1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------ )       ISCR Case No. 09-06130
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
MARSHALL, Jr., Arthur E., Administrative Judge:
On October 15, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) enumerating security concerns arising
under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). 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 October 26, 2009, response, Applicant admitted some of the allegations
set forth under Guideline F, but denied the sole allegation raised under Guideline E.
She also requested a hearing before an administrative judge. DOHA assigned the case
to me on December 16, 2009. The parties proposed a hearing date of February 11,
2010. A notice setting that date for the hearing was issued on January 25, 2010. The
hearing ultimately was postponed until March 5, 2010, due to inclement weather. An
amended notice was issued on February 18, 2010, reflecting that change. I convened
the hearing as rescheduled. Applicant gave testimony and presented seven documents,
accepted into evidence without objection as exhibits (Exs.) A-G. Department Counsel
offered five documents, admitted as exhibits (Exs.) 1-5 without objection. The parties
 Tr. 49.      1
 Tr. 11.      2
2
were given until March 22, 2010, to submit any additional materials. The transcript (Tr.)
of the proceeding was received on March 15, 2010. On March 30, 2010, Department
Counsel forwarded 19 additional documents received from Applicant between March
16, 2010, and March 29, 2010. They were accepted into the record as Exs. H-Z without
objection. The record was held open until receipt of additional material on April 15,
2010. On that date, Department Counsel forwarded three additional documents from
Applicant. They were accepted into the record as Exs. AA-CC without objection. The
record was closed on April 15, 2010. Based on a review of the testimony, submissions,
and exhibits, I find Applicant met her burden in mitigating security concerns related to
the guidelines raised. Clearance granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 58-year-old engineer assistant employed by a defense contractor.
She was first hired by the defense contractor in October 2008. Applicant is a high
school graduate and received a diploma as an executive secretary in 1978. She is
married and has three grown children. 
Over the past decade, Applicant experienced multiple periods of unemployment.
She was unemployed from August 1999 until July 2000, when she was hired as a
summer instructor at a technical school. She then worked as an executive assistant
from October 2000 until March 2002. Unemployed from March 2002 until May 2002,
Applicant next worked as a production assistant from May 2002 until June 2004. She
then faced a month-long period of unemployment. From July 2004 until February 2005,
she worked as an executive assistant for a temporary agency, but that employment was
followed by a period of unemployment lasting from February 2005 until December
2005. Work for another temporary agency followed from December 2005 until January
2006, followed by a period of unemployment from January 2006 until February 2006.
Another temporary assignment lasted from February 2006 until June 2006. She was
then unemployed until the end of 2006. This pattern continued and included about four
months of unemployment in 2007 and nearly eight months of unemployment in 2008,
when she began temporary work for her current employer in October 2008. She
became a full-time employee in January 2009. 
Throughout her life, Applicant has had allergy-related conditions that have
caused her to incur a number of medical obligations and necessitated multiple
emergency visits to the hospital. Having held a string of temporary positions, she has
maintained health insurance through her husband. She has had many problems with its
claims processing in the past.  Medical problems and erratic employment led to her1
acquisition of delinquent debt, some of which she was unaware of until the issuance of
the SOR.
At issue in the SOR are nine debts, set forth as SOR allegations  ¶¶ 1.a-1.h.
Allegations ¶ 1.a and ¶1.c are identical and duplicative.  The debts cited are as follows:2
 Tr. 21-22, 49; Ex. A (Bank statement, dated Oct. 26, 2009).      3
 Tr. 23; Ex. G (Balance statement, dated Oct. 21, 2009).      4
 Tr. 23-24; Ex. C (Receipt, dated Oct. 23, 2009). Combined payment was made in the amount of $380.      5
 Tr. 30.      6
 Tr. 28-30; Ex. D (Account information, judgment correspondence, and payment proof).      7
 Tr. 48      8
 Tr. 30-32; Ex. E (Collection statement, dated Jan. 29, 2010).      9
 Tr. 33.      10
3
¶¶ 1.a and 1.c – Unpaid medical account ($100) – Paid. This debt was incurred on an
emergency room visit by Applicant due to an allergic condition. She assumed her
coverage through her husband’s insurance carrier covered the charge. It remained
unpaid until she received the SOR, when she learned the account was outstanding. It
was satisfied by October 26, 2009.3
¶ 1.b – Unpaid medical account ($40) – Paid. This account was similarly discovered
upon receipt of the SOR. It was satisfied by October 21, 2009.4
¶ 1.d – Unpaid medical account ($200) – Paid. This is another medical account that
Applicant thought was paid through her husband’s health insurer. She was unaware it
was owed until she received the SOR. This debt and the debt cited at allegation ¶ 1.g
were paid on or before October 23, 2009.5
¶ 1.e – Collection account ($3,068) – In repayment. This debt was incurred on a retail
entity’s credit card. Applicant obtained the card in 2006 for her husband, who had poor
credit. He was to pay any bills on the card, but, in 2008, he failed to do so. At the time,
Applicant was unemployed and the account went unpaid. She sought help through a
debt relief program to help address this and two other accounts.  Its methods were6
ineffective and, by November 2009, she resorted to repaying the debt on her own terms
after a judgment was entered against her for the balance.  Applicant noted this account7
on her 2009 SCA in the space provided for additional information following Section 26.
She is current on her repayments.8
¶ 1.f – Collection account ($10,000) – Satisfied. This account was for $5,500 of flooring.
With interest and fees, the balance grew. The debt was settled on November 20, 2009
for an amount approximately equal to the original debt.9
¶ 1.g – Medical collection account ($180) – Paid. See 1.d above.
¶ 1.h – Telecommunications collection account ($759) – Disputed/Unresolved.
Applicant orally disputed this account entry with the collection agent, stating that she
never used the telecommunications carrier noted.  She was not told to put her dispute10
 Tr. 33-34.      11
 Tr. 46.      12
 Tr. 34; Ex. B (Letter, dated Oct. 5, 2009).      13
 Ex. 5 (SF-85P, dated Jan. 22, 2007).      14
 Ex. 1 (SCA or Electronic Questionnaire, signed May 18, 2009). The SCA notes, however, that it was      15
“Certified at 2009-04-15," the date referenced in the SOR at allegation ¶ 2.a. The Government provided no
explanation about this discrepancy.
 Id. at 55-56 of 57. The largest debt was not noted in the SOR. It was satisfied in the interim. Tr. 31. The      16
smaller debt is the account noted in allegation ¶ 1.e.
 Id. at 56 of 57.      17
 Tr. 37.      18
 Tr. 36.      19
 Id.      20
4
in writing, so she did not submit a written dispute to that entity or the credit reporting
bureaus.  She did, however, contact one or more of the credit reporting bureaus by11
telephone in the autumn of 2009 regarding her dispute.12
¶ 1.i – Book club collection account ($79) – Paid. This debt was incurred by Applicant’s
daughter, who was living with her at the time the product was received. It was satisfied
on or before October 5, 2009.  13
When Applicant completed her questionnaire for public trust positions (SF-85P)
on January 22, 2007, no inquiry was made regarding her finances.  On May 18, 2009,14
she signed a security clearance application (SCA).  In response to Section 26(m) and15
Section 26(n), respectively, she denied having been over 180 days delinquent on any
debts and currently being over 90 days delinquent on any debts. However, under
Section 26(1) and (2) (If you answered “yes” to any question above [a-p], provide the
information requested below), she provided in-depth information on two debts on which
she was either in repayment or making repayment arrangements, for approximately
$11,434.95 and $3,021.21, respectively.  She also noted that those debts were16
incurred during periods of unemployment.   This information was derived from her17
memory of balances on bills and paperwork received; she had not recently reviewed
her credit report.  Applicant only knew of three outstanding delinquent debts, the two18
noted and the one cited at SOR allegation ¶1.f. She recalled those because they were
part of her debt relief program.
Applicant thought she noted all three of the debts that were formerly part of her
debt relief program when she completed the 2009 SCA.  In fact, she neglected to note19
one of those debts, the debt cited at SOR allegation ¶ 1.f. It has since been satisfied.
She unintentionally failed to mention it because she thought she “had listed all three,
[but the computerized version of the SCA] wouldn’t let [her] go further.”  It was at least20
 Id. See also Exs. H-Q (Cover sheets and emails regarding Applicant’s troubles completing her SCA      21
between February and May 2009). W hen asked she left the debt noted as 1f off of her SCA because she was
worried about not getting the job, she said “No,” noting she knew her finances would be investigated and
stating that the debt at ¶ 1.f was as big as another she did note. Tr. 39.
 Tr. 43.      22
 Tr. 41.      23
 Tr. 40.      24
 Tr. 42.      25
 Tr. 44.      26
 Id.      27
5
the third or fourth SCA or corrected SCA she had completed. She may have been
confused or failed to realize she had not detailed all three accounts.  She was unaware21
of the remainder of the debts at issue until she received the SOR and subsequently
reviewed her credit report. 
Applicant’s husband is currently employed as an information technology
specialist. Their home is in his name.   The two maintain separate bank accounts. He22
pays the home mortgage payments.  Applicant currently has a net monthly income of23
about $2,750.  She pays their $460 a month car payments, $290 car insurance,24
various bills, and utilities. After all debts and expenses are paid, Applicant personally
retains about $300 per month.  She maintains a savings account that has a balance of25
about $900, and a 401k with a balance of about $6,500. Aside from her experience with
the debt relief program, she has not received any formal financial counseling. She has
training in business courses, including business math, and knows how to manage her
budget.  Applicant now understands the importance of tracking bills and reviewing her26
credit report. She is now more careful to make sure no future debts slip “through the
cracks.”27
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 AG 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 in conjunction with 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 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
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      28
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      29
 Id.      30
 Id.      31
6
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.
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 a28
preponderance of evidence. The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  29
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 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 access30
to sensitive information must be resolved in favor of protecting such sensitive
information.31
Based upon consideration of the evidence, Guideline F (Financial
Considerations  and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) are the most pertinent to this
case. Conditions pertaining to these AGs that could raise a security concern and may
be disqualifying, as well as those which would mitigate such concerns, are set forth and
discussed below.
 AG ¶ 18.      32
7
Analysis
Guideline F – Financial Considerations 
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,32
Applicant acquired eight debts raising security concerns. Some of them remained
unaddressed until after Applicant received the October 2009 SOR. 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). With such conditions raised, the burden shifts to
Applicant to overcome the case against her and mitigate security concerns. 
All the debts at issue became delinquent through simple oversight or an inability
to pay bills due to erratic employment. All the debts at issue now have been addressed.
Of those debts, Applicant was unaware of some of those debts until the SOR was
issued. Those previously unknown debts were satisfied the same month the SOR was
received. One account is in repayment, regular repayment having commenced last
year. One other account, a telecommunications-related debt for $759, is disputed for a
bona fide reason. Applicant is dedicated to completing payment on the one debt and
resolving the disputed credit report entry. Today, she is a full-time employee in a stable
position. She is capable of meeting her remaining obligations. 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) applies. 
The majority of Applicant’s delinquent debts arose due to medical emergencies
and related fees, as well as erratic income caused by periods of underemployment and
unemployment. Such facts 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). 
Although Applicant has not received formal financial counseling, she has taken
business courses, understands budgeting, and worked with a debt reduction program.
While these efforts show she has some knowledge of personal finance, they are
insufficient to raise 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).
Today, Applicant has satisfied all but two of the accounts at issue. Remaining is
one account that is in repayment and one account she genuinely disputes for a valid
 AG ¶ 15.      33
 Id.      34
 SOR allegation ¶ 2.a. It is noted, however, that the debt cited at SOR allegation ¶ 1.e was referenced      35
in the space provided for additional information regarding Section 26.
8
reason. While more effort is required to formally dispute the latter account entry with the
credit reporting bureaus, such efforts are sufficient to raise FC MC ¶ 20(d) (the
individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts).
Applicant successfully satisfied the largest debt at issue, the debt cited at SOR
allegation ¶ 1.f for $10,000, as well as a similarly costly debt to a creditor not noted in
the SOR. She is in regular repayment on an account that once had a delinquent
balance of about $3,000. She genuinely disputes one account of approximately $750.
The rest of the accounts at issue were addressed. Given these facts, as well as her
adherence to a budget, heightened caution with regard to tracking her bills, and the fact
that she is presently living within her means, financial considerations security concerns
are mitigated.
Guideline E – Personal Conduct
Security concerns arise from matters of personal conduct because “conduct
involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information.“  In addition, “any failure to33
provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process” is of special interest.  Here,34
personal conduct concerns were potentially raised when Applicant failed to identify all
the delinquent debts ultimately cited in SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.a – 1.i on her 2009 SCA.35
If such a failure was deliberate, such omissions would be sufficient to raise Personal
Conduct Disqualifying Condition AG ¶ 16(a) (deliberate omission, concealment, or
falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history
statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or
trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities). Consequently, the burden shifts to
Applicant to mitigate the resultant security concerns.
Applicant credibly testified that she did not intentionally mislead or falsify when
she denied having any currently delinquent debts or having had any debts delinquent
over 180 days. Indeed, she showed that she fully detailed two major debts in the
section following the question at issue (Section 26). In stating that her failure to note a
third debt was most likely caused by confusion or accident, she demonstrated that she
had amended or rewritten her SCA multiple times before it was ultimately deemed
completed. Her explanation was highly plausible, especially since the one debt she
noted that was not referenced in the SOR was about $11,434, a sum much higher than
the approximately $10,000 debt she neglected to reference. Her explanation that she
9
did not know the contents of her credit report and, therefore, did not list the remaining
accounts at issue on the SCA was equally credible and plausible. This is especially true
given the fact the majority of those debts were comparatively minor and immediately
were paid as soon as she received the SOR. As for the debt cited at SOR allegation ¶
1.h, the disputed telecommunications debt for a service she has never used, she still
does not know the origin of the account entry. Absent a determination that her omission
was intentional or fraudulent, the disqualifying condition cited must fail. However, if a
disqualifying condition did apply, Personal Conduct Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 17(e) (the
individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation,
manipulation, or duress) would apply. Given the facts regarding SOR allegation ¶ 1.h,
AG ¶ 17(f) (the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable
reliability) also would be due strong consideration. Absent evidence of intentional falsity
or omission, personal conduct security concerns are mitigated.
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 an applicant’s
conduct and all the circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). 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, as well as the “whole-person”
factors. Applicant is a credible, mature, and professional woman who endured a
number of part-time and temporary positions over the years before finding a stable
position. She has also been plagued by health issues that necessitated emergency
treatment and on-going medical care. Because of her transient work record over the
years, she maintained health insurance through her husband. Her carrier was
apparently uncommunicative, and some debts were acquired without her knowledge. 
The SOR was issued on October 2009. There is no evidence as to when
Applicant actually received the SOR. There is evidence, however, that the debt cited at
SOR allegation ¶ 1.i was paid before the SOR was issued and that the debts noted at
SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.a – 1.d and 1.g were addressed between October 21, 2009, and
October 26, 2009, days after she must have learned of their existence in the October
15, 2009, SOR. The debts referenced at SOR allegations ¶¶ 1.e – 1.f were being
addressed within the four to five weeks after the SOR was issued, while she tried to
dispute the account noted at SOR allegation ¶ 1.h. Consequently, it is clear that some
progress on her debts preceded the issuance of the SOR and that her effort on the
previously unknown debts was swift and successful. Today, only the account cited in
SOR allegation ¶ 1.e remains in repayment, while the debt cited in SOR allegation ¶ 1.h
for $759 remains in dispute. She demonstrated that she has the financial capability and
intent to continue with her repayment plan. She also has the resources to honor the
disputed account if it is shown to be properly owed. Applicant’s diligent efforts have
mitigated financial considerations security concerns.
10
When Applicant completed her SCA in the spring of 2009, she fully disclosed
approximately $14,500 in delinquent debts, noting that one was in repayment and the
other was in the process of having a repayment plan instituted. In providing this
disclosure, she gave sufficient notice to investigators that financial issues existed.
Through human error, she accidently omitted a third debt. Ironically, when the missing
debt and others were noted by investigators on her credit report and an SOR was
issued in October 2009, the amount of debt cited was approximately $14,526.
Consequently, while one account name was missing, the amount at issue remained
approximately the same. These facts are supported by the evidence and her
explanation is highly plausible.
Applicant’s experience with both this process and the factors that led to the
issuance of the SOR have enlightened her with regard to the importance of good
record-keeping and diligence. In light of the foregoing, Applicant mitigated both her
financial and personal conduct issues. Clearance granted.   
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
Subparagraph 1.a - 1.i For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance granted.
__________________________
ARTHUR E. MARSHALL, JR.
Administrative Judge