1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-00686
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Fahryn Hoffman, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Although Applicant has made progress in getting her delinquent debts under
control, it is too soon to conclude they no longer pose a security concern considering
the amount remaining to be satisfied. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On July 27, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline
F, Financial Considerations. 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
adjudicative guidelines. (AG)
DOHA received Applicant’s SOR answer on August 24, 2009. She admitted SOR
subparagraphs 1.b through 1.f, 1.m, 1.o through 1.p, 1.s, and 1.v. She denied the
The record contains no evidence of whether Department Counsel requested a hearing or whether Applicant1
changed her mind and opted for a hearing.
Applicant was out of work for approximately eight months.2
2
remainder, and requested an administrative determination. On August 31, 2009, DOHA
received Applicant’s supplemental answer withdrawing her admission of SOR
subparagraph 1.v. The case was assigned to me on November 3, 2009.  On December1
9, 2009, a notice of hearing was issued scheduling the case for January 12, 2010. At
the hearing, I received four Government exhibits, eight Applicant exhibits, and the
testimony of two witnesses. At the close of the hearing, Applicant moved to keep the
record open to enable her to submit additional documents. Department Counsel did not
object and I granted the motion. Within the time allotted, Applicant submitted seven
additional exhibits that I admitted. DOHA received the transcript on January 19, 2010.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 26-year-old single woman with one child, age nine. She has a high
school education, and she is currently pursuing an associate’s degree in computer
information systems. (Tr. 27) 
Applicant works for a defense contractor as a security guard. She has worked for
the same company since October 2008. (Tr. 28) According to her supervisor, she is “a
model employee, who is always on time, and has always conducted herself in a highly
professional manner.” (GE 2 at 22)
The SOR lists 26 debts totalling approximately $34,000. Approximately $28,000
of the debt consist of delinquent rental payments (SOR subparagraphs 1.a and 1.e),
and the deficiencies from two automobile repossessions. (SOR subparagraphs 1.d and
1.o) 
Applicant accrued the debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.a in 2003 after she put
“her name on the lease with [a friend] to help him get an apartment,” and the friend
failed to pay the rent. (Tr. 48) Subsequently, the court entered a judgment against
Applicant for $3,705. By November 2009, Applicant had satisfied it through a wage
garnishment. (AE G)
Applicant accrued the other rental delinquency, as listed in SOR subparagraph
1.e, under similar circumstances as she accrued the rental delinquency as listed in SOR
subparagraph 1.a. Specifically, she signed a lease for her father to help him qualify for
an apartment, and he subsequently failed to make the monthly rental payments. (Tr. 31)
She owes the landlord $1,620. (Answer at 1) She has not made any arrangements to
satisfy this delinquency. 
Applicant’s first car repossession, as listed in SOR subparagraph 1.d, occurred in
2003 after she lost her job  and could not make the monthly car payments. (Tr. 31) She2
SOR subparagraph 1.v is a duplicate of SOR subparagraph 1.b.3
3
owes a deficiency of $12,768. (Answer at 1) She has not yet made plans to settle this
account. (Tr. 31)
The other repossession, as listed in SOR subparagraph 1.o, occurred in 2006.
(Tr. 35, 80) Applicant owes a $9,395 deficiency. Currently, she has no plans to satisfy
this deficiency. (Tr. 80)
Approximately $4,400 of Applicant’s delinquencies consist of a department store
account (SOR subparagraph 1.f), four phone bills (SOR subparagraphs 1.m, 1.r, 1.s,
and 1.z), and a student loan. (SOR subparagraph 1.p)
Applicant accrued the department store account, in the amount of $911, before
she lost her job in 2003. (Tr. 32) She calls the creditor “every couple of months to . . .
update . . .  [her] situation.” (Tr. 66) Approximately three months ago, she promised to
arrange a payment plan once the garnishment related to SOR subparagraph 1.a was
completed. (Tr. 66) The garnishment was completed in November 2009, but Applicant
has not yet contacted the department store creditor. (Tr. 66)
Applicant satisfied the phone bill totalling $255 listed in SOR subparagraph 1.m.
(AE A) The remaining delinquent phone accounts total approximately $1,122. She
accrued the phone bill listed in SOR subparagraph 1.r, in the amount of $658, after she
lost her job in 2003. (Tr. 38) Applicant’s last contact with this creditor was in July 2009.
(Tr. 85) She has no current plan to repay the debt. (Id.) She has no current plans to
satisfy the phone bills listed in SOR subparagraphs 1.s and 1.z, either. (Tr. 89) She
intends to arrange plans “in the near future.” (Tr. 89)
Applicant obtained the student loan listed in SOR subparagraph 1.p, when she
first enrolled in college in 2005. (Tr. 35) While enrolled, the loan was in deferment. (Tr.
36) After relocating to another state and transferring schools, the loan’s deferment
status lapsed, and became due. (GE 1 at 9-10; Tr. 36) On March 1, 2010, Applicant
filed a deferment request, which is pending approval. (AE O) Currently, approximately
$1,858 is outstanding.
With the help of a credit counselor whom Applicant retained in April 2009, she
disputed the remainder of the SOR debts. (GE 2 at 20; AE J) Nine of the disputed debts
are medical accounts (SOR subparagraphs 1.b,  1.g - 1.j, 1.l, 1.t, 1.x, and 1.y), and four3
include a creditor whom Applicant did not recognize (SOR subparagraph 1.k - $69), a
utility bill (SOR subparagraph 1.n - $181), a public library account (SOR subparagraph
1.u - $64), and a bill allegedly owed to an insurance company. (SOR subparagraph 1.w
- $168)
The disputed medical accounts total approximately $1,200. Applicant contends
that she never accrued these bills, and that they may have been accrued by her mother.
Their names are similar. (Tr. 78) 
4
After an investigation, the credit reporting agency rejected Applicant’s dispute of
SOR subparagraph 1.b. (Tr. 53) She plans on paying it. Applicant’s dispute of SOR
subparagraphs 1.g through 1.j, 1.i, 1.l, 1.w, and 1.y was successful, as they were
deleted from her credit report. (AE D) Applicant’s dispute of the remaining medical
accounts is pending. (Tr. 34, 39, 40)
The Government’s evidence supporting its contention that Applicant is indebted
to the creditor listed in SOR subparagraph 1.k is a credit report entry, which states that
the “consumer disputes this information.” (GE 4 at 8) Applicant opened the utility bill
account listed in SOR subparagraph 1.n for her father. (Tr. 35) Her dispute is still
pending. (Tr. 35) SOR subparagraph 1.u is for overdue library books. (Tr. 107) This
account belongs to her mother. (Tr. 108 - Mother’s Testimony)
Applicant lives with her parents. (Tr. 91) She is currently not working pending the
outcome of this security clearance decision. (Tr. 93) When she last worked, in
December 2009, she earned approximately $842 in after-expense, monthly income. (AE
H; Tr. 90-94)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to introductory explanations for
each guideline, the AG 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. 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.” 
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.
5
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “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 ¶ 18)  The Government relies upon the inclusion of the debt listed in SOR
subparagraph 1.k in a 2008 credit report to support its contention that it is delinquent.
However, the credit report characterizes the debt as disputed. This evidence fails to
establish that Applicant is responsible for the debt. (Directive ¶ E3.1.14) I resolve SOR
subparagraph 1.k in Applicant’s favor.
Conversely, the Government’s evidence, together with Applicant’s admissions
establish the remainder of the debts. Consequently, I conclude Applicant has a history
of financial delinquencies that trigger the application of AG ¶¶ 19(a), “inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations.”
Applicant satisfied the debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.a., and successfully
disputed the debts listed in SOR subparagraphs 1.g through 1.i, 1.l, 1.w, and 1.y. I
resolve these in her favor. Applicant established that the debt listed in SOR
subparagraph 1.u was not hers, through her mother’s testimony. I resolve SOR
subparagraph 1.u in Applicant’s favor. 
Although the credit reporting agency rejected Applicant’s dispute of SOR
subparagraph 1.b, and the remainder of Applicant’s disputed debts are still under
investigation, the detailed, organized nature of the dispute process she developed is
sufficient to trigger 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 attributes much of her financial problems to a lengthy unemployment in
2003. Irresponsibility, however, was equally, if not a more significant factor, as Applicant
repeatedly opened accounts for other people who then defaulted. 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,” does not apply.
Although Applicant retained a credit counselor, her focus appears to be
exclusively on disputing debts. The substantial majority of Applicant’s delinquencies are
not in dispute, and remain unaddressed. Consequently, AG ¶¶ 29(c), “the person has
received or is receiving counseling for the problem . . .,” and 29(d), “the individual
6
initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” only
apply partially. 
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, 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.
Applicant is an exceptional employee. She deserves credit for consulting a credit
counselor to assist her with disputing several bills. However, the only significant bill that
she satisfied was through a wage garnishment. Approximately $25,000 of delinquent
debt remains outstanding, and she has no concrete plan to resolve it. Upon considering
Applicant’s case in the context of the whole-person concept, I conclude that her
application for a security clearance must be denied.
This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot
or will not attain the state of financial rehabilitation necessary to mitigate the financial
consideration security concern. Should Applicant be afforded an opportunity to reapply
for a security clearance in the future, she may well demonstrate persuasive evidence of
security worthiness.
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.b - 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.g - 1.i: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.k - 1.m: For Applicant
7
Subparagraphs 1.n - 1.t: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.u: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.v: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.w: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.x: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.y: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.z: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge