1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-00819
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the government’s financial considerations security concern.
Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On April 13, 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. DOHA took the action 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).
Applicant answered the SOR on May 3, 2010. He admitted SOR subparagraphs
1.b, and 1.e through 1.g, and denied the remainder. He requested a hearing, and the
case was assigned to me on May 28, 2010. On June 8, 2010, a notice of hearing was
They remained legally divorced.1
2
issued scheduling the case for June 28, 2010. The hearing was conducted as
scheduled. I received nine Government exhibits, ten Applicant exhibits, and Applicant’s
testimony. At the conclusion of the hearing, I left the record open at Applicant’s request,
to allow him to submit additional exhibits. Within the time allotted, he submitted 13
additional exhibits that I received as Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) K through W. DOHA
received the transcript on July 7, 2010.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 45-year-old married man with one adult child, age 20. Over the
years, he has attended approximately two and a half years of college. (GE 1 at 3) For
the past two years, he has worked as a facilities manager for a federal government
contractor. (Tr. 19) He has been in this line of work for 19 years.
Applicant is highly respected on the job. The branch head of the agency where
he works characterizes him as “an asset to the Command.” (AE L) According to the
program manager, Applicant “has been an asset to [the] team from day one, by tackling
assignments with dedication and professionalism.” (AE M)
Applicant married in 1990. (AE A) He and his wife divorced in 1995, then
reconciled in approximately 2000.  While they were back together, they financed the1
purchase of two cars and opened a joint credit card account. 
Sometime in 2001, Applicant and his wife’s relationship again deteriorated,
prompting Applicant to move out of the home. Enraged, his estranged spouse then
intentionally overspent the credit limit on their credit card and failed to pay for any of the
purchases. (AE 8 at 10) In sum, she charged about $7,000 of merchandise to the credit
card. (Tr. 48) Over the years, this account remained in delinquent status. By 2008, it
had accrued to $9,400, as listed in SOR subparagraph 1.e. 
After leaving his wife, Applicant moved into an apartment. In 2003, he subleased
the apartment to his roommate. (Tr. 22, 45) Applicant moved from the apartment with
three months left on the lease with the understanding that his friend would continue to
make the rental payments. His friend did not do so, prompting the property manager to
initiate eviction proceedings. After obtaining multiple judgments, as listed in SOR
subparagraphs 1.b through 1.d, the property manager evicted Applicant’s friend from
the home. Because Applicant’s name was on the lease, the judgments were entered
against him. As of April 2010, the balance on the judgments was $2,821. (AE 10 at 2) 
When Applicant and his wife separated the second time, they agreed to split their
car payments with Applicant making the payments on the car that he kept and his wife
making the payments on the car she kept. 
The furniture bill, the utility bill, the miscellaneous judgment, and the federal income tax delinquencies are2
not listed on the SOR.
3
Applicant paid off his car note as agreed. Unbeknownst to him, however, his ex-
wife stopped making payments on her car. In January 2006, the creditor obtained a
judgment against Applicant and his ex-wife for $13,324, as listed in SOR subparagraph
1.a.
By early 2008, Applicant had accrued approximately $33,000 of delinquent debt.
In addition to the debts listed above, his delinquencies included a $238 bill owed to a
veterinarian, as listed in SOR subparagraph 1.f; a $598 credit card account, as listed in
SOR subparagraph 1.g; a furniture rental and a two utility bills totalling approximately
$2,100; a miscellaneous judgment for $623; debt owed to a bank for $3,370; and
$2,000 in back federal income taxes for tax years 2005 and 2006.  (Tr. 59; GE 3 at 4-5,2
GE 7 at 8)
In November 2008, Applicant retained a credit counseling agency to help him
develop a debt satisfaction plan. (Tr. 52) With the help of the credit counselor, he
satisfied approximately $6,000 of delinquent debt by the end of 2009 including the
veterinarian bill, the furniture rental bill, the two utility bills, the miscellaneous judgment,
and the debt owed to the bank. (AE F; GE 7 at 8-9) 
In April 2010, Applicant negotiated a reduction in the amount due to the creditor
listed in SOR subparagraph 1.a . Under the agreement, the creditor reduced the amount
due to $4,000. (AE A) Over an 18-month period, Applicant is to make monthly payments
of $233. (AE Q) As of the hearing date, Applicant had made one $500 down payment
and two monthly payments for $233. (AE Q)
In June 2010, Applicant arranged to satisfy the judgments listed in SOR
subparagraphs 1.b through 1.d with $100 monthly payments. He made the first
payment, as scheduled, on June 29, 2010. (AE R)
Applicant had trouble locating the current collection agent for the account listed in
SOR subparagraph 1.e. After more than a year of research, he located the creditor, and
negotiated a balance reduction from $9,400 to $2,468. (AE S) Under the settlement
agreement, he will pay $100 monthly payments. As of the date of the hearing, he had
paid the creditor $100, as scheduled. (Id.)
SOR subparagraph 1.g is a credit card account for approximately $598. Applicant
has been unable to locate the current holder of this debt, and it is not listed on the
record’s most recent credit report. (GE 2)
Applicant still owes the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
approximately $2,000. He has begun to satisfy this delinquency through monthly $305
payments. (Tr. 61) It is unclear from the record when Applicant initiated these
payments.
4
Applicant maintains a budget. (AE J) It lists approximately $650 remaining after
expenses, but does not include his monthly IRS payments. (Id.) Taking into account
Applicant’s IRS payments, he has approximately $340 remaining after expenses. His
checking account balance averages approximately $1,300 and he has approximately
$250 in a savings account. (Tr. 57) 
Approximately three months before the hearing, Applicant began working at a
part-time job as a security guard to supplement his income. (Tr. 58) He works 25 to 30
extra hours per week. (Tr. 59)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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. 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 for 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 history of financial problems triggers the application of AG ¶¶ 19(a),
“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations.”
5
The following mitigating conditions under 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;
(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; and
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
Applicant’s financial problems were not caused by extravagant spending.
Instead, they were caused primarily when his disgruntled ex-wife purposely exceeded
the credit limit on a credit card for which they were jointly responsible. Applicant’s
financial problems were later exacerbated when his ex-wife failed to honor an
agreement to make the car payments on a jointly-owned vehicle.
In 2008, Applicant consulted a credit counselor to help him confront his
delinquent debts. Since then, Applicant satisfied approximately $6,000 of delinquent
debt, and negotiated more than $9,000 of balance reductions. He was able to make this
progress in part through the extra income generated from a part-time job that he
obtained as part of his efforts to confront his debt problem.
Although Applicant has been unable to locate the current holder of the debt listed
in SOR subparagraph 1.g, his income and savings are sufficient to satisfy this debt once
he locates the creditor. I was concerned that Applicant did not provide documentary
evidence corroborating his IRS payments. However, Applicant’s testimony regarding the
IRS payments was credible in light of the ample corroborating evidence he provided to
prove that he was satisfying the other debts. I conclude all of the above mitigating
conditions 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
6
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
Applicant is an industrious individual who is respected on the job. His financial
problems were largely caused by circumstances beyond his control. Over the past two
years, he has addressed them by obtaining a part-time job to generate more income,
retaining a credit counselor, and methodically satisfying the delinquencies. Upon
evaluating this case in the context of the whole-person factors, I conclude Applicant has
rehabilitated his financial situation. 
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.g: 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