1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-00851
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace L. Garcia, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the security concern generated by her troubled finances and
omission of delinquencies from her security clearance application. Clearance is granted.
On September 3, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines
F, financial considerations, and E, personal conduct. 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) effective within the Department
of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR on October 13, 2009, admitting to SOR
subparagraphs 1.a, 1.g, 1.k., 1.m, 1.o, 1.r, 1.w, 1.ee, 1.ff, and 1.hh. She denied the
remainder, and requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me on November 19,
2009. On December 9, 2009, a hearing was scheduled for January 5, 2010. During the
2
hearing, which was held as scheduled, I received 12 government exhibits, 14 Applicant
exhibits,  and the testimony of two witnesses for Applicant. At the close of the hearing, I
left the record open at Applicant’s request to allow her to submit additional exhibits.
Within the time allotted, she submitted another 11 exhibits, which I incorporated into the
record. The transcript (Tr.) was received on January 12, 2010.
Preliminary Ruling
At the beginning of the hearing, Department Counsel stipulated that Applicant
satisfied the accounts set forth in the following SOR subparagraphs: 1.c, 1.e, 1.g, 1.l (as
duplicated in 1.x), 1.q, 1.v, 1.w, 1.y, 1.z, 1.ff, and 1.dd. Also, Department Counsel
stipulated that Applicant successfully disputed the accounts set forth in SOR
subparagraphs 1.p, 1.s, and 1.u. I resolve all of these SOR allegations for Applicant. 
Paragraph 2 of the SOR alleges Applicant falsified her security clearance
application by intentionally omitting delinquent debts in response to questions requiring
their disclosure. At the close of the hearing, Department Counsel conceded that
Applicant’s omissions were unintentional, and that Guideline E no longer posed a
security concern. Consequently, I resolve Paragraph 2 in Applicant’s favor.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 45-year-old single woman with two sons, ages 24 and 14. Two
prior marriages ended in divorce (Tr. 25). She is a veteran of the United States Air
Force where she served from 1983 to her retirement in 2004. She has a high school
education and has taken various courses in information management over the years
(Tr. 25).
Since 2006, she has worked as an executive assistant for a government agency
director (Tr. 14). Her employer who assigned her to the position is a defense contractor
(AE A). Applicant’s duties include coordinating plans and preparing the agency director
for meetings. According to the program manager who coordinates the placement of
contract employees, “she is responsible for carrying out complex assignments [and]
exercising independent judgment, initiative, and tact” (Id.). According to her supervisor,
her “integrity is of the highest level” (Tr. 15).
Applicant’s finances were stable through August 2005. Then, in September 2005,
Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast, destroying her grandmother’s home and
displacing her mother from her home. Within six weeks of the disaster, both relatives
moved in with Applicant (Tr. 151) Applicant’s grandmother was a 96-year-old double
amputee with severe health problems requiring intensive, expensive medical care (Tr.
163). When living at home, Applicant’s grandmother received Medicare to cover these
expenses. When she relocated, Applicant’s state did not begin to cover her
grandmother’s expenses until approximately three months later (Tr. 163). During this
three-month period, Applicant incurred approximately $3,000 of out-of-pocket medical
expenses for her grandmother’s care for which she was never reimbursed (Tr. 165).
See discussion of SOR subparagraph 1.k, infra.1
3
In October 2005, approximately a month after Applicant’s relatives moved into
her home, she fell and broke her ankle (Tr. 152). Although she continued to perform
consulting work during this period, she was unable to work for her primary employer,
and consequently earned substantially less income for approximately two months (Tr.
152). Applicant gradually began to fall behind on her bills (Tr. 98,155). 
In December 2005, Applicant’s cousin, another relative displaced by Hurricane
Katrina, moved in with her (Tr. 154). Applicant’s grandmother died in January 2006, and
her mother moved from her home in May 2006 (Tr. 154). In late 2006, Applicant
discovered that her cousin had charged thousands of dollars of credit purchases on
credit cards opened fraudulently in her name (Tr. 99, 155-156). Shortly after this
revelation, Applicant’s cousin moved from her home. However, Applicant’s financial
standing continued to deteriorate.
At or about the time Applicant began struggling to pay her bills, her job
increasingly began requiring extensive overnight travel. Her continuous struggle to
provide child care for her youngest son during the overnight travel periods compelled
her to quit the job in June 2006 (Tr. 158). She was unemployed for the next two months.
By March 2009, Applicant had accrued approximately $42,000 of delinquent
debt, and had assumed responsibility for one debt for approximately $27,600.  She then1
began organizing her finances and addressing her delinquent debt by contacting
creditors to either arrange payment plans or dispute them. In October 2009, Applicant
retained an attorney to assist her with resolving the disputed debts (GE 3 at 78).
Although Applicant periodically received advice through her credit union and several
credit consolidation agencies, she did not complete a formal credit counseling course
(Tr. 171). By May 2009, Applicant had either satisfied or successfully disputed
approximately $35,000 of the alleged delinquent debt, as identified in the Preliminary
Ruling, above.
Fourteen debts, as set forth in SOR subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b, 1d, 1.f, 1.h, 1.k, 1.j,
1.m, 1.n, 1r, 1.x, 1.aa, 1.cc, 1.ee, and 1gg, remained at issue after the parties’
stipulations. They total $45,000. Three other SOR debts (subparagraphs 1.o, 1.t, 1.hh)
are duplicates totaling approximately $37,000.
SOR subparagraph 1.a is a dental bill for $422 from August 2004 (Tr. 51).
Applicant’s dentist originally submitted her a bill for $2.40, which noted that her
insurance company would cover the remainder (GE 3 at 10). Later, Applicant
discovered that her insurance company did not pay its expected share (Tr. 54).
Applicant contested the bill. By July 2009, the dental office had assigned it to a
collection agent and the balance had increased to $1,185 (GE 3 at 11). Applicant and
the collection agent negotiated a settlement for $969. In October 2009, Applicant began
satisfying it (Id.). She satisfied it completely by February 2010 (AE R).
4
The creditor listed in SOR subparagraph 1.b is a collection agent for a loan
allegedly delinquent since 2002 (Tr. 59). Applicant disputes this claim, asserting that
she had satisfied it before retiring from the military (Tr. 59). The alleged balance due is
$2,694. Since April 2009, Applicant has been making monthly payments into an escrow
account while the dispute is pending (AE D; Tr. 59, 61). So far, she has paid $726 (Id.). 
SOR subparagraph 1.f, as duplicated in SOR subparagraph 1.t, is a disputed
phone bill for $871 (Tr. 63). Applicant acknowledges falling behind when she was
unemployed, but contends she satisfied it (Tr. 64). Her attorney wrote a dispute letter to
the creditor on October 2, 2009 (GE 3 at 28). Applicant has another account with the
same phone company that is current (Id.).
SOR subparagraph 1.h is a debt Applicant allegedly owes stemming from a loan
for which she applied while in the military (Tr. 69). She contends she satisfied it in 2003
through automatic allotments before retiring (GE 3 at 35). Her attorney notified the
collection agent of the dispute on October 13, 2009 (GE 3 at 34). After conducting an
investigation, the collection agent rejected Applicant’s dispute, and concluded that she
owed $3,888 (AE N). Applicant still disputes the claim and contends that a credit report
indicates that she satisfied it (AE M at 7). Although AE M indicates she satisfied a loan
owed to the same creditor, the account numbers are different (cf. AE M at 7 with GE 10
at 3). 
Applicant paid the creditors listed in SOR subparagraphs 1.i and 1.j, collectively
in the amount of $1,750, through negotiated settlements (AE T; AE X at 2, respectively).
The debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.k is a student loan her oldest son obtained to
help finance his graduate school education (AE G at 3). Although Applicant did not
cosign the loan, she assumed it after he defaulted in March 2009 (GE 3 at 48).
Consistent with the agreement, Applicant now owes approximately $27,600 (AE W at
9). She has been making $200 monthly payments, as agreed, since March 2009 (GE 3
at 46) 
The debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.m and duplicated in SOR subparagraphs
1.o and 1.hh is the deficiency owed from a car that was voluntarily repossessed at or
about the time Applicant’s relatives were living with her (GE 4 at 12). As of March 2009,
the balance was $24,550 (GE 3 at 56). She has been making monthly payments since
then (GE 3 at 56-58).
SOR subparagraph 1.n is a debt for $172 owed to a department store. Applicant
paid it through a negotiated settlement in March 2009 (AE X). SOR subparagraph 1.r is
a collection agent for a credit card company that is delinquent in the amount of $1,553.
Applicant disputes this bill contending that her cousin accrued it (Tr. 82). Nevertheless,
she has been making monthly payments while the dispute is pending (AE M at 10). As
of January 2010, the balance was $331 (Id.).
SOR subparagraph 1.aa is a debt for $450. Applicant settled it for $221 and
satisfied it in March 2009 (GE 3 at 102).
5
Applicant identified the 1993 judgment for $1,898 listed in SOR subparagraph
1.gg as stemming from a delinquent credit card account that her first husband opened
approximately 20 years ago (Tr. 131). Applicant denies responsibility for this account
contending that her name was not on the account and that her ex-husband satisfied it
years ago (Tr. 131). She attempted to locate court records verifying this judgment was
satisfied, but was unsuccessful (AE L at 1).
Applicant maintains a budget. She earns a salary of approximately $81,500 after
taxes (AE B) She receives an additional $24,000 through her pension and her child
support (Id.). She has approximately $4,000 in savings, and $4,000 of after-expense
income (Id.; Tr. 168). 
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.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied together with the factors
listed in the adjudicative process. 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. 
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 as to obtaining a favorable security
decision. 
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under Guideline F,  “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” (AG
6
¶ 18). Moreover, “an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to
engage in illegal acts to generate funds” (Id.). Applicant’s history of financial problems
triggers the application of AG & 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,@ and
AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations.” 
As of August 2005, Applicant’s finances were stable. However, within six months,
three relatives displaced by Hurricane Katrina moved in with her. One was an invalid
requiring costly treatment which Applicant incurred, and another was a thief who stole
her identity and charged thousands of dollars on credit cards opened in Applicant’s
name. During part of this time, Applicant was underemployed.
One of Applicant’s relatives is deceased and the others no longer live with her.
For the past year, Applicant has been confronting her delinquent debts either through
satisfying them entirely, making monthly payments, or disputing them with the help of an
attorney. She maintains a budget and has ample savings and income to continue
adhering to her payment plans or to satisfy any disputed debt not resolved in her favor.
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,” 20(c), “the person has received counseling for
the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control,” and 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” apply.
Applicant’s attorney provided comprehensive written notice to all of the creditors
whose debts Applicant disputed. Thus far, the creditors have resolved some of the
disputes in her favor and others are pending. Applicant resolved one dispute, as listed
in SOR subparagraph 1.a, by negotiating a settlement, and satisfying it. 
I did not find the evidence supporting Applicant’s dispute of SOR subparagraph
1.h, a debt for $3,888, to be persuasive because the account number for the account
she paid did not match the account number for the debt the creditor alleges is
outstanding. I conclude her basis for disputing SOR subparagraph 1.h is honest, but
mistaken. 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. 
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 the applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): 
7
(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 eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole person concept. 
Of the $45,000 of delinquent SOR debt remaining after the parties’ stipulations,
more than half stemmed from a student loan that Applicant did not accrue. Rather, she
assumed it after her son defaulted, and has been paying it timely since then. Upon
considering the voluminous evidence that Applicant provided, I conclude her finances
are clearly under control. The circumstances that led to her financial distress are not
likely to recur. Evaluating this case in the context of the whole person concept, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns.
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.hh: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.d: 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.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge
8