1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 09-01015
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: D. Michael Lyles, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Based on a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, Applicant’s
clearance is granted.  
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(SCA, GE 1) on October 14, 2008. On April 20, 2009, Applicant provided interrogatory
answers to his debt delinquencies. On June 4, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns
under financial considerations (Guideline F). The action was taken pursuant to
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 made effective within the Department of Defense for SORs
issued on or after September 1, 2006.
 AE F is not in the record because it was not admitted in evidence. AE F, a position statement of Applicant’s1
career in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) and with his current employer, was not admitted in
evidence. The Government objected to the adm ission of the one-page exhibit because of the potential
redundancy of the exhibit with Applicant’s impending testimony (Tr. 14). I sustained the objection, and advised
Applicant he could testify from the document when he presented his case. (Tr. 14-15, 22). 
2
Applicant’s undated answer to the SOR was received by DOHA on July 23, 2009.
DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on August 31, 2009, for a hearing on September 15,
2009. The hearing was held as scheduled. At the hearing, four exhibits (GE 1 through 4)
were admitted in evidence without objection to support the government's case.
Applicant testified and submitted six exhibits (AE A through AE, AE G and AE H).  The1
record remained open until September 30, 2009 (Tr. 51), to allow Applicant an
opportunity to submit additional evidence. Applicant submitted three exhibits (AE I
through AE K). Those exhibits include documentation from the life insurance company
processing his 401(k) loan application, a federal credit union statement dated
September 26, 2009, and Appellant’s unsubstantiated statement that he paid off certain
creditors and his truck. DOHA received the transcript on September 22, 2009. The
record closed on October 1, 2009.
Findings of Fact
The SOR alleges financial considerations (Guideline F), based on seven debts.
The delinquent debts consist of two telephone accounts, two medical accounts, two
credit card accounts, and a mobile home repossession. The total for the six small past
due accounts (SOR 1.a. through 1.f.) is $3,678, and the larger repossession account
(SOR 1.g.) is $33,173. The debts became delinquent between November 2005 and
October 2008. Applicant admitted all the debts. 
Applicant is 37 years old. He has two daughters by his former wife who he
married in July 1998 and divorced in September 2006. He pays $760 a month in child
support for his two daughters (Tr. 32). He lives with his fiance and her four children. She
receives child support and Applicant supplements her support (Id.). His fiance is actively
searching for employment (Id.). 
Several months after high school, Applicant joined the United States Marine
Corps (USMC) in October 1991 and received an honorable discharge in October 2004
(AE H). In his 13 years of service, Applicant was assigned to duty locations all over the
world (Tr. 22). He was a drill instructor for several years, training approximately 90
recruits at periodic intervals to become better Marines (Id.). Applicant’s last duty
assignment from 2001 to 2004, was guarding nuclear weapons at the same military
facility where he has been employed for the past five years (Tr. 23). His commanding
officer (CO) for the last three years of Applicant’s military service provided a letter of
recommendation in December 2004 extolling Applicant’s service. The CO also signed
Applicant’s honorable discharge.
3
Applicant developed financial problems by allowing his former wife to handle the
finances (Tr. 30). His financial difficulties became worse when his former wife decided
she did not want to live in their mobile home (SOR 1.g.). In hopes of keeping the
marriage intact, Applicant rented a house and surrendered the mobile home to the
dealer in 2006 (Tr. 28, 36, 38). The mobile home account (SOR 1.g.), which became
delinquent in November 2005, was treated as a repossession by the dealer, sold at
auction, and Applicant was held responsible for the $33,173 balance (GE 4). 
Applicant stopped paying the other debts listed in the SOR because he did not
have the money, having moved several times around the time of the divorce (Tr. 29). He
also admitted he did not leave forwarding addresses for his creditors to keep in contact
with him (Id.; GE 3 at 1). 
In his interrogatory answers submitted on April 20, 2009, Applicant
acknowledged the overdue debts listed in the SOR, and that he wanted to pay them
(GE 2). He also acknowledged an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) debt that he indicated
had been paid. That debt does not appear in the SOR or credit reports. In his SCA,
Applicant disclosed the lien had been levied in July 2006, and he paid the lien off
through a wage garnishment (GE 1 at 30).
On September 9, 2009, Applicant applied for a $7,000 loan from his 401 (k) plan
(administered by a life insurance company) to pay off six of the seven debts listed in the
SOR, and his truck (AE G). At the hearing, he confirmed his plan to obtain the loan (Tr.
18, 31), and to hire an attorney to settle the mobile home account identified in SOR 1.g.
(Tr. 25-26). The application was held up because the life insurance company stated that
he had to sign a Personal Loan and Spousal Consent Request Form confirming he was
no longer married (Tr. 27). The finance company then directed him to return the form to
receive the loan (Id.). Applicant was advised by the company the form was in the mail,
and he was waiting to receive it (Id.) 
On September 21, 2009, Applicant signed the Personal Loan and Spousal
Consent Request Form indicating he was not married (AE I). He had the form notarized.
The form verifies the loan amount and also indicates the loan figures were valid until
October 10, 2009 (Id.). The federal credit union statement summary shows that as of
September 26, 2009, Applicant had two loans that had been closed out in a normal
fashion (AE J). In AE K, Applicant provided an unsubstantiated statement indicating he
settled the accounts identified in SOR 1.a., 1.c., 1.d., and 1.f., and also paid off a $4,000
balance on a truck. The statement shows the total amount of funds used to settle the
four listed accounts and one unlisted account is $5,497 (Id.). 
Having had a chance to listen to Applicant’s testimony, observe his demeanor as
he testified, and weigh and balance his testimony with the other record exhibits, I find
Applicant’s testimony to be credible and worthy of belief. He realizes he must pay his
debts, and I find he has a plan to pay his debts. The only item missing is independent
evidence establishing that these debts were paid. 
4
Character Evidence
Applicant provided several character references. The lieutenant colonel, who was
the CO during Applicant’s military service between 2001 and his discharge in October
2004, supplied a glowing endorsement of Appellant, particularly his expertise as an
artisan (AE A). According to the CO, Applicant personally designed long-lasting fighting
models to protect and preserve the security of strategic weapons (Id.). Applicant’s
contributions as the Hazard Materials Officer was officially recognized by the Inspector
General of a component of the Marines. The CO praised Applicant’s ability to transform
misfits into productive and goal-oriented Marines (Id.) 
Applicant’s coworker of four years believes Applicant is reliable and trustworthy,
and also a special friend (AE B). The shop lead has known Applicant for more than four
years and considers him a responsible team leader. The deputy facilities manager has
known Applicant for four years and respects the dedication and productivity in
Applicant’s job performance (AE D). 
The morale, welfare, and recreation marketing director met Applicant in 2001 and
worked with him for the next three years. Applicant was always ready to accommodate
or assist in any way (AE E). After Applicant was discharged in 2004, he continued to
help the morale recreation department. Applicant has demonstrated his reliability and
dependability to the director (Id.) 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). Each
guideline lists potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are
used in evaluating an applicant's eligibility for access to classified information. These
guidelines are flexible rules of law that must take into consideration the complexities of
human behavior. 
The administrative judge's ultimate adjudicative goal is to reach a fair and
impartial decision that is based on common sense. The decision should also include a
careful, thorough evaluation of a number of variables known as the "whole person
concept." Finally, 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.
Reasonable 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 sensible, logical, and based on the evidence
contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere
speculation or conjecture.
5
Under Directive ¶ E3.l.14., the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.l.l5., 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
Financial Considerations
AG ¶ 18. The Concern. "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. Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes
including espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is
also a security concern. It may indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal
acts."
There are two disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 that must be considered.
AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) is applicable because Applicant
owes more than $36,000 to seven creditors and is unable to pay the debt. AG ¶ 19(c) (a
history not meeting financial obligations) also applies as Applicant has accumulated
seven delinquent debts since November 2005.
The first four mitigating conditions are potentially applicable. 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
reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment) does not apply due the recency of a few
of the delinquent accounts.
Applicant receives some mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted
in the financial problem were largely beyond the person's control and the individual
acted responsibly under the circumstances. It appears that Applicant went the “extra
mile” to accommodate his former wife. In trying to save the marriage, he surrendered
the mobile home and rented a house. Applicant showed poor judgment by not posting
his forwarding addresses for creditors to maintain contact. He showed even more poor
judgment by not taking any action to address his debts until September 2009. Even
though Applicant did not act “responsibly under the circumstances,” he is entitled to
some mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b).
Applicant has had no financial counseling as defined by 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). Even though there is
6
no independent evidence of payment of any of the creditors, I conclude Applicant
received his loan as planned. Acquiring the funds to repay delinquent debts provides
some evidence that Applicant is trying to gain control over his delinquencies. 
AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors
or otherwise resolve debts) affords Applicant limited mitigation. It is clear that Applicant
applied for the $7,000 loan and returned the follow-up forms to receive the loan. I find
he has presented sufficient evidence of obtaining a loan. I am also confident he will pay
all of his delinquent debts. 
Whole Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence with the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in
my ultimate finding against Applicant under the financial guideline. I have also weighed
the circumstances within the context of nine variables known as the whole person
concept. In evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the administrative judge
should consider the following factors:
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 the participation was 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.
I have considered Applicant’s 13-year military career. I have considered the
former CO’s favorable remarks about Applicant’s last tour of duty between 2001 and
2004. I have also considered the consistently good reviews Applicant has received
regarding his job performance over the last five years since his discharge. Applicant
credibly testified that he did not address his financial problems over the years because
of his frequent residential moves and the fact that he ran out of money. I find that
Applicant has taken the necessary steps to supply himself with sufficient funds to pay
his debts. I am also confident he will take the appropriate legal action to resolve his debt
for the mobile home. Accordingly, under the specific circumstances of this case, the
positive character evidence from Applicant’s former CO and his current coworkers and
supervisors, together with his credible testimony, the financial considerations guideline
is found in Applicant’s favor.
7
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 (Financial Considerations, 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
Subparagraph 1.g. 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. Clearance is granted. 
                      
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge