1 Authorized by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), Section E3.1.2.2.
2 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[ NAME REDACTED ] )       ISCR Case No. 09-06505
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, Applicant’s
request for a security clearance is denied.
On September 2, 2009, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Sensitive
Positions (SF 86) to obtain a security clearance required for his job with 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 interrogatories1 to clarify or augment information obtained in his
background investigation. After reviewing the results of the background investigation
and Applicant’s responses to the interrogatories, DOHA adjudicators were unable to
make a preliminary affirmative finding2 that it is clearly consistent with the national
3 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. These
guidelines were published in the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006).
Pending official revision of the Directive, they take precedence over the guidelines listed in Enclosure 2 to the
Directive.
2
interest to continue Applicant’s access to classified information. On May 29, 2009,
DOHA issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which, if
proven, raise security concerns addressed in the adjudicative guidelines (AG)3 for
financial considerations (Guideline F).
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. The case was
assigned to me on September 23, 2010. Pursuant to a Notice of Hearing issued on
September 30, 2010, I convened a hearing in this matter on October 13, 2010. The
parties appeared as scheduled. The Government presented seven exhibits that were
admitted without objection as Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 7. Applicant testified and
submitted two exhibits that were admitted without objection as Applicant Exhibits (Ax.) A
and B. DOHA received a transcript (Tr.) of the hearing on October 28, 2010. I left the
record open until October 29, 2010, to allow Applicant time to submit additional relevant
information. However, he did not submit anything and the record closed at that time.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owed $37,233 for 16
unpaid debts (SOR 1.a - 1.p). Applicant admitted without explanation the allegations at
SOR 1.e. - 1.I, 1.k, 1.n, and 1.o. He denied without explanation the remaining
allegations. Applicant’s admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. Having
reviewed Applicant’s response to the SOR, the transcript, and exhibits, I make the
following additional findings of relevant fact.
Applicant is 47 years old and is employed by a defense contractor as an
electrician at a shipyard on the Gulf of Mexico. He has held his current job since
September 2008. From April 2006 until September 2008, Applicant was generally
unemployed, except for various periods working odd jobs to make ends meet. From
January 2004 until March 2005, Applicant worked for the same defense contractor and
at the same shipyard. For about a year thereafter, he worked as a dispatcher, but the
job was interrupted for several months by Hurricane Katrina in August 2005. (Gx. 1)
Applicant was married between June 1987 and March 2002.The marriage ended
in divorce. Applicant and his ex-wife had two children, now ages 21 and 18. Applicant
attended a community college in 1994 and 1995, where he received an associates
degree in electronics. (Tr. 78) He matriculated at a nationally-known four-year university
in 1996 and attended classes part-time each semester while he home-schooled his
children and his wife worked. In May 2000, while Applicant was studying for finals, his
wife left him. She took their children and most of his money. (Gx. 2; Tr. 35 - 36) 
Applicant regained custody of his children after he finished the semester;
however, his wife has paid little in the way of child support. (Tr. 40 - 42) He returned to
school in September 2002, thinking his student loans were in deferment. However, in
3
October 2002, he was told he was in default. The student loan lender demanded
payment of $8,000 to bring his accounts current, but he could not make the payment so
he had to withdraw from school. (Gx. 2; Tr. 36 - 39) As alleged in SOR 1.e - 1.I, and 1.n
- 1.p, Applicant owes approximately $30,469 for eight delinquent student loans. The
loans were originally managed by Sallie Mae, but have since been referred for
collection. (Gx. 2; Gx. 6) In June 2010, Applicant began a loan rehabilitation program
whereby he is to make nine consecutive monthly payments of $205. If he does so, his
accounts will be reflected as current in his credit history, and Sallie Mae will resume
management of the debts. (Ax. A; Ax. B; Tr. 32 - 33) However, in establishing the loan
rehabilitation program, Applicant insisted that he be allowed to make the payments on
his own out of his checking account, rather than have the payments taken directly from
his paycheck or automatically debited from his account. He wishes to use the
rehabilitation program to help him improve his ability to manage his own money. (Tr. 98
- 100)
At the hearing, Applicant disclosed that he also owes another $30,000 in
delinquent student loans to a state education authority. (Tr. 30 - 31, 96 - 98) Applicant
has not made any arrangements to repay these loans, some of which paid for his
associates degree in 1994 and 1995. Applicant used funds from his student loans to
also subsidize living expenses for him and his family.
This is Applicant’s first application for a security clearance. (Tr. 7) Credit reports
obtained after he submitted his SF 86 showed that he also owes approximately $6,044
for two income tax liens from California, where he and his wife lived from 1990 until
1992, as well as an income tax lien from the state where he and his wife lived while he
was in school. (Gx. 7) Applicant claims that the California liens have been resolved
because they were levied in error, and that the other lien was paid as well. (Answer; Gx.
2; Gx. 5; Tr. 49 - 53) He did not submit any documents to corroborate his claims in this
regard.
Applicant’s credit history also lists unpaid debts to two utility companies (SOR 1.k
for $80, and SOR 1.l for $383), one for bank overdraft fees (SOR 1.m for $114), and
two unpaid medical bills (SOR 1.c for $85, and SOR 1.d for $58). As to the medical bills,
Applicant disputes them because they were erroneously billed by his insurance
company for a procedure he had in about 2004. (Tr. 54 - 55) Applicant has not paid the
utility bills, which arose when he changed residences in about 2006. Applicant started
contacting these creditors about one month before this hearing. (Tr. 57 - 58) Applicant
also claimed he is disputing the debt for overdraft fees. (Tr. 61 - 63) 
Applicant did not provide any documentation to support his claims of dispute or
resolution. He averred that most of his records were lost during Hurricane Katrina. (Tr.
45 - 49) Applicant also claimed that he recently was diagnosed with Attention Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and that, in hindsight, ADHD has contributed to his
financial and personal difficulties over the past ten years. (Gx. 4; Tr. 16 - 17) Indeed, his
testimony was at times rambling and convoluted. (See, e.g, Tr. 45 - 47) Applicant did
not present any corroborating documentation to show he had been diagnosed with
ADHD or that he was on medications for such a condition.
4 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).
5 Directive. 6.3.
6 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.
4
In December 2009, Applicant submitted a personal financial statement (PFS) that
showed he had about $100 remaining each month after expenses. His expenses did not
include payment of any of the debts alleged in the SOR. More recently, Applicant has
suffered work-related injuries and medical problems that have limited his ability to work
as much as he was working in 2009. Further, he is now paying another $205 each
month for his student loan rehabilitation.
Policies
A security clearance decision is intended to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent with the national interest4 for an applicant to either receive or continue to
have access to classified information. Each decision must be a fair, impartial, and
commonsense determination based on examination of all available relevant and
material information,5 and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policies
in the adjudicative guidelines. 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. 
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. 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.
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 be able to 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.6 A person who
has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 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
7 See Egan; Revised Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 2(b).
8 See Directive, E3.1.14.
5
“clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.7
Analysis
Financial
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.
Applicant’s admissions established the allegations at SOR 1.e - 1.I, 1.k, 1.n, and
1.o. However, his denials placed on the Government the burden of proving the
remaining SOR allegations.8 In support of its case, the Government presented sufficient
information to support all of the SOR allegations of unpaid debt totaling in excess of
$37,000. Additionally, Applicant disclosed that he owes another $30,000 in unpaid
student loans that were not alleged. His debts have been accrued since 1995, when he
was studying for his associate’s degree. Applicant has not paid any of his debts, and the
student loan rehabilitation program he is enrolled in was begun less than six months
before the hearing. The record shows only that he made a payment in September 2009.
Applicant has also failed to pay even the smaller debts alleged in the SOR despite the
fact he has owed some of them for several years. The record 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). As to AG ¶ 19(a),
available information shows that Applicant, who appears to be living from paycheck to
paycheck, is unable to pay his debts.
By contrast, Applicant was unemployed for long periods between 2006 and 2008.
He also had custody of his children with little or no financial assistance from his ex-wife.
These facts require consideration of the mitigating conditions at 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). However, the record does not support full application of this mitigating
condition because Applicant has not acted responsibly under the circumstances.
Granted, there are acceptable reasons why Applicant has so much debt, but he did not
enter into the student loan rehabilitation program until 2010, despite having been
6
gainfully employed since 2008. Nor has he addressed in a timely or meaningful way the
many smaller debts he has owed for the past few years.
Applicant did not support his claims that he is disputing some of the alleged
debts. Although some of his explanations for his medical and utility debts are plausible,
there is no way to verify their true status. Accordingly, the mitigating condition at 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.
Further, this record shows that real concerns remain about Applicant’s finances
in the future. In December 2009, Applicant had about $100 remaining after expenses.
He claims to have started paying $205 monthly into the student loan rehabilitation
program in June 2010. He also testified that he is making less, due to job-related
medical problems, than he did in 2009. Lastly, although he made a passing reference to
employer-provided financial counseling, there is insufficient information in the record to
conclude that Applicant has ever sought help with his finances. Therefore, the mitigating
condition at AG 20 ¶ 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. Based on all of the available information probative of this issue,
I conclude Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns about his finances.  
Whole-Person Concept
I have evaluated the facts presented and have applied the appropriate
adjudicative factors under Guidelines F. I have also reviewed the record before me in
the context of the whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is 47 years old and
has been steadily employed since 2008. He experienced a myriad of personal problems
around the time of his divorce in 2002, and his employment record was sporadic, at
best, between 2006 and 2008. Applicant also averred his problems were caused or
exacerbated by the effects ADHD. Applicant was given 17 days after the hearing to
provide documentary support of all of his claims, as well as information about his job
performance and reputation in the community. He did not avail himself of that
opportunity. While it is not mandatory that an applicant be completely debt free, it must
be established that one’s debts are being addressed in a responsible way. That has not
happened here. A fair and commonsense assessment of all of the available information
shows that doubts remain about Applicant’s finances and his future ability to address his
past-due debts. Because protection of the national interest is of paramount importance
in these adjudications, such doubts must be resolved in favor of the Government.
7
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.p: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is clearly not consistent with the national interest
for Applicant to have access to classified information. Request for security clearance is
denied.
                                         
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge