Tr. 8.      1
1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 07-03126
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On July 7, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations). 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).
In an August 24, 2009, response, Applicant admitted the five allegations set forth
in the SOR and requested a hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me on February 5,
2010. The parties agreed to a hearing date of March 16, 2010. DOHA issued as notice
of hearing to that effect on February 18, 2010. The hearing was convened as
scheduled. Department Counsel introduced 15 documents, which were admitted into
the record without objection as exhibits (Exs.) 1-15. Department Counsel stipulated that
the debt noted at SOR allegation ¶ 1.e was settled in August 2009.  He also moved to1
 Tr. 64.      2
 SOR allegation ¶ 1.f.      3
 SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.b-1.c.      4
 Tr. 33, 35-36.      5
 SOR allegation ¶ 1.d.      6
2
amend the SOR to include the following sentence as allegation ¶ 1.f: “You are indebted
to [a creditor] for a judgment filed in April 2009. It remains unpaid.”  No objection was2
given and the motion was granted. Applicant gave testimony and offered eight
documents, which were admitted without objection as Ex. A-H. 
Applicant was given until April 21, 2010, to supplement the record with any
additional documents. The transcript (Tr.) of the proceeding was received on March 24,
2010. On April 21, 2010, Department Counsel forwarded six additional documents
which were submitted by Applicant between March 23, 2010, and April 21, 2010.
Absent any objection to their inclusion, they were accepted into the record as Exs. I-N.
The record was then closed. Based on a thorough review of the testimony,
submissions, and exhibits, I find Applicant failed to meet her burden regarding the
financial considerations security concerns raised. Security clearance denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 54-year-old employee of a defense contractor and works in
administrative services. She has worked for the same employer since 1983. Applicant
earned a high school diploma. She is married and has five children. Appellant’s oldest
son and his three children currently live with Applicant.
Over the years, Applicant put forth great effort and expense to make sure her
children had the opportunity to attend college and have a secure future. As a result, one
credit card balance became unwieldy after she provided one son with what he needed
to start college.  She also co-signed student loans for her oldest son. She made3
payments on those loans until that son completed school and found work, at which
point she turned over the responsibility for the loan balance to her son. He defaulted on
those loans in 2003, leaving her with an adverse entry on her credit report.  That son is4
now 35 years old. He and his three children moved in with Applicant in 2009 because
they needed a place to live.  These additions to her household have provided additional5
strain on Applicant’s finances.
Further jeopardizing Applicant’s household income is her husband’s declining
health. He began feeling ill in 2008. While ill and undergoing examination, he failed to
make timely mortgage payments, as discussed below.  He was diagnosed with an6
advanced case of adult onset diabetes and now requires both medical treatment and a
liver transplant. He used his vacation and sick leave time until he was put on a leave of
 Tr. 39.      7
 Tr. 36.      8
 Ex. A (Law firm letter, dated Aug. 28, 2010).      9
 Tr. 15; Ex. J (Law firm letter, dated Mar. 19, 2010).      10
 See also Tr. 58-59. Applicant’s 35 year old son, who is currently employed and earning about $20,000      11
a year in a receiving department, believes he made some payments on the loans “maybe two years ago.”
 Ex. N (Applicant letter, dated Apr. 21, 2010); Tr. 52, 57.      12
 Tr. 24.      13
 Ex. B (Loan Modification Agreement, undated).      14
 Tr. 24.      15
3
absence in February 2009. He ultimately received disability benefits amounting to a little
less than half of his usual pay.  He returned to work around July 2009.7 8
The accounts at issue in the SOR are as follows:
1.a – Collection account ($1,220) – Satisfied. Applicant offered an August 28, 2009,
letter showing that the collection agent for this account filed a stipulation discontinuing
action on her behalf in a lawsuit brought against Applicant.  Because Department9
Counsel found this letter deficient as evidence, Applicant later submitted a March 19,
2010, letter from the collection agent explicitly confirming that her debt was settled in
full.10
1.b – 1.c – Collection accounts ($6,217 and $9,015) – Unresolved. Applicant is the co-
signer on her 35-year-old son’s student loans. She made payments on the loans until
her son finished his studies in 1982 and was able to make the payments himself. He
eventually lost his job and the loans became delinquent in 2003.  Applicant holds her11
son responsible for the loan balances. Applicant was previously unaware of the process
through which a co-signer can be removed from a child’s student loan. She is currently
seeking to have her name removed from his loans.12
1.d – Foreclosure Related Debt ($31,000) – Debt reduced/current status unclear –
Applicant’s home loan fell behind when her husband became ill and he neglected to
pay their mortgage.  Applicant was unaware of this failure. When she learned of the13
debt incurred, she entered a loan modification agreement with her lender pursuant to a
standard loan modification.  Under the terms of the agreement, Applicant was to make14
an initial payment of $4,560 on or before August 10, 2009, and two equal monthly
payments of $1,520.99 beginning on September 1, 2009. The result of this schedule of
payments was a significant modification of her home loan terms. The Government
asked Applicant for “evidence of that initial $4,560 and the subsequent payments of the
$1,520.99. . . .”  As requested, Applicant provided evidence of her initial payment and15
the two subsequent payments, as well as one additional payment. In sum, she showed
 Ex. M (Money Order Records, Aug. - Nov. 2009).      16
 Applicant’s testimony, however, implies that regular payments have been made to date, although she      17
concedes that she thinks her husband may have been late on one or more payments in the preceding six
months. Tr. 41-42.
 Tr. 8, 9; Ex. C (Proof of Settlement, dated Oct. 1, 2009).      18
 Tr. 33.      19
 Tr. 31-32; Ex. E (W orksheet).      20
 Tr. 30; Ex. L (Letter, dated Mar. 16, 2010). See also Ex. D (Letter, dated Jun. 22, 2009).      21
 Tr. 46.      22
 Ex. H (Performance Review).      23
4
payments of $4,560 and three payments of $2,292.94. These payments should have
brought her substantially current through January 2010.  It is unclear if Applicant failed16
to pay the balance owed on her January 2010 loan payment and her February 2010
payment, forgot to submit proof of more recent payments,  or simply complied with the17
Government’s stated request.
1.e – Telecommunications Debt ($567) – Satisfied. The Government stipulated that this
matter was settled.18
1.f – Judgment ($7,838) – In repayment – A creditor obtained a judgment against
Applicant for $7,838. The debt arose due to Applicant’s use of a credit card to pay for
costs related to a son’s entry into college.  Applicant is satisfying the judgment through19
monthly payments of $100.  As of March 16, 2010, Applicant had made $800 in20
payments toward the debt.21
Applicant has a net income of approximately $2,240 per month. Her husband
currently earns about $1,200 each month. Under the home loan modification
agreement, their monthly mortgage payment is $1,520.99, which is paid primarily
through her husband’s salary. With six individuals currently in her home, Applicant
spends nearly $1,000 a month on groceries. Combined with their other monthly
expenses, their everyday needs and bills exceed Applicant’s income.  She has22
borrowed against her retirement fund to meet her obligations. At work, Applicant is a
valued employee who received superior ratings.23
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations
for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions
and mitigating conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Recognizing
the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      24
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      25
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      26
 Id.      27
 Id.      28
5
the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this
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.
The government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in
the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a24
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  25 26
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 an 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 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). “The clearly consistent standard
indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials.”  Any reasonable doubt about whether an applicant should be allowed access27
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.28
 AG ¶ 18, which also notes, “An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage      29
in illegal acts to generate funds.”
6
Based upon my consideration of the evidence, Guideline F (Financial
Considerations) is the most pertinent to this case. Disqualifying and mitigating
conditions pertaining to this adjudicative guideline are set forth and discussed below.
Analysis
Under Guideline F, “failure or an inability to live within one’s means, satisfy
debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
an 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.”  The guideline sets out several potentially disqualifying conditions. Here,29
Applicant has acquired six obligations, most of which became delinquent in the past few
years. To date, her eldest son’s two student loans remain delinquent, a judgment is in
repayment, and the status of her home loan is unclear. While she has satisfied two of
the debts at issue, such facts are sufficient to raise Financial Considerations
Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts)
and FC DC AG ¶ 9(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations) apply. With such
conditions raised, the burden shifts to Applicant to overcome the case against her and
mitigate security concerns. 
Applicant has had financial struggles for some time. First, she put her children
through school, then she took in her oldest son and his children. Adding to the strain on
her family finances, her husband has a serious physical problem and is awaiting a liver
transplant. Two of the debts at issue were successfully resolved and two have been put
into repayment. The regularity and status of Applicant’s home loan payments are
unclear, however, and her son’s student loans remain unaddressed. Applicant
understandably expects her 35-year-old son to take responsibility for the student loans
that helped her send him to college. Despite her expectations, her son, now a father of
three, living with his parents, and making a modest salary, shows no inclination to help
alleviate his mother’s financial troubles. Meanwhile, Applicant simply does not have the
funds to continue paying for his delinquent student loans. Indeed, her present finances
are insufficient to meet her currently large household’s immediate needs.
Consequently, 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)
does not apply. 
Applicant’s attempts to provide for her family during her husband’s illness, period
of unemployment, and reliance on disability benefits are sufficient to give rise to FC MC
AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the behavior 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). However, there is no evidence she has received financial
7
counseling, obviating application of FC MC ¶ 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).
Applicant satisfied the debts cited at SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.a and 1.e, and
negotiated repayment plans on those cited at ¶¶ 1.d and 1.f. The home loan payments
regarding the debt at SOR allegation ¶ 1.d, however, were sometimes late and there is
no evidence of the most recent payments. Further, the student loans cited at SOR
allegations ¶¶ 1.b and 1.c continue to be neglected by both Applicant and her son,
although Applicant expressed her intention to have her name removed as a co-signer.
Regardless, efforts have been made and FC MC ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) applies to all the debts
noted except those cited at SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.b and 1.c.
Applicant has done her best with the income she and her husband currently earn
to address their daily needs and her delinquent debts. Lacking any significant financial
help from two of her adult sons, however, she is struggling to make payments on a
credit card that helped one child go to college. She is waiting for her eldest son to take
responsibility for his student loans. Meanwhile, her finances are highly strained by the
return of her eldest son with his children to her household. Consequently, there is
insufficient income at present to manage Applicant’s monthly accounts and no
assurance how the student loans will be resolved. Applicant has failed to provide
evidence of current financial stability and some indication that her eldest son is capable
of taking responsibility for his student loans. Financial considerations security concerns
remain unmitigated.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all the relevant 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. 
8
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the “whole-person”
factors. Applicant is a mature, credible, and nurturing woman who has gone to
tremendous lengths to care for her family and educate her children. Indeed, her
patience with her son and both his neglect of his student loans and his return to her
household have, unfortunately, only added to her financial problems. At the same time,
she has helped, and continues to help, her husband through his current health issues.
While Applicant has paid two of the debts at issue and negotiated two repayment
plans, more detailed evidence is needed to establish a consistent track record of home
loan payments. Moreover, her recounting of her income and expenses plainly shows
that she is financially ill-prepared to meet both her eldest son’s family’s needs and her
own debts. Until these situations are resolved and Applicant receives sound financial
counseling to help her and her husband adapt to their current income, financial
considerations security concerns remain unmitigated. Clearance is denied.  
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  For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b  Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c  Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d  Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e  For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f  For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance denied.
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge