1 
 
 
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 ---------------------- )  ISCR Case No. 09-04609 
 SSN: ----------- ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Greg D. McCormack, Esq. 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: 
 
This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial 
Considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on May 9, 2008. On 
December 8, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) sent him a 
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the basis for its preliminary decision to deny his 
application, citing security concerns under Guideline F. DOHA acted 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) implemented by the Department of Defense on September 
1, 2006.  
 
 Applicant received the SOR on December 17, 2009; answered it on December 
29, 2009; and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. DOHA received the 
 
2 
 
 
request on January 4, 2010. Department Counsel amended the SOR on January 19, 
2010, by adding three additional allegations (SOR ¶¶ 1.c-1.e), and Applicant received 
the amendment on January 23, 2010. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on 
February 16, 2010, and the case was assigned to me on March 16, 2010. DOHA issued 
a notice of hearing on April 20, 2010, scheduling the hearing for May 11, 2010. I 
convened the hearing as scheduled. Government Exhibits (GX) 1 through 10 were 
admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified and submitted Applicant’s 
Exhibits (AX) A through D, which were admitted without objection. DOHA received the 
transcript (Tr.) on May 21, 2010.  
 
I kept the record open until May 31, 2010, to enable Applicant to submit 
additional documentary evidence. He timely submitted AX E. Department Counsel’s 
comments regarding AX E are attached to the record as Hearing Exhibit (HX) I. On 
June 3, 2010, he submitted AX F. Department Counsel did not object to the untimely 
submission (HX II), and it was admitted. The record closed on June 3, 2010. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 
1.b. In his answer to the amendments to the SOR, he denied SOR ¶ 1.c and admitted 
SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.e. His admissions in his answers to the SOR and its amendments are 
incorporated in my findings of fact.  
 
 Applicant is a 54-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has worked for 
his current employer since September 2008. He was the president of his own auto parts 
company from May 2003 to May 2008. He worked for another defense contractor from 
September 2000 to April 2004.  
 
Applicant served in the U.S. Navy from October 1975 to June 1978, attended the 
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy from June 1978 to June 1982, and served in the U.S. 
Marine Corps from July 1982 to August 2000, retiring as a major. While on active duty, 
he earned a master’s degree in public administration in December 1998. (AX B-6.) He 
was granted a security clearance during his military career and retained it when he was 
employed by a defense contractor after his retirement. His clearance was 
administratively terminated when he left his job with the defense contractor in April 
2004. 
 
 Applicant was married in October 1988 and divorced in February 1993. He 
married his current spouse in September 2004. He has no children, but his current wife 
has two adult children, one of whom lives with them (Tr. 30.)  
 
 In 2002, before their marriage, Applicant and his future spouse purchased a 
vacation rental property and future retirement home for about $495,000, and they spent 
about $50,000 for upgrades on the property. They paid only about $15,000 at the time 
of purchase and financed the remainder. They rented the property to vacationers from 
2002 to 2009, and it generated between $26,000 and $32,000 per year in gross income. 
 
3 
 
 
(Tr. 52-53.) Their monthly payments on the vacation rental property were $4,803. (GX 6 
at 3.) 
 
 Applicant began looking for a private business venture while he was employed by 
a defense contractor. His interest in collecting and restoring older automobiles led him 
to investigate an auto parts store. He discovered a store that had a reputation as the 
“place of last resort” for auto aficionados looking for hard-to-find parts. After interviewing 
the owners and some of their clients and examining the business records of the store, 
he concluded that the store was well run, well staffed, and stable. It had been in 
business since January 1970. After negotiating for eight to ten months, he purchased 
the store in May 2003 for $835,000, including all inventory. He financed the purchase 
with a $100,000 profit he made on the sale of a house, a Small Business Administration 
(SBA) loan of $500,000 payable over ten years, and a five-year loan of $225,000 from 
the sellers. (Tr. 36-40.) 
 
 Applicant continued to work full-time for a defense contractor, and he worked at 
the store in the early morning and the evenings. (Tr. 40.) He had eight employees, 
including the former owner, the former owner’s spouse, and the former owner’s son, 
who agreed to work for one year to help him learn the business. In February 2004, 
Applicant left his job with the defense contractor in order to work full time at the store. 
(Tr. 41-43.) 
 
 Applicant and his spouse purchased their primary residence in December 2004 
for $1,050,000. They were able to accumulate enough cash to make an initial payment 
of about $450,000 for the residence, and they financed the remainder. Their monthly 
mortgage payment was about $5,500 (Tr. 113.) 
 
 During the first year of Applicant’s ownership, the gross income from the auto 
parts store was $4,000 to $4,300 per day, seven days a week, totaling about $1.3 or 
$1.4 million annually. These earnings were consistent with the earnings for the two 
years preceding the transfer of ownership. In 2004, the annual gross income declined to 
about $1.15 million, and it continued to decline until 2008, when the income did not 
cover daily expenses. (AX A-14; Tr. 43-45.) As the business declined, Applicant 
reduced his workforce and began stocking and selling parts of lower quality and lower 
price. (Tr. 54-58.) The decline in business was due to the economic decline in the 
store’s marketing area and the rapidly rising cost of gasoline (Tr. 46.) 
 
In 2006, Applicant decided it would be financially prudent to use the equity in 
their home to reduce the store’s operating expenses by paying off the SBA loan, on 
which the monthly interest was about $3,000. In July 2007, Applicant and his spouse 
refinanced their primary residence, which was then worth about $1.5 million, and used 
some of their equity to pay off the SBA loan, which then had a balance of about 
$353,000. They also invested $40,000 of their equity as operating capital for the store 
and used about $10,000 to $15,000 to pay off a credit card debt. (Tr. 50-51.) After 
refinancing, Applicant’s monthly mortgage payments for his primary residence were 
 
4 
 
 
$7,636 on the first mortgage and $1,247 on the second mortgage. The first and second 
mortgages were from the same lender.  
 
 In 2006, Applicant and his spouse withdrew funds from various retirement 
accounts in an effort to continue operating the parts store. The taxes and early-
withdrawal penalties on the funds totaled about $53,000. Because of the declining 
income from the store, they were unable to pay the taxes due on the withdrawals. (Tr. 
60-61.) The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) applied tax refunds for subsequent years to 
this debt. As of March 2010, the balance due was $16,676.70. (AX A-5.) For tax year 
2009, Applicant and his spouse expected a federal income tax refund of $17,185 and a 
state income tax refund of $8,564. (AX A-3; AX A-4.) In May 2010, the IRS notified 
Applicant that his federal income tax refund had been applied to his 2006 debt, fully 
satisfying the amount due, and that $472.21 would be refunded to him. (AX F.) 
 
 Applicant closed the auto parts store in April 2008 and auctioned the inventory 
and fixtures for about $13,200. (Tr. 65.) He did not draw a salary for the last six months, 
and his only income was his military retired pay and his spouse’s income. He had been 
required by suppliers to personally guarantee payment, and he owed them about 
$550,000. He still owed the sellers about $75,000 plus interest, and they sued him for 
the balance due. (Tr. 71-73.) He was unsuccessful in his attempts to negotiate 
settlements with his various business creditors. In July 2009, Applicant filed a petition 
for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, listing all his business and personal debts. (GX 7.) He 
received a discharge in November 2009. (AX E.) 
 
 In his Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, Applicant listed his primary residence and 
his rental property as exempt properties and stated his intention to continue making 
payments on the mortgages. (GX 7 at 48-49.) He testified he “didn’t want a free ride on 
the mortgage debts.” (Tr. 111.) In August 2009, Applicant and his spouse hired a law 
firm specializing in assisting homeowners with delinquent mortgages. (Tr. 79.) They 
received a letter from the mortgage holder for his primary residence, informing him that 
it had abandoned its efforts to collect payments on the second mortgage. (Tr. 106.) In 
December 2009, they executed a three-month forbearance agreement for the first 
mortgage on their primary residence, providing for three monthly payments of $2,305. 
They received an offer of a second three-month forbearance agreement, but it provided 
for three monthly payments of $6,412. They rejected this offer as unaffordable. (AX A-
8.) Had they accepted the second forbearance agreement, their monthly payments on 
their primary residence and the vacation rental property would have exceeded their 
monthly income. They were unsuccessful in their efforts to negotiate a modification of 
the mortgage on the vacation rental property.  
 
 Shortly after Applicant closed his business in April 2008, he was offered a 
position by his former employer, but the position required a security clearance. 
Applicant submitted his security clearance application in May 2008, but the funding for 
the job was withdrawn while the security clearance application was being processed. 
(Tr. 94-95.) Applicant was hired by his current employer in September 2008, and his 
current employer agreed to sponsor his application for a clearance. (Tr. 96.) 
 
5 
 
 
Applicant and his spouse listed the vacation rental property for sale in 2006, but 
took it off the market in September 2006 because of hurricane damage. They rented the 
property in 2007 after repairing the damage at a cost of $45,000, but they did not list it 
for sale because of the depressed market. They listed the property for sale again in 
early 2008 and reduced the asking price by $250,000, but they still were unable to sell 
it. They continued to rent the property to vacationers through the fall of August 2009. 
The property was foreclosed in February 2010. Applicant has been advised by his 
attorney that the state where the rental property was located is a non-recourse state, in 
which the lender has no recourse for any deficiency after it forecloses the property. (Tr. 
89-91.) 
 
In May 2010, Applicant and his spouse listed their primary residence for sale, 
asking $875,000, less than the amount of the loan. As of the day of the hearing, they 
had an offer for $875,000 and a $10,000 earnest-money deposit, pending the bank’s 
approval of the short sale. (Tr. 76-77.) When the record closed, no further evidence 
regarding the short sale had been submitted. 
 
 Applicant and his spouse currently have net monthly income of about $12,516 
and expenses of $4,199, leaving a remainder of $8,317. (AX A-2.) They are not making 
payments on their primary residence, pending a decision on the short sale. Applicant 
drives an eight-year-old truck with 174,000 miles, and his spouse drives a car provided 
by her employer. (Tr. 92.) They intend to live in a rental home for several years after 
their primary residence is sold. They are committed to living a modest lifestyle until they 
regain their financial footing. (Tr. 87-88, 120.) 
 
 Applicant submitted six character references from friends, colleagues and his 
current supervisor. (AX D-1 through AX D-6.) One reference was from a Marine Corps 
colonel on active duty, two were from retired Marine Corps officers, and one was from a 
retired Navy officer. All six individuals were familiar with Applicant’s financial problems 
and the allegations in the SOR. All describe Applicant as honest, straightforward, 
trustworthy, and reliable.  
 
Policies 
 
 “[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 
484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to 
“control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an 
individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The 
President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants 
eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly 
consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified 
Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended and modified.   
 
Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the 
criteria contained in the AG. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, 
recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in 
 
6 
 
 
conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s 
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An 
administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, 
past and present, favorable and unfavorable. 
 
 The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with 
access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and 
endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the 
possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified 
information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation 
about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. 
 
Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in 
no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”  See Exec. 
Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the 
applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense 
have established for issuing a clearance. 
 
 Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in 
the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant 
from being eligible for access to classified information. The government has the burden 
of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.  
“Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.”  See v. 
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines 
presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the 
criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 92-1106 
at 3, 1993 WL 545051 at *3 (App. Bd. Oct. 7, 1993).   
 
 Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial 
evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the 
facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it 
is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security 
clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity 
clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 
U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b).  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) 
 
 The SOR alleges Applicant is indebted to the IRS in the approximate amount of 
$34,266 for tax year 2006 (SOR ¶ 1.a). It also alleges he filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy 
in July 2009 and received a discharge in November 2009 (SOR ¶ 1.b). Finally, it alleges 
his payments on the first mortgage on his primary residence are past due in an amount 
of at least $7,636 (SOR ¶ 1.c), his payments on the second mortgage on his primary 
 
7 
 
 
residence are past due in an amount of at least $1,247 (SOR ¶ 1.c), and his payments 
on his vacation rental home are past due in an amount of at least $4,803 (SOR ¶ 1.e).  
 
The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 18 as follows:  
 
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. 
 
Several disqualifying conditions under this guideline could raise a security 
concern and may be disqualifying in this case. AG ¶ 19(a) is raised where there is an 
“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.” AG ¶ 19(b) is a two-pronged condition that is 
raised where there is “indebtedness caused by frivolous or irresponsible spending and 
the absence of any evidence of willingness or intent to pay the debt or establish a 
realistic plan to pay the debt.” AG ¶ 19(c) is raised when there is “a history of not 
meeting financial obligations.” AG ¶ 19(e) is raised when there is “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.” 
Applicant’s financial history raises AG ¶¶ 19(a), (c), and (e).  
 
 AG ¶ 19(b) is not raised. Although Applicant purchased a vacation home with a 
minimal down payment, purchased a business, and purchased an expensive primary 
residence within a three-year period, the purchases were not frivolous or irresponsible. 
Both Applicant and his spouse were employed and had substantial financial assets. 
They purchased the vacation home at a favorable price in a rising market and were able 
to cover a substantial portion of the mortgage payments with rental income. Applicant 
purchased the business after careful research and on reasonable terms. Applicant and 
his spouse purchased their primary residence at a fair price and were able to make a 
substantial down payment. Applicant did not leave his job with a government contractor 
until he was confident that the auto parts business would continue to thrive. Even when 
the auto parts store began to fail, he exhausted every possible resource in an effort to 
meet his financial obligations. 
 
 Since the Government produced substantial evidence to raise the disqualifying 
conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a), (c), and (e), the burden shifted to Applicant to produce 
evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An 
applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving 
it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 
2005).   
 
Security concerns based on financial problems can be mitigated by showing that 
“the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such 
 
8 
 
 
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual=s 
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.” AG ¶ 20(a). This is a compound 
mitigating condition, with three disjunctive prongs and one conjunctive prong. It may be 
established by showing the conduct was “so long ago,” or “so infrequent,” or “occurred 
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur.” If any of the three disjunctive 
prongs are established, the mitigating condition is not fully established unless the 
conduct “does not cast doubt on the individual=s current reliability, trustworthiness, or 
good judgment.” 
 
 Applicant’s delinquent debts were numerous, and the delinquent mortgage 
payments on his primary residence are not yet resolved; but all of his delinquent debts 
were caused by circumstances making them unlikely to recur. He is again employed by 
a defense contractor. Based on his age, financial situation, unfortunate experience with 
private enterprise, and his reputation for reliability and trustworthiness, he is not likely to 
experience another business failure. He and his spouse are committed to living a 
modest lifestyle until they regain their financial footing. He has been candid with his 
employer, his supervisors, and everyone involved in processing his application for a 
clearance. In light of the responsible manner in which he responded to his financial 
difficulties, his diligent efforts to satisfy his financial obligations, and his current financial 
situation, the evidence does not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness or 
good judgment. I conclude AG ¶ 20(a) is established. 
 
Security concerns under this guideline also can be mitigated by showing that “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.” AG ¶ 20(b). Both prongs, i.e., conditions beyond the person’s 
control and responsible conduct, must be established. 
 
Applicant was caught in a business downturn and a precipitous decline in the 
housing market. He incurred repair expenses and loss of rental income due to hurricane 
damage to his rental property. He did not draw a salary for the last six months before he 
closed his business, and he was unemployed after he closed down his business until he 
began his current job. He reacted responsibly by negotiating with his creditors, obtaining 
legal advice, complying with the three-month forbearance agreement on his primary 
residence, and attempting to sell both his primary residence and the vacation rental 
property. He resorted to bankruptcy only after negotiations with his business creditors 
failed. He continued in his efforts to resolve his mortgage debts even after his Chapter 7 
bankruptcy discharge. I conclude AG ¶ 20(b) is established for the debts alleged in SOR 
¶¶ 1.a and 1.c-1.e and for the bankruptcy alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b. 
 
 Security concerns under this guideline also can be mitigated by showing that “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.” AG ¶ 20(c). Applicant 
did not obtain traditional debt counseling because it was not applicable to his situation, 
but he sought the assistance of a bankruptcy attorney and an attorney specializing in 
 
9 
 
 
delinquent mortgage situations. His past-due taxes have been paid, and the delinquent 
mortgage payments on the vacation rental property have been resolved by the 
foreclosure on that property. His business debts were discharged in bankruptcy. His 
only remaining delinquent obligations are the two mortgages on his primary residence. I 
conclude AG ¶ 20(c) is established for the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.e, but not 
the debts for the mortgages on his primary residence alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c and 1.d. 
 
Security concerns under this guideline also can be mitigated by showing that “the 
individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve 
debts.” AG ¶ 20(d). 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.” ISCR Case No. 99-0201, 1999 WL 1442346 at *4 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 1999). 
 
“A security clearance adjudication is not a proceeding aimed at collecting an 
applicant’s personal debts. Rather, a security clearance adjudication is a proceeding 
aimed at evaluating an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness in order to 
make a decision about an applicant’s security eligibility.” ISCR Case No. 09-02160 
(App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010.) Applicant is not required, as a matter of law, to establish that 
he has paid off each and every debt listed in the SOR. However, he must demonstrate 
that he has established a plan to resolve his financial problems and taken significant 
actions to implement that plan. ADP Case No. 06-18900 (App. Bd. Jun. 6, 2008). 
 
Applicant has resolved the tax debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. His income was rapidly 
declining and he was not in a good position to make a payment agreement. Rather than 
try to negotiate a payment plan with the IRS, he decided to rely on the IRS to seize his 
tax refunds. He accurately calculated that the tax debt would be resolved in this manner 
within five years. There is no evidence, such as a tax lien, indicating that the plan was 
not acceptable to the IRS.  
 
When Applicant could not make full payments on the mortgage for his vacation 
rental property, he contacted the lender and attempted to renegotiate the loan, without 
success. The delinquent mortgage on the vacation rental property, alleged in SOR ¶ 
1.e, was resolved by foreclosure. 
 
Applicant contacted the lender regarding the delinquent first and second 
mortgages on his primary residence, alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c. and 1.d, and he fulfilled the 
terms of the three-month forbearance agreement. He could not afford the payments 
required by the second three-month forbearance agreement tendered by the lender, 
and he had no assurance that his loan would be modified if he made the payments. 
Instead, he listed his home for sale, found a buyer, and presented the short-sale offer to 
the lender. Although the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c and 1.d were not resolved as of 
the date the record closed, Applicant made good-faith efforts to fulfill these obligations. 
He had a reasonable plan to resolve his financial problems, and he took substantial 
steps to implement it. Based on his long record of dedicated service, his reputation for 
reliability and trustworthiness, his candor and sincerity at the hearing, and his track 
record during his period of financial distress, I am satisfied that Applicant will 
 
10 
 
 
responsibly address any remaining debts related to his residence, whether the 
mortgages on his primary residence are resolved by a short sale or by foreclosure. I 
conclude that AG ¶ 20(d) is established for the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.c-1e. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the 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 eligibility for a 
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. I have incorporated my 
comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 
2(a) were addressed under that guideline, but some warrant additional comment. 
 
 Applicant is a mature, well-educated adult. He served honorably as an enlisted 
sailor in the Navy and as an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps. He has held a clearance 
and occupied positions of trust for many years. He was the victim of a confluence of 
events beyond his control. He was candid, sincere, and credible at the hearing. He 
reacted to his financial problems with integrity, candor, and a strong sense of duty.  
 
 After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F, and 
evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has 
mitigated the security concerns based on financial considerations. Accordingly, I 
conclude he has carried his burden of showing that it is clearly consistent with the 
national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a-1.e:    For Applicant 
 
 
11 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances, it is clearly consistent with the national interest 
to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified 
information is granted. 
 
 
 
 
LeRoy F. Foreman 
Administrative Judge