1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE   
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 ------------------------ )     ISCR Case No. 09-04087
SSN: ---------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
Applicant lost a home to foreclosure in October 2008. The mortgagee reclaimed
the property in settlement of the defaulted mortgage, but Applicant still owes about
$57,364 for a defaulted home equity loan on that property. As of January 2010, he was
attempting to resolve, through a short sale, mortgage and home equity loans totaling
$283,000 on another property. Because he is paying more than $750 in monthly
minimum payments on about $21,828 in credit card debt, Applicant does not have the
funds to resolve his financial issues in the near future. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on February 12, 2009. On August 26, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) issued to Applicant a statement of reasons (SOR) detailing the
security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations, that provided the basis
for its preliminary decision to deny him a security clearance and to refer the matter to an
administrative judge. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of
2
Defense 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 as of September 1, 2006.
On September 17, 2009, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a decision
without a hearing. Nonetheless, the case was assigned to me on December 1, 2009, to
conduct a hearing and to determine whether it is clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. On December 11, 2009, I
scheduled a hearing for January 12, 2010, presuming that the Government or Applicant
had requested a hearing.
I convened the hearing as scheduled. Before the introduction of any evidence, I
inquired whether Applicant or the Government had requested a hearing. Department
Counsel expressed her belief that Applicant had requested a hearing, but the hearing
could have been requested by the Government. She was unable to document a request
from the Government or the Applicant to convert to a hearing. Applicant indicated that
he was willing to proceed with a hearing since he was present and prepared to
represent himself. Five Government exhibits (Ex. 1-5) and four Applicant exhibits (Ex.
A-D.) were admitted into evidence without objection, and Applicant testified, as reflected
in a transcript (Tr.) received on January 21, 2010.
Findings of Fact
DOHA alleged under Guideline F, financial considerations, that Applicant owed
$57,364 for a delinquent home equity loan (SOR 1.a),  and that he was $6,821 behind
in his mortgage for a previous residence (SOR 1.b). In his Answer, Applicant admitted
the debts, which he attributed to having to pay the mortgages on two residences after a
buyer backed out of his contract to purchase the home in his previous locale. After
considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I make the following  factual findings.
Applicant is 48 years old, and has a bachelor of science degree in computer
science. He has worked as a software systems engineer for his current employer, a
federal contractor, since February 2009, and he requires a secret-level security
clearance for his duties. (Ex. 1, C.)
Applicant has been married twice. During his first marriage, he lived and worked
in state X. He and his first wife had two children, a son born in 1988 and a daughter
born in 1991. After 15 years of marriage, he was divorced in April 1999. The following
month, he married his current spouse, and became a stepfather to her seven-year-old
son. In 2002, Applicant and his wife had a daughter. (Ex. 1.) Applicant paid child
support of $768 every two weeks until June 2006, and then $635 every two weeks until
June 2009. (Tr. 91, 93-94)
In July 2000, Applicant and his wife purchased a home in state X (property #1)
for $147,000. (Tr. 60.) As of July 2003, they had a mortgage on the home of about
$163,300. In about November 2004, Applicant took out a home equity line of credit of
about $140,000 on the house. (Ex. 4, Tr. 61.) Of that, Applicant used almost $50,000 to
Applicant testified property #1 was appraised at about $300,000 and it sustained about $150,000 in1
damages in the fire. (Tr. 42-43.) Insurance covered the cost of repairs. (Tr. 81.)
3
satisfy his and his spouse’s credit card obligations incurred during their previous
marriages. (Tr. 63-64.)
Within a month or so of opening the line of credit, Applicant and his family
relocated to the Midwest. Since home prices were selling above their appraised values,
Applicant and his spouse believed it would be a good location for him to start his own
online business (Ex. 2, Tr. 30-31, 84.) Although both were unemployed, in December
2004, he and his spouse bought a home (property #2) of almost 5,000 square feet in
state Y for $453,000 (Tr. 77, 90.), less than its $514,500 appraised value. (Ex. A.) They
took out a mortgage of $362,400 to be repaid at $1,942 per month, and used the
remainder (almost $90,000) of the home equity loan on property #1 for the down
payment. (Exs. 4, 5, Tr. 62.) They counted on acquiring a home equity loan on their new
home at settlement, but it did not go through. (Ex. D, Tr. 35-36.) They relied on
Applicant’s 401(k) funds to meet their expenses. (Tr. 36.)  Applicant had to pay a 20%
tax penalty for early withdrawal of his 401(k) funds. (Tr. 82)
Within a month of their move to state Y, Applicant and his spouse learned that a
prospective buyer for property #1 had backed out of his contract. They relisted the
house with a realtor, so they had to cover the mortgage payments for their previous and
current residences. They were also paying $1,200 for health insurance (Tr. 37, 81.) To
get by, they took out a $37,600 home equity loan on their new home in February 2005
(Ex. 4.) They now had four loans (mortgages and home equity lines of credit on both
houses).
In April 2005, Applicant began looking for employment. (Ex. D.) From May 2005
through December 2006, Applicant worked as a contract senior software engineer
through a couple of staffing agencies. (Ex. 1.) He earned about $95,000 annually, which
was down from the $111,000 he had earned in state X. (Tr. 38.) Since it was contract
work, there were times when he was without a paycheck for two to four weeks. (Tr. 38.)
In September 2005, Applicant and his spouse paid off the home equity loan on
their residence (property #2) by refinancing their primary mortgage. The principal
balance of the new mortgage was $495,000, and they made timely payments for awhile
(Exs. 4, 5.). In December 2005, they rented out property #1 in state X, but their tenants
had a fire two weeks after they moved in. Applicant and his spouse were without rental
income, and they had to take their home off the market pending repair of the premises.1
In late April 2006, they relisted property #1 for sale, but they received no offers (Tr. 42-
43, 67-70.) 
In about March 2006, they listed their residence (property #2) for sale by owner.
(Ex. D.) The next month, they took out a new home equity line of credit of $59,000 on
that property. This is the debt listed in SOR 1.a. This brought their monthly loan
obligation on property #2 to $5,000 ($3,200 on the primary mortgage and about $1,800
on the home equity loan). (Ex. 2, Tr. 78-79.) In late May 2006, they listed the house with
During his subject interview in March 2009, Applicant was off about a year in his time line concerning2
the mortgage default and subsequent foreclosure.
4
a realtor at an asking price of $575,000. (Ex. D, Tr. 39.) The property was appraised at
$458,900. (Ex. A.) It failed to sell, and over time they dropped the asking price to
$569,000, and then $565,000.  (Tr. 40) To ease the financial burden of their home
loans, they again rented out property #1 in November 2006, although the rent they
received  was about $600 less than their monthly mortgage payment on that house. (Tr.
70-71)
In December 2006, Applicant began working at $120,000 annually as a principle
software engineer for a commercial company in the northeastern U.S. (Ex. 1, Tr. 104.)
Applicant and his spouse moved to their present locale, where they rented a three
bedroom, furnished house at $2,000 per month. (Tr. 40-41, 89.) Applicant sold his
vehicle for $600 before they left state Y. (Tr. 88.)
 
In January 2007, Applicant received about $200,000 from his mother’s estate. He
used the funds to pay their household bills, and in April 2007, to lease a vehicle for his
spouse. (Tr. 88.) Even with the rental income from property #1, they were paying $8,300
in housing costs each month (rent for their current residence and loan payments,
mortgage and home equity, on properties #1 and #2). In May 2007, Applicant and his
spouse took a vacation trip to Mexico for a few days, which cost them about $1,500. (Tr.
97) In July 2007, Applicant and his family (spouse, stepson, and daughter) took a trip to
the Cayman Islands, which cost them about $3,000. They used their savings and
money his spouse was receiving in child support from her ex-husband. (Tr. 92-93) In
October 2007, Applicant and his spouse moved with their children to an unfurnished
home, at a rent of $3,200 per month, and they had their home furnishings shipped from
state Y. (Ex. 1)
Despite a reduction in the asking price to $499,000 (Tr. 41.), property #2 did not
sell by December 2007. Applicant began working with the home equity lender about a
short sale. Advised that he would have to be at least three months behind in his
payments, and that any short sale would need the approval of the primary mortgagee,
Applicant stopped paying his mortgage and his home equity loans for property #2.2
(Exs. 2, D, Tr. 43-44.) Over the next nine months, Applicant and his spouse had three
separate short sale contracts on the property, but they expired while the primary
mortgagee was still reviewing the offers (Ex. D, Tr. 45.) The mortgage lender foreclosed
on the property in October 2008, and considered Applicant’s mortgage debt settled.
(Exs. 4, 5, D.) The home equity lender charged off a delinquent balance of $57,364
(SOR 1.a) and placed Applicant and his spouse’s account for collection in about
December 2008. (Exs. 2, 5.) The collection agency wanted $12,000 in a lump sum or
$400 monthly payments to settle the debt, which they could not afford. (Tr. 45-46.)
In November 2008, Applicant learned that he would be laid off in early January
2009. (Exs. 1, D.) His tenants in property #1 elected not to exercise a right of first
refusal on the house. So in December 2008, Applicant stopped paying his mortgage
and home equity loans on the property. (Tr. 46, 64-65.) As of April 2009, that mortgage
The total assumes he had paid off his $91 gasoline credit card and had no new balance on the3
account that had to be paid off each month.
Applicant testified the principal mortgage on property #1 had a balance of between $137,000 and4
$138,000 (Tr. 59.), although his credit report showed a balance of $148,000 as of April 2009. (Ex. 5.) Seventy-
five percent of the short sale at $160,000 would not be sufficient to cover the balance of the primary mortgage.
5
had a principal balance of $148,000 and was $6,821 past due (SOR 1.b). The home
equity line of credit was charged off in April 2009 with a balance owed of more than
$140,000 (not alleged in SOR). (Exs. 4, 5, D.) Applicant was unemployed for about six
or seven weeks, starting in early January 2009. He was entitled to unemployment
compensation of between $400 and $500 per week that he received in about April 2009.
(Tr. 100-01.) 
In February 2009, Applicant began working as a lead software systems engineer
for his current employer. He applied for a secret-level security clearance for his job, and
disclosed the foreclosure of his mortgage on property #2. (Ex. 1.) A check of Applicant’s
credit on February 28, 2009, showed that he had six open credit card accounts that he
was paying on time. The aggregate balance of those six accounts was $21,434. The car
lease taken out in April 2007 had been 30 days past due in the past but was now
current. (Ex. 4.) In April 2009, Applicant paid a $644 collection debt for telephone
services from December 2006. As of May 2009, Applicant owed a total balance of
$19,861 on seven current credit card accounts. (Ex. 5.) By July 2009, the aggregate
balance on five of the accounts totaled $19,828.  (Ex. 3.)3
On April 1, 2009, Applicant submitted documentation of a possible short sale of
property #1. The offer was for $200,000, with a settlement date of April 30, 2009, and
contingent on lien holder approval of the short sale in writing. In early June 2009,
Applicant received a verbal acceptance of the short sale from the primary mortgagee
(SOR 1.b), but the paperwork had to be resubmitted following an acquisition of the
lender by another financial institution. The new lien holder failed to approve the short
sale on time, and the offer expired. (Tr. 47-48.) Applicant and his spouse continued to
market the residence. As of January 2010, Applicant and his spouse had been offered
$160,000 for the home. The aggregate balance of their mortgage and home equity
loans was about $283,000. (Tr. 59, 75.) The primary lender, who would be receiving
75% of the sale price, had apparently approved the short sale. (Tr. 47-48, 55-56.)
Applicant expected the home equity lender to approve the short sale, which he testified
would be sufficient to cover the primary mortgage (SOR 1.b).  (Tr. 48-49, 57-58.)4
Neither the primary mortgagee (SOR 1.b) nor the home equity lender (not alleged) had
taken any action to foreclose as of January 2010. (Tr. 102.)
Applicant and his wife have been excellent tenants in their present locale. They
have paid their rent on time. (Ex. B.) They have their realtor looking for a less expensive
rental in their area to reduce their monthly rent so that they can make repayment
arrangements on the defaulted home equity loan for their previous residence in state Y
(property #2) (SOR 1.a). (Tr. 48-49.) They have a net monthly remainder of only $31
after paying their expenses, including rent of $3,200, $1,567 in monthly grocery costs,
6
and the monthly minimums on their credit card accounts. Applicant and his wife have
bank savings of $2,650. (Ex. 3.) They are no longer using their credit cards, with the
exception of one account that requires full payment of the balance each month. (Tr.
108-09.) Applicant testified he could not recall the last time that he used one of the
credit cards. (Tr. 109.) A comparison of available credit reports (Exs. 4, 5.) shows that a
credit card account with a clothing retailer had a zero balance in February 2009 but a
$351 balance in May 2009. Other accounts also had higher balances ($1,565 from
$1,148, $2,564 from $2,482, $7,573 from $7,457, $7,246 from $6,784), some of which
cannot be attributed solely to interest charges if Applicant made the minimum monthly
payments.
In his first year with his employer, Applicant demonstrated technical capability
and initiative. His lack of a secret-level security clearance significantly impacted the
nature of his work tasks in the context of the program to which he was assigned. (Ex.
C.)
Policies
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,
emphasizing that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy
v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 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 are
required to 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.
7
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
that 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. Section 7
of Executive Order 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 about finances 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.
Applicant and his spouse lost a house (property #2) to foreclosure in state Y in
October 2008. Although the primary mortgage was resolved, he still owes a home
equity lender about $57,364, plus interest, if any, that has accumulated since April 2009
(SOR 1.a). Furthermore, in December 2008, he stopped paying the mortgage and home
equity loans on property #1. While the Government alleged the past due amount of
$6,821 as of April 2009 (SOR 1.b), the unpaid principal balance of the mortgage is at
least $148,000. In addition,  the lender of the home equity line of credit for that property
charged off a delinquent balance of more than $140,000. Disqualifying conditions AG ¶
19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” and AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts,” apply.
Furthermore, based on an overall assessment of Applicant’s financial situation,
AG ¶ 19(e), “consistent spending beyond one’s means, which may be indicated by
excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-income ratio,
and/or other financial analysis,” also applies. Applicant and his spouse bought a large
home in state Y when they were both unemployed, had outstanding debt from their
previous marriages, and had not sold their home in state X. They used $137,428 of a
$140,000 home equity line of credit to pay some bills and for the down payment on their
new home. By January 2010, Applicant had used all of his $200,000 inheritance to
Applicant had substantial mortgage and rent costs, but he also stopped paying his mortgage loans5
on property #2 in December 2007, and property #1 in December 2008. His child support was $1,270 per
month. He apparently spent some of the monies on first and last rent, and to lease a vehicle for his spouse
(Tr. 88.). Since he was no longer paying his mortgage and home equity loans for property #2 by early 2008,
his other expenses had to have been sizeable because he exhausted the entire $200,000 by January 2010.
Per his personal financial statement, as of July 13, 2009, his monthly minimum payments totaled $777 plus
he had to pay the total balance owed on another credit card. (Ex. 3.)
8
cover household expenses.  The two vacations taken in 2007 at a cost of $4,500, their5
move in October 2007 to an unfurnished home at rent of $3,200 when they had been
paying $2,000 per month, their accrual of about $21,434 in outstanding credit balances
as of February 2009, and even their grocery bill of $1,567 per month for a family of four,
are evidence of consistent spending beyond their means.
Applicant’s defaults of his mortgage and home equity loans are too recent to
favorably consider 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.” There is
credible evidence that would implicate mitigating condition 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.”
Chiefly, the difficulties in selling their homes (potential buyers backing out of contracts
or choosing not to exercise options to purchase, the downturn in the residential markets,
the loss of considerable equity in property #2, or more recently mortgagees and home
equity lenders failing to approve sales on time) were not within his control and not
reasonably foreseen by Applicant. Although the costs of repair were borne by
Applicant’s insurer, the fire in property #1 left him without rental income and unable to
list the home for sale for several months. The job layoff in early January 2009 was not
within his control, and Applicant testified that it was the uncertainty about his job
prospects, as well as his tenants’ decision not to purchase property #1, that led him to
stop paying on his home loans for that property as of December 2008. But AG ¶ 20(b)
does not extenuate his failure to live within his means, which contributed to his financial
problems.
AG ¶ 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors
or otherwise resolve debts,” applies because of Applicant’s efforts to sell both homes to
relieve himself of the burden of the mortgage loans before he defaulted. He put his
home in state X on the market in March 2006, initially as a sale by owner. When it did
not sell, he listed it with a realtor in late May 2006. He continued to pay the mortgage
loans on the property, and dropped the asking price several times, until December
2007, when he was advised by the home equity lender that he would have to stop
paying on his loans for the mortgagees to approve a short sale. Applicant testified that
he was in contact with the short sale departments of both lenders and that they had
three offers on the home that expired due to the primary mortgagee taking too long to
approve the sale. (Tr. 44-45.) After the foreclosure of his primary mortgage, Applicant
contacted the home equity lender about remediation of that loan. However, it is unclear
whether Applicant is currently taking any action to resolve that debt. As for the
9
delinquent mortgage on property #1 (SOR 1.b), the house was on the market for most
of 2005, from late April 2006 until November 2006, and then from about late December
2008. He had renters for only a couple of weeks in December 2005, but consistently
received rental income that helped him pay the mortgage in 2007 and 2008. After his
tenants decided not to purchase the home, Applicant marketed it for a possible short
sale, which he was continuing to pursue as of his hearing in January 2010. Applicant
presented evidence of a buyer for the property at a price of $160,000 pending approval
from the home equity lender, who would receive 25% in the short sale.
There is no guarantee that the short sale will be approved by the home equity
lender, who would receive about $40,000 but is owed more than $140,000. Assuming
that the short sale proceeded and negated any further liability on Applicant’s part for the
mortgage and home equity loans on property #1, Applicant would still owe about
$57,354 for the defaulted home equity loan on property #2. He was unable to make the
monthly payments required by the assignee to settle the debt in the past. As of July
2009, he had about $31 per month in discretionary funds each month, and his financial
situation had not improved substantially by January 2010. His spouse was still
unemployed. Although he testified that he was looking for lower cost housing, Applicant
was still renting a house at $3,200 per month. Whether because of interest and fees on
accrued balances or continuing reliance on credit cards for purchases, he had not
reduced his credit card debt significantly over the May to late July 2009 time frame. He
owed an aggregate balance of $19,828 on five accounts. Assuming he made regular
payments of the monthly minimums reflected on his personal financial statement (Ex.
3.), and that he incurred no new credit card charges, he would owe more than $15,000
in current credit card balances as of January 2010. His record of timely payments on his
credit card debts is noted in his favor, but with more than $750 per month going to his
credit cards, he does not have the funds at this time to resolve the debt in SOR 1.a in
the near future. It would be premature to apply 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,” especially where he has not adequately
demonstrated a track record of living within his means. The financial concerns are not
fully mitigated.
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 conduct
and all the relevant circumstances in light of 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
10
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
Applicant and his spouse took a significant financial risk when they moved to
state Y to start an online business. Had all gone as planned, Applicant and his spouse
would be living in their home in the Midwest, owe only the mortgage and home equity
loans for that house, and he would be operating a successful online business. The
economic downturn depressed home values, so Applicant owed more than his home in
state Y was worth, and buyers backed out of sales contracts on both homes. He
deserves credit for remaining current in his debt payments from 2005 through
December 2007, although it is not at all clear that he would have been able to do so
without his $200,000 inheritance.
That having been said, Applicant’s financial problems are due at least in part to
his own poor judgment. Applicant moved his family to state Y, and took on a new
mortgage of $362,400 to be repaid at $1,942 per month for a 5,000 square foot home
when he and his spouse had no income (other than possible child support from her ex-
husband), he had to pay child support for two children from his previous marriage, and
they had mortgage and home equity loans on their home in state X. After repaying
about $47,000 in debt, including debt brought into their marriage, Applicant and his
spouse relied on consumer credit cards to where they accumulated about $21,434 in
credit card debt as of February 2009. Applicant and his spouse caused further strain on
their finances by renting a home at $3,200 per month since October 2007. There is no
evidence that they have decreased their grocery bill from $1,567 per month. Financial
decisions appear to have been made with little consideration to what they can
reasonably afford.
If he resolves his loans on property #1 through a short sale or other means, and
he establishes a payment plan on the home equity loan on property #2 (SOR 1.a) for six
months along with a reduction in his expenses, Applicant may well be a good candidate
for a security clearance when again eligible 12 months after the date of this decision.
But at this time, I am unable to conclude that his financial problems are safely in the
past.
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: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
11
Conclusion
In light of 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.
Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Administrative Judge