1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-03622
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the Financial Considerations security concerns. Clearance is
granted. 
Statement of the Case
On January 8, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns 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) effective in the Department of Defense as of September 1,
2006. 
Applicant answered the SOR on January 22, 2010, denying SOR subparagraphs
1.a and 1.b, and admitting SOR subparagraph 1.c. He requested a hearing. The case
Applicant’s wife managed the finances because he worked overseas approximately 10 months per year. (Tr.1
25)
2
was assigned to me on March 12, 2010. On March 24, 2010, a notice of hearing was
issued scheduling the case for April 21, 2010. At the hearing, I received three
Government exhibits, 21 Applicant exhibits, and the testimony of Applicant. The
transcript was received on April 30, 2010.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 51-year-old married man. Two previous marriages ended in
divorce. He has been married to his current wife since January 2009. (Tr. 19) They have
a five-month old child. Applicant has one other child, a six-year-old, from his second
marriage. 
Applicant has a master’s degree in linguistics earned in 1988. (GE 1 at 11) He
earned a bachelor’s degree in the same discipline. 
In 1993, Applicant enlisted in the Army. (Tr. 20) He served honorably through his
discharge in 1998. Since leaving the Army, Applicant has worked as an intelligence
analyst and translator for various defense contractors. (Tr. 21) He has worked for his
current employer for the past three years. (Tr. 22) He worked for his previous employer
in the six years preceding his current employment.
Applicant is highly respected on the job. He speaks three foreign languages
fluently. (AE N) His superior skills as a translator enable him to respond quickly to client
requests, and “resolve threat information on-the-fly.” (Id.)
In 2007, the IRS audited Applicant’s tax returns for tax years 2004 through 2006.
(Tr. 27) The audit revealed that Applicant and his then-wife, with whom he had filed
jointly, miscalculated these tax returns, and owed approximately $16,000. (AE Q) The
miscalculation was not in bad faith; rather, it stemmed from Applicant’s status as an
independent contractor. Specifically, the company with whom he worked from 2000 to
2006 did not withhold income taxes from its contract employees. Consequently,
Applicant was responsible for setting aside money for his income taxes. Despite filing
his income taxes with the help of a certified public accountant, he failed to calculate the
amount due correctly. (Tr. 25-27, 58-59) 
Because Applicant’s then-wife was unemployed at or about the time of the audit,
they struggled to repay the delinquency. Also, they were unable to timely pay their
income tax for tax year 2007. (AE Q)
Applicant’s marriage began deteriorating in 2007, in part, because of his then-
wife’s inability to manage the family finances.  (GE 2 at 17-18) In October 2007, he and1
his wife separated. (Tr. 44) Before they separated, they had negotiated an installment
agreement with the IRS. (Tr. 34) After their separation, they stopped complying with the
3
agreement because they could not agree on how to apportion the responsibility. (Tr. 34,
41) Also, Applicant moved into an apartment after the separation, incurring rental
expenses while retaining responsibility to pay the home mortgage where his estranged
wife continued to reside. (GE 2 at 17) These developments further hampered his ability
to make any progress toward eliminating his tax delinquency. 
Applicant’s divorce was finalized in November 2008. (Tr. 44) In December 2008,
Applicant’s father, who lived abroad, became fatally ill. Applicant then left the country to
visit him. (Tr. 75) The trip was costly, and it further impeded Applicant’s ability to satisfy
the tax delinquency. 
Applicant’s father died approximately a week after Applicant arrived at his home.
Applicant then returned to the United States. In March 2009, Applicant suffered a heart
attack, and was disabled for approximately one month. (Tr. 76)
By June 2009, Applicant’s tax delinquency had accrued to $46,500. (AE Q) That
month, Applicant negotiated a payment agreement under which he was to pay the IRS
$2,733 monthly. (AE D) Since then, he has adhered to the agreement. By January
2010, Applicant had satisfied approximately $22,900 of the delinquency. (AE D) He
continues to make the monthly payments, and anticipates satisfying the delinquency in
the next five months. (Tr. 30)
During Applicant’s separation from his wife, he also struggled to pay his
mortgage, as alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.b. (Tr. 51) Applicant attempted to sell the
house in May 2008 after his estranged wife moved; however, his efforts were initially
unsuccessful. (Tr. 51) By November 2008, Applicant had begun to fall behind on his
mortgage payments.
In February 2009, Applicant contacted the bank and requested a deed-in-lieu of
foreclosure arrangement. (AE S) The bank declined his request. Applicant then
attempted to structure a short-sale package with a potential buyer. (AE T) The deal
failed when the bank rejected it. (AE T)
In October 2009, the bank filed for foreclosure. The following month, while the
foreclosure process was pending, Applicant sold the home. (AE C) Using the proceeds
from the sale, Applicant satisfied the home mortgage. (AE C)
The SOR lists another debt that became delinquent after Applicant and his wife
separated. It is a credit card with a balance of $5,548. Applicant’s monthly payment was
allegedly more than 120 days late as of the date of the SOR’s issuance. In January
2010, Applicant negotiated a settlement for $2,000 and paid it in full. (AE B)
Since 2004, Applicant’s annual salary has ranged between $88,000 and
$114,000. (AE I - O) He does not have any credit cards, and has $600 of monthly after-
expense income. (Tr. 70, 81) Also, he has $9,000 in savings. (GE 2 at 19) The company
where Applicant has worked since 2007 withholds income taxes from his bi-monthly
4
pay. Since working for this company, he has not had any trouble satisfying his income
taxes.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition
to introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied together with the factors
listed in the adjudicative process. 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.” 
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.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “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”
(AG ¶ 18). Applicant’s income tax delinquency, his troubles paying his home mortgage,
and his delinquent credit card debt trigger the application of AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts.”
The following mitigating conditions set forth in AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:
(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;
5
(c) the person has received counseling for the problem and/or there are
clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
Applicant did not accrue his income tax delinquency in bad faith. Instead, he
underestimated how much money he should set aside for income taxes, then was
unable to pay the deficiency upon being audited. Applicant’s current company withholds
income taxes from his pay. Since working for his new employer, Applicant has not had
any problems paying his income taxes.
Once Applicant was audited, his ability to adhere to a payment plan was
disrupted by his separation and subsequent divorce, the costs related to his father’s
death, and Applicant’s heart attack that disabled him for one month. These
circumstances also contributed to his inability to keep current with his mortgage
payments, as listed in SOR subparagraph 1.b, and his credit card payments, as listed in
SOR subparagraph 1.a.
Throughout Applicant’s financial struggles, he worked proactively to overcome
them, negotiating with the mortgagee to prevent foreclosure and attempting to arrange
payment plans with the IRS. In the past year, he has eliminated his mortgage by selling
his home, satisfied his credit card bill, and reduced the income tax delinquency by more
than $20,000.
Applicant has ample savings and after-expense income. I conclude that all of the
mitigating conditions listed above apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, 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.
In the past year, Applicant has reduced his income tax delinquency by
approximately $20,000, satisfied the credit card delinquency, and eliminated his
mortgage through the sale of his home. Evaluating the cause of his financial problems,
6
and the manner in which he overcame them, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the
security concern.
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 - 1.c: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge