DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 09-04797 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Nicole Noel, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on April 14, 2009, as part of his employment with a defense contractor. 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) to 
Applicant detailing security concerns for financial considerations under Guideline F on 
November 23, 2009. 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 December 1, 2009. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR in an undated written response. He admitted 10 
and denied 10 of the 20 Guideline F allegations. He requested a hearing before an 
administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on February 17, 
2010, and the case was assigned to me on February 22, 2010. DOHA issued a Notice 
of Hearing on March 10, 2010, for a hearing on April 6, 2010. I convened the hearing as 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
scheduled. The Government offered four exhibits, marked Government Exhibits (Gov. 
Ex.) 1 through 4, which were received without objection. Applicant testified on his 
behalf. He offered one exhibit marked Applicant Exhibit (App. Ex.) A, which was 
received without objection. I kept the record open for Applicant to file additional 
documents. Applicant timely filed three documents, marked App. Ex. B through D, which 
were received without objection. (See, Gov. Ex. 5, Memorandum, dated April 21, 2010) 
DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on April 12, 2010. Based on a review 
of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified 
information is denied. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is 42 years old and has worked as a warehouse logistician for a 
defense contractor for approximately 16 months. He is a high school graduate, and has 
attended trade school for computer programming. He married in October 1996, 
separated in 2004, and divorced in August 2009. He has one 12-year-old child, and a 
20-year-old stepdaughter. Applicant is required to pay $350 monthly in child support for 
his daughter. He has not previously held a security clearance or served in the military. 
(Tr. 16-27; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated April 14 2009)  
 
Applicant's marriage was not smooth. There were many problems that were not 
the fault of Applicant. (See, App. Ex. D, Police Incident Report, dated June 5, 2004) 
Applicant's and his wife's initial financial arrangement was to keep their funds separate 
and each pay part of the family bills. Applicant paid the first mortgage on their house 
and his wife paid the second mortgage. Applicant's wife refused to tell Applicant the 
amount of her salary. The couple had marital problems starting in 2003, and his wife 
told Applicant she would not pay any bills that were not in her name. She stopped 
helping pay any of the bills including the bills she had agreed to pay. Applicant returned 
home one day in February 2004 and discovered his wife had moved out of the house 
and taken everything from the house, including the stove and refrigerator. Applicant 
soon learned she had not been paying her share of the bills, even the second mortgage. 
They were over $3,000 behind on the second mortgage and Applicant did not have the 
funds to bring payments current. Because of her failure to pay the second mortgage, the 
house was foreclosed in late 2004.  
 
Applicant was a truck driver making $11 an hour when his wife left him in 2004. 
Shortly thereafter, Applicant was terminated by his employer. He received a ticket while 
driving his personal car, and his employer's insurance company would no longer cover 
Applicant when he drove the company's truck. Applicant was unemployed for a short 
time before finding work with a temporary agency for approximately a year making $10 
per hour. He then worked for another trucking company making $12 to $13 per hour. He 
had another position after that that only paid $8.25 per hour, until he found his present 
position with the defense contractor making $14.25 per hour. Applicant's present 
 
3 
 
 
monthly salary is $1,358, with $1,324 in monthly expenses. His expenses include the 
$350 in monthly child support payments. He has a net monthly remainder of 
approximately $34. He is seeking a roommate to help him with the rent payments, 
thereby providing him with more disposable funds. He occasionally works a part-time 
job that pays about $80 per month. (Tr. 28-30, 54-60) 
  
Credit reports (Gov. Ex. 3, Credit report, dated August 13, 2009; and Gov. Ex. 4, 
Credit report, dated April 24, 2009) and Applicant's admissions (Gov. Ex. 2, Answers to 
Interrogatories, dated September 14, 2009) reveal the following delinquent debts for 
Applicant: a telephone debt to T-Mobile in collection for $921 (SOR 1.a); a telephone 
debt for AT&T in collection for $230 (SOR 1.b); a cable debt in collection for $127 (SOR 
1.c); two medical debts in collection for $799 (SOR 1.d) and $857 (SOR 1.e); a credit 
card debt charged off for $3,315 (SOR 1.f); the second mortgage on his house in 
collection for $19,139 (SOR 1.g); a credit card in collection for $6,459 (SOR 1.h); a 
returned check charged off for $104 (SOR 1.i); a debt in collection for $206 (SOR 1.j); a 
telephone debt to Suncom in collection for $428 (SOR 1.k); a credit card debt in 
collection for $489 (SOR 1.l); another credit card account in collection for $437 (SOR 
1.m); car repossession for $6,650 (SOR 1.n); three medical debts in collection to the 
same creditor for $305 (SOR 1.o), $225 (SOR 1.p), and $221 (SOR 1.q); a pay day loan 
in collection for $235 (SOR 1.r); a storage debt in collection for $52 (SOR 1.s); and a 
credit card debt in collection for $2,489 (SOR 1.t). The delinquent debt totals $43,724. 
 
Applicant has paid in full the cable debt of $127 at SOR 1.c. (Tr. 32; App. Ex. A, 
Receipt, dated March 18, 2010) Applicant paid in full the returned check at SOR 1.i. (Tr. 
39-40; App. Ex. B, Receipt, dated April 9, 2010) Applicant paid in full the pay day loan at 
SOR 1.j (Tr. 40; App. Ex. C, Letter, dated April 7, 2010). None of the other debts have 
been paid.  
 
Applicant has few funds for bill payments because of the child support he is 
required to pay. He contacted some creditors but most want a lump-sum payment or an 
initial large payment before agreeing to a payment plan.  
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.a is for a telephone bill. Applicant contacted the 
creditor but they would only accept an up-front payment. (Tr. 30) Applicant is unsure of 
the delinquent debt at SOR 1.b. He did pay a $230 debt that was taken from his bank 
account. He is not sure if this is the debt that was paid. (Tr. 30-32)  
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.d for $799 is for emergency room treatment of 
Applicant. He did not have health insurance at the time of the visit. The debt has not 
been paid. (Tr. 33) Applicant is unsure of the medical debt at SOR 1.e. It may be the 
same debt as the debt listed in SOR 1.d. He contacted the hospital about both debts but 
he is only listed for one debt. He did not receive any documentation to support the 
potential duplication. (Tr. 34) 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.f is from a credit card used by both Applicant and 
his wife. His wife was to pay half of the debt. The card is in his name only and his wife 
 
4 
 
 
refuses to pay any debt not in her name. He contacted the creditor and they want an 
initial large payment. He does not have funds to make the payment. (Tr. 34-37) 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.g is the second mortgage on Applicant's house. 
Applicant paid the primary mortgage, and his wife paid the second mortgage. Applicant 
made his mortgage payments, but his wife stopped paying the second mortgage some 
time in 2003. He did not know about his wife's failure until he was called at work by the 
mortgage company and was informed that he was $3,000 behind on the second 
mortgage and the house would be foreclosed. He was unable to pay the $3,000, so the 
house was foreclosed. The foreclosure paid the first mortgage, but the second 
mortgage is still outstanding. The mortgage is in his name. He admits he has some 
responsibility for the second mortgage but he believes his wife also has responsibility. 
(Tr. 37-38)   
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.h for $6,459 is for a credit card used by Applicant 
and his wife during the marriage. The debt has not been paid. (Tr. 39) 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.k is for a cell phone Applicant co-signed with a 
friend. Applicant's friend did not pay the telephone bill. He and his friend went to the 
company and negotiated a settlement. Applicant stated he paid his portion of the 
settlement, but his friend did not pay the other part of the bill, leaving him with the bill. 
(Tr. 40-42) 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.l is for Applicant's personal credit card. The debt 
has not been paid. (Tr. 4-43) The delinquent debt at SOR 1.m is for a gas credit card in 
Applicant's name used by both Applicant and his wife. The debt has not been paid. (Tr. 
43) 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.n is a car repossession. The car was used by 
Applicant and his wife. He paid the car loan and his wife paid the insurance. His wife 
stopped paying the insurance without his knowledge. When his wife left, he could not 
make both the insurance and car payments. The car was repossessed. The debt has 
not been paid. (Tr. 43-44) 
 
The delinquent debts at SOR 1.o, 1.p, and 1.q are medical debts. Applicant is not 
sure of the origin of the debts or the true amount of the debts. Applicant contacted the 
creditor but they request a total payment. Applicant is unable to make the payment. (Tr. 
45-50) 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.r is for a pay day loan that has not been paid. The 
delinquent debt at SOR 1.s is for a storage facility. Applicant is not sure of the debt, and 
the debt has not been paid. The delinquent debt at SOR 1.t is for a credit card jointly 
used by Applicant and his wife that has not been paid. (Tr. 50-51)  
 
Applicant has not taken any action to proceed against his wife to get assistance 
in paying some of the marital debts. He does not want to jeopardize his visitation rights 
 
5 
 
 
with his daughter. He talked to one credit counseling agency in 2009 that took money 
from his account to assist him. They took $39 monthly for administrative fees and $79 
for debt payments. He did not know what if any debts had been paid. He stopped the 
payments since he could not afford to have the funds taken from his account. (Tr. 51-
54) 
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the revised 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.  
 
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. 
 
6 
 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations: 
 
 Under 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 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. Applicant's delinquent debts as listed on credit reports are a security 
concern raising Financial Considerations 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 early as 2003 when 
his wife stopped assisting him with debt payment. He continued to accrue delinquent 
debt after he and his wife separated in 2003 and divorced in 2004. The delinquent debts 
total over $43,000.  
 
 I considered the 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 ¶ 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). The mitigating conditions partially apply. Applicant's 
delinquent debts started when his marriage deteriorated and his wife no longer assisted 
him with paying the family bills. She discontinued paying those bills that she agreed to 
pay. This was a circumstance beyond his control. Applicant states that he does not 
have sufficient income to pay his debts. However, Applicant has been gainfully 
employed since his marriage dissolved. He paid only a small portion of his delinquent 
debts. Some of the remaining unpaid debts are for small amounts and could be paid if 
Applicant had in place a payment plan. In some cases, he has not even contacted the 
creditors to establish payment plans. He has not demonstrated that under these 
circumstances he acted responsibly towards his finances. Applicant does not have a 
plan in place or even considered one to accumulate funds to pay the remaining debts.   
 
7 
 
 
 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, concrete method of handling debts is needed. 
Good-faith means acting in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and 
adherence to duty or obligation. Applicant has paid only a few small debts. He does not 
have payment plans established for the payment of his remaining delinquent debts. He 
does not have a systematic concrete method of managing his delinquent bills. He has 
not shown a reasonable, prudent, honest course of action to manage his debts. 
Accordingly, he has not established a good-faith effort to resolve his debt. Accordingly, 
Applicant has not mitigated security concerns based on his finances. 
 
 “Whole-Person” Analysis  
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
the circumstances. An 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. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant 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. Applicant must establish a 
"meaningful track record" of debt payment, including evidence of actual debt reduction 
through payment of debts. He is not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he 
paid off each and every debt listed in the SOR. All that is required is that he has a plan 
to resolve his financial problems and takes significant action to implement that plan. The 
entirety of his financial situation and his actions can reasonably be considered in 
evaluating the extent to which his actions to reduce his outstanding indebtedness is 
credible and realistic. 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.   
 
Applicant has not established a meaningful track record of debt payment. He has 
not presented a concrete systematic plan for resolving his debt problems. He has no 
 
8 
 
 
payment plans in place, and no methods of saving to pay debts. He has sufficient 
monthly income to meet his present obligations, and does have some limited income to 
use to make some payments on delinquent debts. Applicant's lack of sufficient 
management of his past obligations indicates he may not be concerned, responsible, 
and careful regarding classified information. Overall, the record evidence leaves me 
with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. 
He has not established he is suitable for a security clearance. I conclude Appellant has 
not 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:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a - 1b:  Against Applicant  
  Subparagraph 1.c:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraphs 1.d - h:  Against Applicant  
  Subparagraphs 1.i - 1.j:  For Applicant 
  Subparagraphs 1.k - 1.t:  Against Applicant 
 
Conclusions 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge