1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 09-01034
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Francisco Mendez, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On August 27, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations). DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance
Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative
guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
 
On October 10, 2009, Applicant answered the SOR, and requested a hearing.
She admitted the factual allegations in SOR ¶ 1.a through 1.o, 1.r, 1.t. and 1.u. She
denied the remaining allegations. DOHA assigned the case to me on February 2, 2010.
DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on February 24, 2010, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on March 25, 2010. Department Counsel offered eight exhibits, which were
admitted as Government Exhibits (GE) 1-8, without objection. Applicant testified on her
own behalf and offered five exhibits, which were admitted as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A-
E. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on March 30, 2010. Based upon a review of the
2
case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 53-year-old employee of a defense contractor. After graduating
from high school in 1974, she attended a community college. She earned her
undergraduate degree in 2003. In 2005, Applicant received a Master of Business
degree. (AE E.) She earned outstanding grades in both programs. She has been with
her current employer since September 2008. (GE 1.) Applicant has held an interim
security clearance since the beginning of the 2008 employment.
Applicant married in August 1980. As a result of that marriage, she had four
children. Applicant raised her four children as a single parent, because her husband left
the family in 1988 (Tr. 27.) He did not provide any child support. (Tr. 54.) Applicant had
no contact with her husband. They divorced in 2007. Applicant worked when she could,
but was forced to accept state assistance to provide for her family until approximately
1996.
Applicant secured permanent employment starting in approximately 1995. (AE
D.) During the evenings, she started taking more college classes in order to obtain an
undergraduate degree, which would increase job opportunities. She worked as an
administrative assistant from December 1996 until November 2001. (GE 1.) During this
time, she continued to support her family and to send her children to college. (Tr. 27.)
In 2001, Applicant obtained a position as an Executive Assistant with a new
company. She continued to take college courses in the evening. At this time, Applicant
obtained student loans to finance her education. (Tr. 55.) Her employer agreed to
reimburse her for her tuition costs (Tr. 27.) While they did not have a written agreement,
each year her employer assured her during her annual review that when her student
loans became due, the company would provide the finances to pay for them. (Tr. 48.)
In 2007, Applicant’s employer experienced financial difficulty. (Tr. 28.) A new
management team took over the company. Applicant was not retained as an employee,
and was unemployed from November 2007 until June 2008. Applicant was never given
any tuition reimbursement. She was now fully responsible for the student loans. The
deferred loans defaulted, and Applicant did not have the income to begin paying on
them.
The SOR alleges 21 delinquent debts totaling over of $75,000. (GE 5.) The
current status of Applicant’s delinquent debts is described below.
The debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a ($505), 1.p ($96); 1.q ($121); and 1.s ($106)
are paid in full. (AE B.)
3
The debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, through 1.o, are student loans ($75,000) which
have been consolidated. (AE A.) Applicant’s monthly payments are $360. Prior to the
loan consolidation, Applicant completed a “rehabilitation program” and paid $421
monthly for approximately ten months. 
The debt alleged in SOR 1.r ($306) is a medical bill that Applicant recently
learned about. She is in the process of paying it.  
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.t ($799) is a utility bill. Applicant entered into a
payment plan. The monthly payments are $50. The current balance is $449. (Tr. 23.)
Applicant is current with her monthly payment. (Tr. 23.)
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.u ($1,496) is a hospital bill. Applicant entered into a
payment plan. The monthly payments are $50. Her current balance is $996. (AE C.)
Applicant received financial counseling, and worked with various credit
counseling agencies to assist her with her budget development and payment plans. She
was not successful in obtaining a loan to pay off the delinquent debts that are not
student loans. (Tr. 16.) She has been successful with her payment plans that are in
place. 
Applicant’s net monthly income is approximately $2,200. (Tr. 41.) This does not
include her new husband’s net monthly income of approximately $3,000. Applicant’s
husband supports the household. Applicant puts most of her income into their joint
account. She keeps some money to pay her remaining debt. She is current with her
monthly expenses. Applicant has no credit cards. She has no car payment. Her recent
credit reports confirm that she “pays as agreed” on her accounts.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition 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,
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.
4
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 to obtain 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 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.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order (EO) 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in
terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty
of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple
prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18:      
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. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant accumulated delinquent debts on several accounts,
5
including student loans. Her credit reports confirm the debts. The evidence is sufficient
to raise these disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ Applicant
accumulated delinquent debt while going to school to gain better employment
opportunities. She also believed that her company would help pay for the tuition.
Applicant was a single parent raising four children. They are now adults. She is recently
remarried. She has paid several of the delinquent debts. She has a consolidated
student loan. She is in a stable financial situation. There is no likelihood that future debt
will occur. The vast majority of the delinquent debts reported on her credit reports were
the result of the student loans. This mitigating condition applies.  
Under AG & 20(b), the disqualifying condition may be mitigated where Athe
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.@ Applicant’s husband left her in 1988. She had to accept
assistance in the earlier years but she found employment. She attended college at
night. She worked steadily and until 2007, she did not have any financial difficulties. The
loss of her position in 2007 and the lack of tuition reimbursement were the main cause
of her delinquent debts. Applicant acted responsibly in paying her accounts under the
circumstances. This mitigating condition applies.
Evidence that Athe 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@
is potentially mitigating under AG & 20(c). Similarly, AG & 20(d) applies where the
evidence shows Athe individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.@ Applicant received formal financial counseling. She worked
with several firms to help her develop a budget and a payment plan. She has a
consolidated student loan. She has paid the smaller accounts. Her efforts are sufficient
to carry her burden on those debts which are hers. I conclude these mitigating
conditions 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): 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
6
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. 
   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case and conclude they are sufficient to
overcome the government’s case. 
Applicant is a well-educated professional. She was a single parent for 20 years
and educated her children. She had no support from her ex-husband. She attended
college at night for many years. In 2005, she earned an advanced degree (MBA). She is
a role model for her family. She earns a good salary and is financially stable. She paid
$421 monthly for ten months, and is now on a $360 per month payment plan for her
student loan consolidation program. Her student loans, which constitute the
overwhelming bulk of her debts are in current status. She remarried in 2007, and her
husband’s income helps with household expenditures. She obtained financial
counseling and has been very responsible in dealing with her financial situation.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts about
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising under financial
considerations. 
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: through 1.u: For Applicant
7
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.
                                              
_________________
NOREEN A. LYNCH
Administrative Judge