurred. An administrative judge must consider the record evidence as a
whole to determine whether there is direct or circumstantial evidence concerning an
applicant’s intent or state of mind at the time the omission occurred.18
When she completed her e-QIP in June 2008, Applicant believed that since she
had negotiated payment plans for her overdue debts and had been paying on this
payment plans, her debts were not overdue, but current. She paid her current bills, thus,
she did not have any current bills more than 90 days overdue. Her mistaken belief about
how her old debts should be considered in the security clearance process does not
show an intent to hide information from the government. The government has not
established intentional falsification under allegation 2.a.
Whole Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all relevant 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
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. 
10
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. The decision to grant or deny a security
clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both favorable and
unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the evidence of record,
not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is established and then
whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility for a security
clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct, but on a
reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a nexus
exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
The evidence in support of granting a security clearance to applicant under the
whole person concept is more substantial than the evidence in support of denial. In
reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s
financial problems started when she provided financial assistance to her mother. In
2004, Applicant earned $25,000 a year. While not a high salary, she could meet her
monthly expenses because she shared living arrangements and did not have a car
payment. Her mother became seriously ill and required her help. Applicant took a leave
of absence from her job and flew home to help her mother. Before she left to care for
her mother, she made arrangements to pay her rent and other housing expenses. She
has no debt related to these costs. Her mother lives on social security. When medicare
did not cover her mother’s medical bills, particularly her medication, Applicant charged
these expenses. Between December 2004 and June 2005, Applicant traveled between
her  residence and her mother’s very distant home, taking unpaid leave from work when
necessary. She managed her bills with her very limited income.
In 2006, Applicant accepted a new position, that required her to move more than
100 miles away. She incurred moving expenses and rental expenses. She thought she
was doing well, until she realized that her finances were “out-of-control.” She
immediately contacted a credit resolution company, and after discussions, retained its
services to help her resolve three debts. For the last three years, she has paid this
company monthly. It has yet to resolve any debts for her, most likely because she is
paying a small monthly payment. Even though she has hired this company, she
independently developed a payment plan with one company of the three in her plan with
the credit resolution company and has complied with the terms of this plan.
Applicant independently developed three repayment plans for other debts,
including two listed in the SOR and one not listed in the SOR. She has complied with
the terms of these plans and, as of February 2010, will have paid one debt of the three
debts in full. Applicant’s normal everyday living expenses are paid and under control.
She does not spend excessively or extravagantly. She has a track record for paying her
past due debts. She knows she will be paying her past debts for sometime, describing
her debt repayment as a 10-year plan. Of course, the issue is not simply whether all her
debts are paid: it is whether her financial circumstances raise concerns about her
fitness to hold a security clearance. While her debts are not paid in full, her debts are
ISCR Case No. 07-06482 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008).19
11
insufficient to raise security concerns, as she does not live extravagantly or beyond her
income. (See AG & 2(a)(1).)19
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from her finances and
personal conduct.
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
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge