DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 09-00728 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) for a 
periodic update of his security clearance with a defense contractor on March 27, 2007. 
After an investigation conducted by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the 
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons 
(SOR), dated November 24, 2009, to Applicant detailing security concerns for financial 
considerations under Guideline F. 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) effective in the Department of Defense on September 1, 
2006. Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on November 30, 2009. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR in writing on December 15, 2009, admitting 13 and 
denying one of the allegations under Guideline F. He requested a hearing before an 
administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on January 6, 
2010, and the case was assigned to me on January 14, 2010. DOHA issued a Notice of 
Hearing on January 25, 2010, scheduling a hearing for March 10, 2010. I convened the 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
hearing as scheduled. The government offered eight exhibits, marked Government 
Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 8, which were admitted without objection. Applicant 
testified on his behalf. Applicant offered four exhibits, marked Applicant Exhibits (App. 
Ex.) A through D, which were admitted without objection. I held the record open for 
Applicant to submit additional documents. Applicant timely submitted six additional 
documents marked App. Ex E through J, which were admitted without objection (See, 
Gov. Ex. 9, Memorandum, dated march 26, 2010). DOHA received the transcript of the 
hearing (Tr.) on March 19, 2010. Based on a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, 
and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant admitted 13 of the 14 factual allegations in the SOR. I included 
Applicant's admissions in my findings of fact. After a thorough review of the pleadings, 
transcript, and exhibits, I make the following essential findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is 34 years old and has worked as a security guard force supervisor for 
a defense contractor providing security at a large government facility for over six years. 
He served nine years on active duty in the Air Force from February 1994 until March 
2003. After leaving active duty he continued to serve in the Air Force Reserve for four 
additional years until March 2007. He received a number of medals and awards, to 
include the Good conduct Medal. He was honorably discharged. Applicant married in 
1999 but divorced in 2006. He had one child from this marriage who lives with 
Applicant's former wife. He pays child support for this child. Applicant married again in 
August 2006 and has two children with his second wife and a step-son. He is a high 
school graduate with some credit for college. (Tr. 9-11, 25-27; Gov. Ex. 1, SF 86, dated 
March 27, 2007; Gov. Ex. 5, DD 214, dated March 11, 2003) 
 
Applicant and his wife are both employed. Applicant's monthly net pay is $2,800 
and his wife's monthly net pay is $1,600, for a combined family income of $4,400. Their 
recurring monthly expenses are $4,000, leaving $400 monthly in discretionary or 
disposable income. Applicant's student loans are paid, and he and his wife are current 
with their taxes. (Tr. 43-44) 
  
Credit reports (Gov. Ex. 6, Credit report, dated August 21, 2001; Gov. Ex. 7, 
Credit report, dated May 3, 2007; and Gov. Ex. 8, Credit report, dated August 7, 2009) 
show the following delinquent debts for Applicant: child support arrears in the amount of 
$4,917 (SOR 1.a); a telephone debt in collection for $1,625.74 (SOR 1.b); a debt for a 
car repossession for $12,974 (SOR 1.c); a furniture account in collection for $2,450.05 
(SOR 1.d); an apartment rent account in collection for $3,698 (SOR 1.e); another car 
repossession debt for $4,382 (SOR 1.f); two medical accounts in collection for $228 
(SOR 1.g), and $75 (SOR 1.h); an internet service debt for $257 (SOR 1.i); a returned 
check debt in collection for $240 (SOR 1.j); a cable debt in collection for $166 (SOR 
1.k); another medical account in collection for $50 (SOR 1.l); another telephone account 
in collection for $32 (SOR 1.m); and an account past due for $1,682 (SOR 1.n).  
 
 
3 
 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.a is based on the garnishment of wages for 
monthly child support payments of $336.05 and $4,917 in child support payment 
arrears. Applicant's child support arrears have been paid and he is current with the child 
support payments. Applicant filed a petition to get custody of his son that is the subject 
of the child support. If custody is granted, Applicant's child support obligation will end. 
(Tr. 17-19; App. Ex. A, Family court Case History, dated December 18, 2009; App. Ex. 
D, Motion, Filed February 10. 2010) 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.b is for a family telephone debt. Applicant and his 
former wife had the account from November 1999 until April 2005 at a military duty 
station. When they separated, his wife used the phone service and incurred a significant 
phone bill that she did not pay it. Applicant tried to close the account but since they 
were not divorced, the phone company would not close the account. Applicant was 
finally able to close the account. In their divorce settlement, Applicant and his wife were 
to evenly split the marital debts. Applicant's wife has not paid her part of the marital 
debts, to include the phone bill. The telephone company is seeking to collect the debt 
from Applicant. Applicant has not paid this debt. Applicant will pay the debt if he can 
reach a settlement with the creditor. (Tr. 26-27, 50-51)  
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.c is for a car Applicant purchased for his former 
wife that was repossessed. Applicant settled this account for $1,500 and the debt has 
been paid. (Tr. 27-29; App. Ex. E, Letter, dated March 25, 2010; App. Ex. G, Bank 
Statement, dated March 26, 2010) 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.d for $1,625.74, is for furniture Applicant and his 
former wife purchased when he entered the military and was at his first duty station. The 
furniture was eventually donated to help other military members in need of furniture. 
The debt was settled for $232.65 and has been paid. (Tr. 20, 29-30; App. Ex. B, 
Settlement offer, dated February 6, 2010; App. Ex. G, Bank statement, dated March 26, 
2010 at 2) 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.e is for an apartment Applicant leased for about 
seven months but terminated early because of issues raised by his neighbors 
concerning noise from his son. Applicant had problems with his neighbors and he and 
the property manager agreed to the lease termination. There was even a walk-through 
of the apartment to note there was no damage before Applicant left. The monthly lease 
was $700, and Applicant paid a $1,500 security deposit. When he moved, the property 
manager did not return the security deposit. There is no explanation of the $3,698 
charge. Applicant is disputing this debt. (Tr. 30-36)  
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.f is for a car Applicant purchased in 1996 for 
$17,000. He made the monthly payments until June 2000 when the car was voluntarily 
returned to the creditor. Applicant has not been in contact with the creditor on this debt. 
He plans to contact the creditor and reach a settlement as soon as he has sufficient 
funds to pay a settlement. (Tr. 36-39, 50-51) 
 
 
4 
 
 
The delinquent debts at SOR 1.g, 1.h, and 1.l are medical debts to unspecified 
creditors. Applicant attempted but has been unable to learn the names of the creditors 
or the specific nature of the debts. He has not made payments on the debts because of 
the lack of information. He disputed the debts with the credit reporting agencies. (Tr. 39-
40; App. Ex. F, Letter, dated March 24, 2010)  
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.i for $257 is for a telephone debt. The account was 
paid in February 2002. The creditor verified that the account was closed. (Tr. 40-41, 
App. Ex. E, Applicant's Letter, dated March 25, 2010) 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.j is for a check returned for insufficient funds. 
While on active duty, Applicant had the requirement to arrange a dinner event for 
members of his unit and their spouses. Each unit member was to pay for their meals. At 
the end of the evening, the restaurant owner informed Applicant that not all of the 
participants paid for their meals. Applicant provided him a check for $50 to cover the 
unpaid bill. The check did not clear the bank. With fees and charges, the debt is now for 
$240. Applicant is willing to pay the debt. He contacted the creditor and collection 
agencies in an attempt to pay the debt. However, no one has any information on the 
account. He disputed the debt with the credit reporting agency since there is no 
information on which to pay the debt. (Tr. 41-42; App. Ex. F, Letter, dated March 24, 
2010) 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.k is a cable service debt his former wife was to 
pay. Applicant paid the debt in full. (Tr. 42; App. Ex. E, Applicant's Letter, dated March 
25, 2010; App. Ex. G, Bank Statement, dated March 26, 2010) 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.m is for a telephone debt of $32. Applicant 
contacted the creditor and collection agency, but they were unable to find any debt 
owed by Applicant. Applicant disputed the debt with the credit reporting agency. (Tr. 42, 
App. Ex. F, Applicant's Letter, dated March 24, 2010)  
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.n is for a loan. The debt has been paid in full. (Tr. 
20; App. Ex. C, Statement, dated March 4, 2010) 
 
Applicant's watch commander has known Applicant for over six years. Applicant's 
duty performance is professional and exemplary. Applicant is an asset to the 
organization and has been exceptional as the security supervisor. He recommends that 
Applicant be granted access to classified information. (App. Ex. H, Letter, undated) 
Another supervisor notes that he has known Applicant since 2004. Applicant has been 
professional, responsible, and conscientious. He recommends that Applicant be granted 
access to classified information. (App. Ex. I, Letter, dated March 11, 2010)  
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition 
 
5 
 
 
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list 
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered 
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, 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.  
 
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 
the 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. 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations: 
 
 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 
(AG ¶ 18). Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
 
6 
 
 
irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in their obligations to protect classified 
information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an 
indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
 A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial 
obligations. The delinquent debts listed in credit reports as well as admitted by Applicant 
are a security concern raising Financial Consideration Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) 
¶ AG 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history 
of not meeting financial obligations). Applicant incurred delinquent debt as a young 
married military member. He and his first wife had delinquent debt as Applicant started 
in the military. His former wife also incurred some debt after they separated without his 
knowledge. His former wife did not pay some of the debts the decree required her to 
pay.  
 
 I considered Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC) 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 
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment), and FC MC AG ¶ 20(b) (the 
conditions that resulted in the financial problems 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). These mitigating conditions partially apply. Applicant's 
financial problems started as a young married member of the military with a family to 
support. Most of his debts were for cars and furniture that he purchased for his family. 
These debts were incurred in the normal course of life and financial activities. There 
were no unusual circumstances beyond Applicant's control that led to the debts. 
However, some of the debts were incurred by Applicant's former wife without his 
knowledge. These debts were beyond his control. Applicant has paid some of the debts, 
contacted creditors as to other debts, and has plans to pay his remaining delinquent 
debts. He is acting responsibly toward his debts.  
 
I considered FC MC ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to 
repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts). For FC MC ¶ 20(d) to apply, 
there must be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” to repay, and “evidence” of a 
good-faith effort to repay. A systematic method of handling debts is needed. Applicant 
must establish a "meaningful track record" of debt payment. A "meaningful track record" 
of debt payment can be established by evidence of actual debt payments or reduction of 
debt through payment of debts. An applicant is not required to establish that he paid 
each and every debt listed. The entirety of an Applicant’s financial situation and his 
actions can reasonably be considered in evaluating the extent to which that Applicant’s 
plan for the reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. 
 
7 
 
 
 Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and 
unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination. There is no requirement 
that a plan provide for payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a 
reasonable plan and concomitant conduct may provide for the payment of such debts 
one at a time. Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually paid in 
furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the SOR. All that is required 
is that Applicant demonstrate he has established a plan to resolve his financial 
problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.   
 
Applicant has paid five of his 14 delinquent debts. He is current with his child 
support payments. He is contacting the creditors to establish payment plans on two of 
his other debts. He has disputed six of the debts. Applicant's actions paying and 
disputing his delinquent debts are significant and credible information to establish a 
meaning track record of debt payment, and shows that he acted reasonably under the 
circumstances.  
 
I considered FC MC ¶ 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 provided 
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of action 
to resolve he issue). Applicant provided documentation of his dispute with six of the 
delinquent debts. He has no knowledge of the debts, and the creditors cannot provide 
him information on the accounts.  
 
Under the circumstances, Applicant has acted responsibly towards his debts and 
finances. Applicant presented sufficient information to mitigate security concerns for 
financial considerations by establishing that he has or is paying his delinquent debts, 
and is actively disputing some of his debts. His finances do not indicate a security 
concern.   
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information 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):  
 
(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. 
 
 
8 
 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for access to 
classified information must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.        
 
 I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered Applicant's over 13 
years of active and reserve service in the Air Force, and his honorable discharge. I 
considered that Applicant has a reputation with his supervisors for professionalism, 
dedication, reliability, and trustworthiness.  
 
 Applicant established a meaningful track record of debt payment of his 
delinquent debts. He has or is paying six of his debts, and actively disputed another six 
for which information is not available. He is contacting creditors to settle and pay his two 
remaining debts. Applicant established that he acted reasonably and responsibly 
towards his finances indicating he will act reasonably and responsibly to protect 
classified information. The management of his finances indicates he will be concerned, 
responsible, and not careless concerning classified information. Overall, the record 
evidence leaves me with no questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and 
suitability for access to classified information. For all these reasons, I conclude 
Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial situation. 
 
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.n:  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 access to 
classified information. Clearance is granted. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge