1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 09-03621
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: D. Michael Lyles, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Alan V. Edmunds, Esq. 
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant had unresolved financial problems when he retired from the military in
December 2003. He incurred additional delinquent debts while operating his auto repair
business between December 2003 and February 2008. He exercised good judgment in
December 2008 by filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. However, the petition was
dismissed eight months later after he was unable to maintain the payment schedule. His
evidence in mitigation of satisfying three delinquent debts, and making payments on
other delinquent debts in order to bring them to a current status, is insufficient to
surmount the adverse evidence under the financial guideline. The record fails to show
he deliberately concealed information from his security form in February 2009. Eligibility
of access for classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant certified his security clearance application (SCA, GE 1) on February
23, 2009, and signed his SCA on February 25, 2009. He was interviewed by an
investigator from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on April 10, 2009, and
 Both motions (March 5, 2010, March 12, 2010) to reopen the hearing and take additional testimony were1
denied.
2
April 20, 2009. In his interrogatory answers submitted to the Government on July 13,
2009, Applicant agreed with the investigator’s summaries of his April 2009 interviews,
and that the summaries could be used in a security clearance hearing to determine his
security suitability. (Interrogatory answers, GE 2) On November 19, 2009, DOHA issued
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under the guideline for
financial considerations (Guideline F). The action was taken pursuant to 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 submitted his answer to the SOR on December 9, 2009. DOHA issued
a Notice of Hearing on January 28, 2010, for a hearing on February 23, 2010. The
hearing was held as scheduled. At the hearing, seven exhibits (GE 1 through 7) were
admitted in evidence to support the government’s case. Applicant testified and
submitted six exhibits (AE A through AE F). The record remained open until March 10,
2010 (Tr. 61-63), to allow Applicant an opportunity to submit additional evidence.
On March 5, 2010, Applicant filed his first Motion to Reopen the Hearing to
Accept Additional Evidence and Testimony. On March 11, 2010, during a telephone
conference with Applicant’s Counsel and Department Counsel, I informed the parties I
was not going to reopen the hearing to take additional testimony, but I would entertain a
motion from Applicant more time to submit additional exhibits beyond the original March
10, 2010, deadline. Applicant’s Counsel requested an extension until March 16, 2010, to
submit additional exhibits. Department Counsel had no objection. Applicant re-labeled
the exhibits he had submitted on March 5, 2010, and March 10, 2010, and resubmitted
them as AE A through AE U in his second Motion to Reopen Hearing to Accept
Additional Evidence and Testimony, dated March 12, 2010.  1
On March 15, 2010, Applicant proffered AE V through AE Z. Department Counsel
had no objection to the foregoing exhibits, but did object to AE AA, AE BB, and AE CC
on relevancy and foundation grounds. The objection was overruled. 
Two of Applicant’s original exhibits admitted in evidence on February 23, 2010,
were not incorporated in Applicant’s revised exhibits. AE DD (formerly identified as AE
B) is a two-page exhibit. The first page shows monthly payments Applicant purportedly
made to several of the listed creditors in the SOR. The second page of the exhibit is a
continuation page of the payment information from page one and showing additional
payment activity for February, March and April 2010, with account numbers and contact
information for the creditors. AE EE is a credit report dated February 22, 2010. AE DD
and AE EE have been admitted in evidence to permit the development of a full record.
See, E3.1.19. of Directive 5220.6.
 At the bottom of page 3 of the Order, Applicant’s second Motion to Reopen is incorrectly dated “March 10,2
2010.” The accurate date should be March 12, 2010, the date that is cited in the fifth paragraph of page 2 of
the Oder. 
3
As indicated in my Order dated March 17, 2010, both Applicant’s Motions (March
5, 2010, and March 12, 2010)  to Reopen Hearing to Accept Additional Testimony are2
denied. AE A through AE Z are admitted in the record, along with AE AA through AE
EE. 
DOHA received the transcript in this case March 9, 2010. The record in this case
closed on March 16, 2010. 
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F of the SOR, the Government alleges Applicant has 24
delinquent debts totaling $106,859. Applicant essentially admitted all allegations. His
denial of certain debts is based on his accompanying assertion that he paid the account
to a current status or to a zero balance. Concerning Guideline E of the SOR, the
Government alleges under ¶ 2.a that Applicant deliberately omitted material facts in an
SCA he signed on February 25, 2009, by answering “no” to Section 26 a (whether a
bankruptcy petition was filed in last 7 years). Under ¶ 2.b of the SOR, the Government
alleges that Applicant deliberately omitted material facts in the same SCA by answering
“no” to Section 26.g (debts turned over to a collection agency in last 7 years) and
Section 26.n (currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)). Applicant admitted ¶
2.a and ¶ 2.b. 
Applicant is 46 years old. In October 2010, he will celebrate 20 years of
marriage. In addition to his wife, he has a son, daughter and grandson (daughter’s son),
living with him. The daughter is 18 years old, unemployed, and not contributing to
household expenses. (Tr. 43-44) She receives some aid and benefits that help support
her son. (Id.) Applicant’s grandson has been living with him since his birth about a year
ago. (Tr. 56)
Applicant spent 20-plus years in the United States Navy (Tr. 47-48), and received
an honorable discharge in December 2003. (GE 3, DD Form 214) He stated that he
incurred most of the listed debt before he retired in December 2003. (Tr. 43, 19) After
his retirement, he opened an auto repair business that eventually became a victim of
the regional economy. Applicant closed the business in February 2008 because of a
lack of income and an accumulation of additional debt. (Tr. 20) He was hired by his
current employer in February 2008. He filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition (SOR 1.a)
in December 2008. (Tr. 19) Applicant’s payment under the Chapter 13 plan was
$1,820.94 a month. (GE 2, April 10, 2009 interview) The petition was dismissed in
August 2009. In his April 2009 interviews, Applicant mentioned a few reasons why he
had trouble establishing the Chapter 13 plan. (GE 2, April 20, 2009, interview) His
bankruptcy attorney did not appear for a meeting of creditors, and there were some
4
problems with a tax return and pay stubs. (Id.) Applicant testified that he was unable to
maintain the scheduled monthly payment. (Tr. 21-22) 
Applicant’s current net monthly income is approximately $3,000 a month. With
his wife’s net monthly income of about $3,200, they earn about $6,200 a month. (Tr. 41)
After subtracting their monthly expenses ($3,200), Applicant has approximately $3,000
in monthly discretionary income, which he uses to pay delinquent debts. (Tr. 42)
Applicant has had about $3,000 in discretionary income left over every month since he
was hired by his current employer two years ago. (Tr. 60-61)
In October 2008, Applicant received financial counseling as a condition of filing
his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in December 2008. The counseling was conducted
by internet and telephone. (AE C; Tr. 46) Applicant and his wife conduct weekly
meetings on their budget and the bills. (Tr. 47) 
Financial Considerations
The SOR lists 24 delinquent accounts. GE 4, GE 5, and AE EE, are the credit
reports that contain that account information for some of the delinquent debts. Other
accounts are probably not being reported in the credit reports because the debt is no
longer collectible by the creditor or collection agency. That does not mean Applicant still
does not owe the debt. The status of those accounts is as follows:
1.b - $2,287, car finance company. While referring to his credit report (AE EE) and his
payment ledger, Applicant indicated a payment of $226.50 was made, bringing the
account to a current status. (Tr. 25) Applicant’s documentation does not show the
amount of the payment made, but does indicate that on February 18, 2010, the balance
on the account was $301.25 after a payment. (AE E) The exhibit also indicates the
account was still designated delinquent, as verified by the words in the rectangular box
requesting an offer for settlement. (Id.) This account is found in Applicant’s favor. 
1.c - $11,240, installment loan. The account became delinquent in January 2009. In his
answer, Applicant stated the account had been paid in full and the title was released to
an insurance company. Applicant testified he paid the account in full. His documentation
reflects that he made a total loss claim on his vehicle in April 2009, and was notified in
February 2010 that the proper form would have to be submitted to conclude the total
loss settlement. (AE F) Even though this delinquent account was extinguished by an
insurance settlement, Applicant no longer owes the debt.
1.d - $16,270, installment loan. Applicant indicated the debt was returned to a current
status with a $700 payment. (Tr. 27) His February 2010 statement indicates he made a
$700 payment on February 1, 2010, and the estimated payoff amount of about $7850.
(AE H) His credit report reflects that he was current with payments from August 2009
through December 2009. (AE EE) This debt is no longer considered delinquent. 
5
1.e - $1,885, installment loan. Applicant testified he has title to the vehicle stamped by
the credit union. (Tr. 28) The title to the 2002 vehicle shows the lien was released on
September 30, 2009. (AE E) SOR 1.e is found for Applicant. 
1.f - $21,000, unknown type of delinquent account. Applicant indicated he paid the
account to a current status. Applicant’s payment ledger shows he made five monthly
payments to the creditor from September 2009 through January 2010 (AE DD), and a
payment of $239 in February 2010. His documentation indicates he made four
payments totaling $1,837 on the account between September 2009 and February 2010.
He provided no verification that the debt is current as he claimed in his answer to the
SOR. A balance of more that $19,000 is still his responsibility. 
1.g - $6,730, bank. Applicant remains liable for the account. (Tr. 29)
1.h - $9.900, loan. Applicant remains liable for the account. (Id.)
1.i - $3,125, credit card. Applicant admitted the account was unpaid. (Id.) It remains his
responsibility. 
1.j - $3,153, credit card. Applicant indicated the account was paid in February 2010.
(Id.) He provided no documentation regarding this debt. Applicant owes the debt. 
1.k - $3,125, computer company. Applicant has been trying to contact the creditor. (Id.)
He owes the account. 
1.l - $946, department store. Applicant owes the account. 
1.m - $1,305, department store. The last activity on the account before it became
delinquent was in June 2008. Applicant is trying to obtain contact information. (Tr. 30)
He is responsible for the delinquent debt. 
1.n - $4,183, department store. The last activity on this account before it became
delinquent was July 2008. Applicant is awaiting payment information to resolve his
delinquent debt. (Id.)
1.o - $1,210, hardware store. Applicant paid this account to a current status. (Id.) No
documentation indicates that Applicant remains liable for this debt. 
1.p - $1,211, credit. Though Applicant testified he paid this debt to a current status (Tr.
31), he provided no documentation, similar to documentation he provided under SOR
1.d, that actual payment(s) were made to return the delinquent debt to a current status.
1.q - $740, credit account with the same creditor as SOR 1.p. This remains Applicant’s
responsibility as he provided no documentation to indicate otherwise.
6
1r. - 1,182, credit card. The last activity on the account before becoming delinquent was
May 2008. The creditor has not been paid. (Id.)
1.s - $1,955, credit card. Applicant also indicated this account is unpaid. (Id.) He owes
the account. 
1.t - $7,104, tool supplier. The last activity on this account before it became delinquent
was in January 2009. The credit reports show the account was refinanced on two
occasions. Applicant testified he brought the account to a current status. (Tr. 31; AE K)
On March 1, 2010, Applicant was to start paying the delinquent debt by making monthly
payments of $225 through automatic deduction from one of his accounts. (Id.) The
creditor indicated in the exhibit that “the account has been brought to a current status so
long as [Applicant] continue[s] to adhere to the auto pay agreement.” (Id.) Applicant
provided no verification that any payments had been made. Applicant owes the debt. 
1.u - $7,500, military credit card. Applicant claimed he made a payment of $216 to the
creditor in February 2010, but he had no documentation.  He owes the creditor.
1.v - $180, Applicant made three payments to the creditor in November, December
2009, and January 2010, but still owes $60. (AE L)
1.w - $495, bank. Applicant testified he was awaiting contact information and the debt
was still unpaid. (Tr. 31-32) He still owes the delinquent debt. 
1.x - $45, medical. The last activity on this account was October 2008. Applicant stated
in his answer to the SOR that he paid the account. He testified that he did not have
enough information on the account. (Tr. 32) He still owes the account. 
1.y - $88, telephone. The last activity on the account before it became delinquent was in
December 2008. Applicant paid the creditor $96.68 in September 2009 to satisfy the
account. (AE M) This debt is resolved in Applicant’s favor. 
Personal Conduct
On February 25, 2009, Applicant executed an SCA. In response to Section 26.a
(have you filed a petition under Chapter 7, 11, or 13 of the bankruptcy code in the last 7
years), Applicant answered “no.” He explained in his April 2009 interview that he
answered “no” because he was unsure whether the trustee would accept the plan.
However, he testified that the petition was dismissed for failure to maintain payments
under the plan. (Tr. 22) I find Applicant did not intend to omit the information.
In response to the Section 26.g (any bills turned over to a collection agency in
the last 7 years), and 26.n (currently over 90 days delinquent on any debt(s)), Applicant
answered “no.” He admitted he answered “no” because he believed the filing of the
Chapter 13 caused all activity on the debts to end. (GE, April 2009 interview) I find for
Applicant under 26.g and 26.n.
7
Character Evidence
Applicant furnished several character statements from individuals in his chain of
command or coworkers. The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of Applicant’s employer
summarized the four projects Applicant participated in since his hire in February 2008.
The CEO considers Applicant’s outstanding work ethic and devotion to his work has
produced meaningful success for his employer. (AE A)
A coworker of Applicant’s for the past two years, and also a retired non-
commissioned officer in the United States Navy (USN), submitted a character statement
dated March 5, 2010. He believes Applicant is patriotic. The coworker recommends that
Applicant’s dedication to duty and flawless military record, showing no security
violations, be closely examined before revoking his security clearance. (AE N)
In an undated statement, a service person who has known Applicant since May
2000, worked with him until he retired in December 2003. The two individuals currently
remain in contact because they are participating in an active project. The coworker has
found Applicant to be trustworthy and reliable. (AE O)
In a character statement dated March 7, 2010, a former neighbor and student at
the same high school that Applicant attended, has maintained contact with Applicant for
more than 30 years. He believes Applicant is a person of integrity with no negative
issues necessitating removal of his security clearance. (AE P)
A friend of 10 years wrote a character endorsement on March 5, 2010, praising
Applicant’s assistance in fixing cars that the friend had purchased at auction. The friend
found Applicant to be trustworthy and reliable in finishing projects in a timely fashion.
(AE Q)
Applicant received the Navy and Marine Corps Medal on September 22, 2002,
for his positive contributions as a flight engineer, and in successfully training 40 flight
engineers. (AE S) AE Y is a training certificate Applicant received on February 8, 1996,
for completing the course in survival, evasion, resistance, and escape training. That
survival training is described in AE CC, discussed below. AE Z is a certificate of
appreciation from the 43  President of the United States awarded to Applicant for hisrd
service to the country. 
Applicant’s monthly budget reflects monthly net income of $7,900, with net
monthly remainder of $2,844. (AE T) Applicant has $1,400 in United States Savings
Bonds (AE U), and a retirement savings account. (AE G)
In a two-page declaration, Applicant indicated his financial problems would not be
repeated. (AE V) He believed his finances were under control. He stated that he had
taken a worthwhile financial counseling course because he learned how to improve his
ability to work out payment plans with creditors. (Id.)
8
AE AA is an excerpt from a publication dated April 15, 2009, describing a river
basin flooding in a southeastern state. AE BB is four pages in length. Three pages of
AE BB show damage to a mobile home from flooding. One of the four pictures is a
photograph of trees, and a blanket or large piece of plastic resting on a tree limb. AE
CC is a one-page training curriculum for students to learn how to employ military rules
of conduct in a hostile environment.
AE DD is a flow chart of payments Applicant indicated he paid to certain
creditors. AE EE shows Applicant’s credit report dated February 22, 2010. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the AG. Each guideline lists potentially disqualifying
conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered to the extent they apply
in evaluating an applicant's eligibility for access to classified information.
The administrative judge's ultimate goal is to reach a fair and impartial decision
that is based on common sense. The decision should also include a careful, thorough
evaluation of a number of variables known as the "whole-person concept" that brings
together all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable, in making a decision. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 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 the potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
Under Directive ¶ E3.l.14., the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.l.l5., 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
Financial Considerations 
The security concern for financial considerations is set forth in AG ¶ 18:
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
9
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Compulsive
gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including
espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of
income is also a security concern. It may indicate proceeds from
financially profitable criminal acts.
The Government has the responsibility of presenting sufficient information to
support all allegations of the SOR. Based on the credit reports, Applicant’s interrogatory
responses, and his answers to the SOR, the Government has presented sufficient
information to establish all the allegations in the SOR. AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts); and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial
obligations) apply in this case. Applicant admitted incurring delinquent debt while in the
military. After his discharge from the Navy in December 2003, he incurred more
delinquent debt. He filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in December 2008 that was
dismissed in August 2009 because he could not maintain the payments. It is difficult to
comprehend how the Chapter 13 plan was dismissed given the fact that Applicant had
about $3,000 of discretionary monthly income remaining at the end of every month for
the past two years. Moreover, the SOR identifies 24 debts totaling $106,859.
Four mitigating conditions are potentially applicable in this case. 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
reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment) does not apply. Some of the delinquent
debts were created when Applicant was in the service. Other accounts became
delinquent less than three years ago. Applicant paid two debts back to a current status,
and received an insurance award for the loss of a vehicle. Applicant spent about $2,200
to pay off three other creditors. He still owes 18 creditors about $72,879. The number of
accounts and amount of delinquent debt that he must still deal with continues to raise
doubts about his current reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. 
AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person's control and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances) applies in part. After his honorable discharge from the Navy in
December 2003, Applicant opened an auto repair business. For approximately a four-
year period, the local economy prevented Applicant from making sufficient income from
his business to pay his debts. He closed the business in February 2008 when he
discovered he could not pay his bills. He exercised good judgment by filing a Chapter 13
bankruptcy petition. However, the petition was dismissed in August 2009 because
Applicant could not make the schedule payments of $1,820 a month. This demonstrated
poor judgment by Applicant. Conversely, he demonstrated poor judgment when he
could not maintain the payments, and the petition was dismissed in August 2009. He
compounded his poor judgment through his failure to be more aggressive in liquidating
the remaining delinquent accounts. Applicant receives limited mitigation under AG ¶
20(b).
10
Applicant receives limited mitigation under AG ¶ 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). Along with his wife, he received online
counseling in October 2008. After the hearing, Applicant produced a budget and
evidence of a retirement account. The documentation of counseling and the existence
of a budget furnishes Applicant and his wife an opportunity to track their earnings and
their expenditures. The reason that the foregoing evidence provides limited mitigation
under AG ¶ 20(c) is because (1) the unsuccessful Chapter 13 bankruptcy was
dismissed recently, and (2) the 18 delinquent accounts that remain unaddressed. In
sum, I am unable to conclude the debts are under control. 
Applicant receives limited mitigation under AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a
good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts). The record
reflects that Applicant has only paid three creditors out of 24. Given the amount of
Applicant’s discretionary income left over each month, he could have satisfied at least
two of the other three creditors, rather than paying the accounts to a current status. The
creditor in SOR 1.c was paid through Applicant’s insurance. Having weighed and
balanced the entire record, the limited mitigation Applicant receives under AG ¶¶ 20(b),
20(c), and 20(d), does not overcome the adverse evidence under AG ¶¶ 19(a) and
19(c).
Personal Conduct
Paragraph 15 of the AG sets forth the security concern for personal conduct: 
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. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
This guideline applies to intentional attempts to conceal or omit information from
an SCA. The guideline does not apply to negligent or unintentional omissions unless the
surrounding circumstances support a reasonable inference that there was a deliberate
attempt to conceal material information. 
The following disqualifying condition under ¶ 16 may apply: AG ¶ 16(a)
(deliberate omission or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security
questionnaire to determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness). On February
25, 2009, Applicant signed his SCA. In response to Section 26.a (have you filed a
bankruptcy petition in the last 7 years?), he answered “no” when he should have
answered “yes.” He testified that he answered “no” because he did not know whether
the trustee would accept the plan. I conclude that Applicant did not deliberately omit the
information about his Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition from his SCA. I draw the same
conclusion about his negative response to Section 26.g (bills turned over to collection
11
agencies in the last 7 years) and 26.n (currently over 90 days delinquent on any
debt(s)). The personal conduct guideline is found for Appellant.
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in
my ultimate finding against Applicant under the financial considerations guideline, and
for him under the personal conduct guideline. I have also weighed the circumstances
within the context of nine variables known as the whole-person concept. In evaluating
the relevance of an individual's conduct, the administrative judge should consider the
following factors:
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 the participation was 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 December 2003, Applicant was 39 years old when he received his honorable
discharge from more than 20 years in the Navy. The awards, certificates, and favorable
opinions of former military colleagues, attest to Applicant’s reliability and trustworthiness
during his military service. However, when he departed the military, he also had
unresolved financial problems that were not addressed in these character statements by
his references. From December 2003 to February 2008, when he closed his auto repair
business, Applicant saw additional financial accounts become delinquent due to a poor
economy that prevented him from paying his bills. 
In February 2008, Applicant started working for his current employer. Toward the
end of 2008, Applicant realized he could not pay his bills. He demonstrated good
judgment in completing the required financial counseling in advance of filing the Chapter
13 bankruptcy petition. He should have resolved whatever problems he had so he could
complete the bankruptcy plan. However, the Chapter 13 plan was dismissed in August
2009 when Applicant failed to maintain the $1,820 monthly payment schedule, even
though he had about $3,000 of discretionary income to use every month to apply to the
monthly payment. 
The favorable character evidence from Applicant’s CEO shows that Applicant
has demonstrated good job performance over the past two years. However, the CEO
provided little insight into Applicant’s financial difficulties. Applicant has had financial
counseling, and he has a budget. However, contrary to his statements that he has his
finances under control, the record still indicates that shows he still owes 18 creditors
over $72,000. Applicant was aware in February 2009 when he filled out his SCA, that
his delinquent debts could be a concern to the Government. On two occasions in April
12
2009, when Applicant was actively making payments under the Chapter 13 bankruptcy
plan, he was interviewed about his delinquent debts. In November 2009, Applicant
received the SOR listing most of the debt he had been asked about in April 2009. Since
approximately February 2008, Applicant indicated he has had about $3,000 left over
each after he paid his expenses. Considering the evidence as a whole, the absence of a
plan to address the 18 remaining delinquent debts precludes a finding in Applicant’s
favor under the financial guideline. The personal conduct guideline is found in
Applicant’s favor. 
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): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.b through 1.e For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f through 1.u Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.v For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.w through 1.x Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.y For Applicant
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a through 2.b For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                      
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge