1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXX )  ISCR Case No. 09-00985 
 SSN: XXX-XX-XXXX ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant has mitigated security concerns pertaining to Guideline F (financial 
considerations). Clearance is granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On July 29, 2008, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions 
(SF-86). On September 9, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) 
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F 
(financial considerations) for Applicant. 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 within the Department of Defense for SORs 
after September 1, 2006.  
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on November 25, 2009, and DOHA received her 
answer on November 30, 2009. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on 
 
2 
 
 
May 26, 2010. The case was assigned to me on May 28, 2010. DOHA issued a notice 
of hearing on June 4, 2010, scheduling the hearing for June 29, 2010. The hearing 
was held as scheduled. 
 
The Government offered Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 6, which were 
received without objection. The Applicant offered Applicant Exhibits (AE) A through L, 
which were received without objection, and she testified on her own behalf. DOHA 
received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on July 7, 2010. The record closed on July 7, 
2010. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations with explanations. Her answers 
with explanations are incorporated herein as findings of fact. After a thorough review 
of the evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact. 
 
Background Information 
 
Applicant is a 48-year-old lead dispatcher, who has worked for her defense 
contractor employer since January 2008. She currently has an interim secret 
clearance. Successfully vetting for a security clearance is a requirement for her 
continued employment. (GE 1, AE I, AE J, Tr. 20, 28-29, 48.)  
 
Applicant immigrated to the U.S. from Germany when she was 13 years old. 
She did not graduate from high school, but did attend a vocational school and earn her 
General Educational Development certificate in approximately 1986. While attending 
vocational school, she took secretarial courses. She later attended a community 
college to pursue a course of study in physical therapy, but did not complete the 
program. (GE 1, Tr. 26-28.)  
 
Applicant is in her third marriage. She was married to her first husband from 
March 1986 to July 1987, which ended by divorce. She was married to her second 
husband from June 1988 to December 1997, which ended by divorce. She married 
her third and current husband in January 1998, separated in December 2008, and is 
pending divorce. She and her third husband have a 12-year-old son. Applicant has 
custody of their son and receives approximately $800 in monthly child support by 
informal arrangement. She has a 19-year-old daughter from her second marriage, who 
lives with her father. Applicant also has two stepsons from her current husband’s first 
marriage. (GE 1, 20-26.)  
 
In February 2010, Applicant was diagnosed with breast cancer. She had 
surgery on April 1, 2010 and remained on sick leave until May 1, 2010. Applicant was 
scheduled to begin chemotherapy treatment the day after her hearing. (Tr. 34-37.) 
She also was unemployed from December 2006 to January 2008, which ended when 
she began her current job. (GE 1, Tr. 40-41.) 
 
 
3 
 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
Applicant’s background investigation addressed her financial situation and 
included the review of her July 2008 SF-86, her May 2009 Responses to DOHA 
Interrogatories, as well as her July 2008, May 2009, and June 2010 credit reports. 
Applicant’s SOR identified eight separate debts totaling $16,115. (GE 1 – 6; SOR ¶¶ 
1.a. – 1.h.) 
 
Applicant has settled, paid, or otherwise resolved the eight debts alleged. A 
brief summary of each debt follows. The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. is a collection 
account for an education loan in the amount of $424. Applicant settled this account for 
$212, which she paid in November 2009. (AE A, Tr. 39-40.) 
 
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b. is a past-due account for a medical bill in the 
amount of $25. Applicant paid this account in full in June 2010. (AE B, Tr. 40.) 
 
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.c. is a past-due credit card account in the amount 
of $711. Applicant settled this account for a lesser amount and made a final payment 
of $178 in May 2009. (AE C, Tr. 40-42.)  
 
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d. is a collection account for a computer she 
purchased for $3,020. Applicant made payment arrangements to pay the creditor $100 
monthly. She is current on her monthly payments. (AE D, Tr. 42.)  
 
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e. is a collection account for cell phone service in 
the amount of $1,079. Applicant settled this account with the creditor for $647, and 
made her last payment of $497 in July 2010. (AE E, Tr. 43.) 
 
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f. is a collection account for cell phone service 
(different company than debt in SOR ¶ 1.e.) in the amount of $111. Applicant settled 
this account for $48, which she paid in July 2010. (AE F, Tr. 43-45.)  
 
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g. is a collection account for telephone service in 
the amount of $250. Applicant settled this account for $125, which she paid in June 
2009. (AE G, Tr. 45.) 
 
The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.h. is for a past-due student loan in the amount of 
$10,495. This debt was repaid by recoupment of federal income tax refunds owed to 
Applicant. As of June 2010, Applicant no longer had a balance due on this account. 
(AE H, Tr. 45-46.) 
 
Applicant attributes her financial problems to a combination of factors to include 
her husband’s injury and her family’s forced relocation following a hurricane, her 
recent diagnosis of breast cancer and uncovered medical expenses, and her 
unemployment before beginning her current job. However, the most significant factor 
 
4 
 
 
affecting her current financial situation was the reduction of income following her 
separation from her husband. (Response to SOR, Tr. 32, 34-36, 38, 44, 50.) 
 
In conclusion, Applicant has paid, settled, made good-faith efforts to repay 
overdue creditors, or resolved all debts alleged. Applicant remains current on the rest 
of her monthly bills. Her budget further demonstrates that she maintains a modest 
lifestyle and is living within her means. (AE L, Tr. 29-33, 46-49.) 
 
Character Evidence 
 
Applicant submitted three reference letters. Two of those letters are from the 
manager who hired her and her current supervisor. Both individuals enthusiastically 
commend Applicant’s performance as lead dispatcher, a position to which she was 
promoted to January 2009. They describe her as “a highly valued part of the 
Emergency Management Team” and as a “proven . . . professional and dedicated 
member of the (command) Dispatch team.” She supervises a ten-person contractor 
dispatch team with great skill and dedication. Her supervisor described her as “honest, 
dependable and a very capable person, skillfully handling a myriad of both personal 
and professional circumstances.” Applicant is entrusted with many personal and 
intimate details of each dispatcher, which she has never compromised. (AE I, AE J.) 
 
Applicant’s last letter was a personal reference from a long-time family friend, 
who is a medical doctor. He described Applicant’s role as a mother as well as her 
involvement in the community. She was the director of the local cheerleading league 
and organized the teams, scheduled competitive events, and ran fundraising events to 
buy uniforms. She also volunteered for the Special Olympics and other organizations. 
He added that his handicapped daughter is a good friend of Applicant’s daughter and 
has spent a significant amount of time at Applicant’s home over the years. He 
concluded by saying that Applicant is “a person of integrity, honesty, dependability, 
and honor.” (AE K.) 
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
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, which are used 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, 
 
5 
 
 
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.  
 
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 in seeking to obtain a favorable 
security decision.  
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This 
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The 
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it 
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration 
of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation of 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 
 
  Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all 
appropriate legal precepts, factors, and conditions, including those described briefly 
above, I conclude that a relevant security concern exists under Guideline F (financial 
considerations). AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concern relating to financial 
problems: 
 
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. 
 
6 
 
 
 AG ¶ 19 provides two financial considerations disqualifying conditions that 
could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability or 
unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and “(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.” 
Applicant’s history of delinquent debt is established by her admissions and the 
evidence presented. As indicated in SOR ¶¶ 1.a. to 1.h., she had eight delinquent 
debts totaling $16,115 that were in various states of delinquency for several years. 
The Government established the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c).   
 
  Five financial considerations mitigating conditions under AG ¶¶ 20(a) through 
(e) are potentially applicable:  
 
(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; 
 
(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; 
 
(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; 
 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts; and 
 
(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 of actions to resolve the issue. 
 
Applicant’s conduct does not warrant full application of AG ¶ 20(a) because 
there is more than one delinquent debt and her financial problems are not isolated. It 
was not until recently that these debts were paid or resolved. Therefore, her debts are 
“a continuing course of conduct” under the Appeal Board’s jurisprudence. See ISCR 
Case No. 07-11814 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 29, 2008) (citing ISCR Case No. 01-03695 
(App. Bd. Oct. 16, 2002)). She receives partial credit under AG ¶ 20(a) because the 
debt “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.” Under 
AG ¶ 20(b), she receives full credit because the hardship caused by a hurricane to her 
family, her unemployment, her diagnosis and costs associated with breast cancer, and 
 
7 
 
 
                                                          
her separation and pending divorce were largely beyond her control and she acted 
responsibly under the circumstances.1  
 
AG ¶ 20(c) is not applicable because Applicant did not seek financial 
counseling. She has, however, produced evidence that establishes that she is living 
within her means and has regained financial responsibility. Furthermore, there is 
sufficient information to establish full mitigation under AG ¶ 20(d).2 Applicant has paid, 
is paying, or has otherwise resolved her debts. AG ¶ 20(e) is not applicable because 
Applicant did not dispute the legitimacy of any of her debts.  
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the 
applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should 
consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):  
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
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.  
1“Even if Applicant’s financial difficulties initially arose, in whole or in part, due to circumstances outside 
his [or her] control, the Judge could still consider whether Applicant has since acted in a reasonable 
manner when dealing with those financial difficulties.” ISCR Case No. 05-11366 at 4 n.9 (App. Bd. Jan. 
12, 2007) (citing ISCR Case No. 99-0462 at 4 (App. Bd. May 25, 2000); ISCR Case No. 99-0012 at 4 
(App. Bd. Dec. 1, 1999); ISCR Case No. 03-13096 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2005)). A component is 
whether she maintained contact with her creditors and attempted to negotiate partial payments to keep 
her debts current. 
 
2The Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a “good-faith” effort to repay overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts: 
 
In order to qualify for application of [the “good-faith” mitigating condition], an applicant 
must present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
some other good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive 
does not define the term ‘good-faith.’ However, the Board has indicated that the 
concept of good-faith ‘requires a showing that a person acts in a way that shows 
reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.’ Accordingly, 
an applicant must do more than merely show that he or she relied on a legally available 
option in order to claim the benefit of [the “good-faith” mitigating condition].  
 
(internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004) (quoting 
ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)). 
 
8 
 
 
The ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must 
be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
guidelines and the whole-person concept. AG ¶ 2(c).  
There is evidence against mitigating Applicant’s conduct. The SOR lists eight 
debts totalling $16,115 that were at one time or another in various states of 
delinquency. Her lack of success in resolving delinquent debt until recently raises 
sufficient security concerns to merit further inquiry.   
 
The mitigating evidence under the whole-person concept is more substantial. 
Applicant’s record of community involvement and good employment weighs in her 
favor. There is no evidence of any security violation during the time Applicant held her 
interim security clearance. She is a law-abiding citizen. All of her SOR debts are paid 
or resolved. Her monthly expenses are current. The Appeal Board has addressed a 
key element in the whole-person analysis in financial cases, stating: 
 
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the 
concept of “‘meaningful track record’” necessarily includes evidence of 
actual debt reduction through payment of debts.” However, an applicant 
is not required, as a matter of law, to establish that [she] has paid off 
each and every debt listed in the SOR. All that is required is that an 
applicant demonstrate that [she] has “. . . established a plan to resolve 
[her] financial problems and taken significant actions to implement that 
plan.” The Judge can reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s 
financial situation and [her] actions in evaluating the extent to which that 
applicant’s plan for the reduction of [her] outstanding indebtedness is 
credible and realistic. See Directive ¶  E2.2(a) (“Available, reliable 
information about the person, past and present, favorable and 
unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination.”) 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. 
Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually paid in 
furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the SOR. 
 
ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations omitted). 
Applicant is making a significant contribution to the national defense. Her company 
fully supports her and recommends her for a security clearance. She made mistakes, 
and debts became delinquent. There is, however, simply no reason not to trust her. 
Her reference letters substantiate her good character. She has paid her debts. 
Furthermore, she has established a “meaningful track record” of debt payments. 
These factors show responsibility, rehabilitation, and mitigation. After weighing the 
disqualifying and mitigating conditions, and all the facts and circumstances in the 
context of the whole person, I conclude she has mitigated the financial considerations 
security concerns.  
 
 
9 
 
 
I take this position based on the law, as set forth in Department of Navy v. 
Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), my careful consideration of the whole person factors and 
supporting evidence, my application of the pertinent factors under the adjudicative 
process, and my interpretation of my responsibilities under the adjudicative guidelines. 
Applicant has fully mitigated or overcome the Government’s case. For the reasons 
stated, I conclude she is eligible for access to classified information. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
Formal findings For or Against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the 
SOR, as required by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:          
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F:    FOR APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a. to 1.h.:  For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility 
for a security clearance. Eligibility for a security clearance is granted. 
 
 
 
____________________________ 
Robert J. Tuider 
Administrative Judge