1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
l )         ISCR Case No. 09-03591
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: D. Michael Lyles, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s payment  of four unlisted debts constitutes positive evidence, but his
failure to pay 21 of 23 delinquent debts listed in the SOR constitutes the absence of a
good-faith effort to resolve his debts. The various medical issues of Applicant and his
wife fail to mitigate the financial concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information
is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SCA) on March 2, 2009.
On August 14 and August 27, 2009, Applicant provided interrogatory answers to
adjudicators of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). On November 23,
2009, 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
2
the adjudicative guidelines (AG) dated December 29, 2005, and made effective within
the Department of Defense for SORs issued on or after September 1, 2006.
Applicant submitted his answer to the SOR on December 17, 2009. Department
Counsel indicated the case was ready to proceed on January 19, 2010. The case was
assigned to me on January 25, 2010. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on January 28,
2010 for a hearing on February 24, 2010. The hearing was held as scheduled. At the
hearing, five exhibits (GE I through 5) were admitted in evidence without objection to
support the government's case. Applicant testified and submitted three exhibits (AE A
through AE C). The record remained open until March 11, 2010, allowing Applicant to
submit additional evidence. Applicant submitted AE D through AE H. AE D are
Applicant’s medical records for 2007, 2008, and 2009. AE E are his wife’s medical
records for October and November 2007. AE F is the maternity leave policy at
Applicant’s employer. AE G shows that Applicant paid two medical bills in full on March
10, 2010. One of the medical debts ($33) is identified in SOR ¶ 1.e. The other medical
bill ($9.90) is unlisted. AE H indicates that a pet-grooming debt of $57 listed in SOR ¶
1.t was paid in full on March 10, 2010. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.)on March 11,
2010. The record closed on March 11, 2010.
Findings of Fact
The SOR lists 23 debts totaling $17,671. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant
admitted the delinquent accounts identified in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.e, 1.f, 1.h, 1.j, 1.k,
1.l, 1.m, 1.q, 1.r, 1.s, 1.t, 1.u, and 1.v. He denied SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.g, 1.I, 1.n, 1.o, 1.p, and
1.w. Of the 23 debt delinquent debts, 13 are for medical services. The remaining
delinquent accounts represent credit cards, a check issued with insufficient funds, a
repossession, car insurance, and a utility account. The 23 accounts became delinquent
between October 2003 (SOR ¶ 1.p, telephone) and February 2009. (SOR ¶ 1.s, satellite
dish) The other accounts became delinquent between 2005 and February 2009.
Considering the entire record in this case, I make the following findings of fact. 
Applicant is 27 years old and married. He has two children, ages three and two.
The three-year-old was born in July 2006, and the two-year-old was born in July 2007.
He also pays $400 a month in child support for a child from another relationship. (Tr. 40-
42) Applicant has a Bachelor’s degree in Business Administration and is pursuing his
Master’s degree in Business Administration. (Tr. 50) He has been employed by a
defense contractor since June 2005. He programs radios for one of the branches of the
military. (Tr. 39) His wife works for the same employer in a different department. (Tr. 40)
Applicant also receives a $1,800 stipend for coaching basketball in December, January,
and early February of every year. (Tr. 44)
In his interview in March 2009 and at the hearing, Applicant stated his financial
problems were partially the result of his wife losing her job in 2007, while she was
pregnant. (Tr. 19) Applicant explained that his wife had been employed for a year, and
was qualified to receive 100% of her pay during her pregnancy leave. (Id.) The
employer, according to Applicant, claimed her doctor did not give her permission to take
3
maternity leave. (Id.) Applicant provided documentation concerning his employer’s
family maternity leave policy. (AE F) However, he supplied no documentation in support
of his claim that her employer refused to believe she was authorized by her treating
doctor to take maternity leave. Applicant also provided medical records of his wife for
tests/treatment between October and November 2007 for vison problems/swelling in her
right eye, and a lung problem. (AE E) 
Applicant testified that he suffered unknown medical problems during his wife’s
pregnancy in 2007. (Tr. 21). He was having chest pains and blood tests disclosed
chemical imbalances in his blood. He went from doctor to doctor and accumulated a
large amount of debt. (Tr. 22)
Applicant estimated his undiagnosed medical condition began some time
between March and August 2007. (Tr. 29) Applicant estimated that since June 2005,
when he began working for his current employer, he missed about three weeks of work
due to his undiagnosed illness. (Tr. 29-30) Medical records indicate that Applicant
began having symptoms of an unknown origin in June 2007. (AE D) He was
hospitalized in December 2007, and received some type of testing/treatment in
February, April, May 2008, and May 2009. (Id.) It does not appear from the records that
a cause for his symptoms could be established. One recommendation (among several
recommendations) in the medical records was entered in May 2008 requesting
Applicant to stay well hydrated and to see his primary doctor. (Id.) 
The 13 medical accounts listed in the SOR are: ¶ 1.a ($259), ¶ 1.c ($198), ¶ 1.d
($196), ¶ 1.e ($33), ¶ 1.g ($50), ¶ 1.h ($100), ¶ 1.I ($251), ¶ 1.j ($136), ¶ 1.k ($100), ¶
1.l ($100), ¶ 1.m ($100), ¶ 1.n ($620), and ¶ 1.v ($100). Twelve of the medical debts are
less than $300, which together total $1,623. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant denied
the medical accounts listed in SOR ¶ 1.d, ¶ 1.g, ¶ 1.I, and ¶ 1.n. At the hearing,
Applicant admitted all the medical debts. He did not pay more of the medical debts
because he did not have the money. (Tr. 56) He planned to verify the debts and put
them together in a debt consolidation plan. (Id.) On March 10, 2010, Applicant provided
proof of payment of two delinquent medical debts, one identified in SOR ¶ 1.e. for $33,
and an unlisted medical debt of $9.90.
SOR ¶ 1.b is an apartment lease that Applicant breached in 2007. Applicant
explained that he had worked out an agreement with the former landlord to pay the rent
late because his wife was not getting paid during her pregnancy. (AE 5) According to
Applicant, the new landlord initially agreed to the informal arrangement Applicant had
made with the former landlord. Then, the new landlord changed his mind and told
Applicant he would have to pay rent for the month for which he was late, and also the
rent for the current month. Applicant was evicted from his apartment on the last month
of his lease. (Tr. 49-50) The delinquent debt remains unpaid. 
SOR ¶ 1.f is a balance of $233 owed on an apartment lease that Applicant broke.
He acknowledged the debt is unpaid. (Tr. 23)
4
SOR ¶ 1.o is a delinquent account totaling $600. Applicant denied the account
because he did not recognize it. (Tr. 24, 37-38) He provided no documentation, such as
an official dispute with one of the credit agencies, supporting his claim. The delinquent
debt remains unpaid. 
SOR ¶ 1.p is a telephone account totaling $237. The last payment activity on this
account was October 2003. Applicant disputed the account in his answer to the SOR.
He acknowledged the account at the hearing. (Tr. 24) The debt remains unpaid. 
SOR ¶ 1.q is a telephone account totaling $96. This account became delinquent
in October 2005. At the hearing, Applicant acknowledged the account indicating it was a
home telephone. (Tr. 25) Applicant owes the debt.
SOR ¶ 1.r is an outstanding balance of $9,627 due on a lease for a vehicle that
had been repossessed. In his March 2009 interview and at the hearing, Applicant
admitted the delinquent debt, and explained he voluntarily returned the car. (AE 5; Tr.
26) The account is still unpaid. 
SOR ¶ 1.s is an $80 account that Applicant owes for a satellite dish. He
acknowledged the debt. (Tr. 26) The account has not been paid.
SOR ¶ 1.t is a delinquent pet grooming bill totaling $57 that Applicant disputed
because he believed he had paid the debt in 2005. (Tr. 35) He provided proof he paid
the pet bill on March 10, 2010. (AE H)
SOR ¶ 1.u is a delinquent debt that Applicant owes for writing a check for $262 in
February 2009 that exceeded the available funds in his checking account. The amount
remains unpaid.
SOR ¶ 1.w is a car insurance account that Applicant cancelled. (AE 5). At the
hearing, he acknowledged the account is unpaid. (Tr. 26)
Applicant testified he has a budget and spoke with a financial counselor a couple
weeks before the hearing to assist him in deciding which debts to dispute and which
debts to pay. (Tr. 34-35) Applicant indicated he could submit verification that he was
receiving financial assistance. (Id.) No additional evidence was presented regarding his
budget or whether he actually received counseling on how to manage his finances.
Applicant estimated he had about $3,000 in his retirement account. (Tr. 48)
In GE 4 (interrogatory answers), Applicant explained that to restore his student
loan accounts (unlisted) to a current status, he had to make nine payments of $356 to
the student loan lender. Then, the student loans would not be in default, and he would
have flexibility to pay the other delinquent debts. (Id.) Applicant provided evidence of
four payments of $356 and intended to make the next five to restore his student loans to
a current status. (Id.) On January 29, 2010, the student loan lender informed Applicant
by letter that he successfully completed the default loan rehabilitation program. (AE C)
5
Even though the letter does not specifically indicate he made the remaining five
payments, I find he made the required payments totaling $3,204, thus restoring his
loans to a rehabilitated status for continued repayment or to be placed in deferment. (Tr.
43; AE C) Applicant stated in his March 2009 interview that he intended to restore the
student loans to a current status so he could place the loans back into deferment. (GE
5)
AE B is an installment loan payment ledger for an automobile. The payment
ledger shows Applicant made six monthly payments of approximately $235 on the
automobile loan (not listed in the SOR) between September 2009 and February 2010.
(Id.)
Between April and June 30, 2009, Applicant provided four payments of $14
dollars to an unlisted credit card creditor. (GE 4) The fourth payment on the credit card
reduced the balance to $1,061. (Id.) Applicant indicated he had paid down the balance
on the unlisted credit card to $300. (Tr. 54) He provided no documentation verifying the
balance was $300. 
Character Evidence
Applicant’s current property manager since August 2008 indicated in a character
statement that Applicant pays his rent on time and takes care of his apartment. (AE A)
Applicant’s friend of 10 years considers Applicant a dedicated and trustworthy person
who is also active with the youth in the community. (Id.) Applicant’s supervisor for the
past four years vouches for Applicant’s trustworthiness on the job, and praises his
leadership abilities. Another friend of 10 years believes Applicant is a real role model
who tries to make a difference. (Id.)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). Each guideline lists
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in
evaluating an applicant's eligibility for access to classified information.
The administrative judge's ultimate 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
6
contained in the record. I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere
speculation or conjecture.
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.”
The two disqualifying conditions that are applicable are:
AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and 
AG ¶ 19(c) (a history not meeting financial obligations).
Applicant’s history of delinquent debt is established by his credit reports, his
interview with the OPM investigator, his interrogatory answers, his answers to the SOR,
and his testimony. The record shows that when the SOR was issued, Applicant had 23
delinquent debts totaling $17,671 that he was unable to pay. Of the 23 delinquent debts,
12 are medical accounts less than $300 each, which together total $,1623. AG ¶ 19(a)
applies. The fact that Applicant’s delinquent debts date to October 2003 supports a
conclusion that he has a history of not meeting financial obligations. AG ¶ 19(c) applies. 
The five mitigating conditions under the guideline are: 
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); 
7
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); 
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); 
AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts); and 
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 to resolve the issue).
The credit reports reflect that most of the debts in the SOR became delinquent
within 2005 and February 2009. Even though Applicant provided documentation
verifying he satisfied three delinquent debts in March 2010, only two are listed in the
SOR. Twenty-one accounts totaling approximately $17,581 remain unpaid. The lack of
substantial action in addressing his listed indebtedness indicates his current financial
problems are likely to continue in the future. AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply.
AG ¶ 20(b) applies due to Applicant’s wife losing her job during her pregnancy in
2007, and his undiagnosed illness that required him to obtain treatment over the last
three years. Regarding the wife’s job loss during her pregnancy, the application of AG ¶
20(b) is limited because Applicant provided no documentation proving that his wife had
been employed for a year, thereby qualifying her for 100% of her pay while on maternity
leave. Also, he furnished no documentation from his wife’s treating doctor authorizing
her to take maternity leave. The medical records dated in October and November 2007
show that Applicant’s wife was treated for vision and lung problems. These medical
records offer no insight into why his wife lost her job during her pregnancy. In addition,
the records do not indicate whether his wife was employed or unemployed at the time of
her treatment in October and November 2007.
Concerning Applicant’s medical tests and treatment in the last three years, AG ¶
20(b) has limited application because he indicated he was absent from work for only
three weeks since he first discovered the symptoms of his illness in 2007. In sum,
Applicant has not provided a detailed and documented explanation of how his wife’s job
loss and his illness negatively impacted paying his delinquent debts. AG ¶ 20(b) applies
in part because the conditions that contributed to the financial problems were beyond
Applicant’s control, but by paying off only two of the listed creditors in March 2010,
Applicant has not addressed his debts in a financially responsible manner.
Although Applicant testified that he was consulting a financial counselor to assist
him in identifying which delinquent debts to dispute and which delinquent debts to pay,
8
he provided no documentation from the counselor. Applicant stated he had a budget,
but supplied no documentation confirming the budget. Having paid only two of the listed
debts in the SOR, there is no clear indication Applicant’s financial indebtedness is being
resolved or is under control. AG ¶ 20(c) does not apply. 
Applicant receives limited mitigation under AG ¶ 20(d) for satisfying a medical
debt (SOR ¶ 1.e) and the pet grooming debt (SOR ¶ 1.t). Applicant also receives credit
for making the nine payments to bring his unlisted student loan out of a default status.
The mitigation extends to his payments on the credit card and his six payments on his
car loan between September 2009 and February 2010. The mitigation is reduced
because Applicant has provided no indication of how he intends to address the
remaining 21 debts. It is also important to note that Applicant did not pay the three debts
(two listed and one unlisted) until after the  hearing in March 2010. 
AG ¶ 20(e) sets forth two steps necessary to dispute delinquent debts. Applicant
identified SOR ¶ 1.o as the only debt he disputed. He testified that he was consulting
with a financial counselor to help him determine which debts to dispute. However,
Applicant provided no evidence demonstrating that he has (1) a “reasonable basis to
dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt,” and (2) “documented proof to substantiate
the basis of the dispute.” Applicant has satisfied neither prong of AG ¶ 20(e). 
The statements from Applicant’s supervisor, coworkers, and friends, regarding
his job performance and reputation in the community, weigh in his favor. However, the
character evidence and limited mitigation presented under  ¶ AG 20(b) and ¶ 20(d) are
insufficient to overcome Applicant’s history of not meeting financial obligations. The
financial guideline is resolved against Applicant. 
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence with the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in
my ultimate finding against Applicant under the financial considerations 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:
¶ 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.
Applicant began working for his current employer since June 2005. In 2007, his
wife lost her job while she was pregnant. Applicant has not provided sufficient evidence
9
to establish that his wife had been employed the necessary amount of time to qualify for
100% of her pay during her pregnancy. Further, Applicant has not established that she
was authorized for pregnancy leave by her doctor. Having missed only three weeks of
work since the onset of his illness in 2007, Applicant has not provided persuasive
evidence to establish why he has not been more proactive in paying off the debts listed
in the SOR. 
I have considered Applicant’s documented evidence indicating he paid $3,204 to
return his student loan accounts (not listed in the SOR) to a current status in January
2010. In August 2009, Applicant told the OPM investigator that shortly after he returned
the student loans to a current status, he would start paying off the other debts. I have
considered his credit card payments on an unlisted credit account. I have considered
his six monthly car payments (not listed in the SOR) totaling approximately $1,410
between September 2009 and February 2010. I have also considered Applicant’s
payment in full of an unlisted medical debt of $9.90 in March 2010. Lastly, I have
considered Applicant’s favorable character evidence at work and in the community.
While Applicant’s documented evidence concerning the unlisted debts weighs in his
favor, it is not sufficient to show why he has not handled the listed debts in a
responsible manner.  
In March 2009, Applicant filled out an SCA in which he was asked about his
delinquent debts. On two occasions (interrogatory answers) in August 2009, Applicant
was put on notice that his delinquent debts were a concern to the government. In
November 2009, the SOR was mailed to Applicant. Even though 12 of the medical
debts are under $300 each, Applicant did not pay two of the smaller medical debts (one
debt is listed and one debt is unlisted) until March 2010. The timing of these payments
raises questions about Applicant’s commitment to pay off the remaining delinquent
accounts in a financially responsible manner. An applicant is not required to be free of
all debt, or prove that he has paid all his delinquent debt. However, he must
demonstrate he has a plan to resolve his debts and has taken credible steps to follow
through with the plan. Lacking a clear plan for payment of the listed debts, it is likely that
Applicant’s current financial problems will persist in the future. See AG ¶ 2(a)(9). With
no financial counseling, and payment of only two of the delinquent debts listed in the
SOR, Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the financial
considerations guideline.
10
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.e, 1.t: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.f through 1.s: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.u through 1.w Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                      
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge