1
                                                         
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE   
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 ---------------------------- )     ISCR Case No. 09-04990
SSN: -------------------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:
As of September 2009, Applicant owed about $15,578 in delinquent consumer
debt, excluding more than $6,000 in interest and fees on a loan for a repossessed car.
In November 2009, he was informed by the Internal Revenue Service that he owed
around $3,000 in delinquent federal income taxes for 2007. His financial problems were
due to overspending and poor record keeping. He no longer uses credit cards, and has
paid his smaller debts. While he intends to resolve his remaining debts with the help of
a financial advisor, other expenses have kept him from accumulating the funds he
needs. Clearance denied.
Statement of the Case
On October 9, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
to Applicant a statement of reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under
Guideline F, Financial Considerations, that provided the basis for its preliminary
decision to deny him a security clearance and to refer the matter to an administrative
judge. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense
2
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG)
effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.
Applicant submitted an undated response to the SOR and requested a hearing.
On December 1, 2009, the case was assigned to me to conduct a hearing and to
determine whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a
security clearance for him. On December 11, 2009, I scheduled a hearing for January
12, 2010.
I convened the hearing as scheduled. Four Government exhibits (Ex. 1-4) and
ten Applicant exhibits (Ex. A-J) were admitted without objection. Applicant also testified,
as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on January 21, 2010.
The record was held open until February 2, 2010, for him to submit additional
financial records. Applicant timely submitted 14 additional exhibits, which were entered
without objection as exhibits K through X.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
At the hearing, the Government moved to amend the SOR under ¶ E3.1.17 to
add a new subparagraph 1.n under Guideline F based on Applicant’s testimony that the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) notified him by letter that he owes about $3,500 in
federal income taxes for tax year 2007. Applicant objected on the basis that the debt
might not be valid. I granted the motion over Applicant’s objection, and the SOR was
amended to add the following allegation:
1.n. You are indebted to the IRS in the approximate amount of $3,500. As
of January 12, 2010, it remains unpaid.
I gave Applicant until January 29, 2010, to respond to the allegation. Applicant
filed a post-hearing submission showing he had entered into an installment agreement
to repay his debt to the IRS (Ex.  X.)
Findings of Fact
The amended SOR alleged under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, that
Applicant owed delinquent debt totaling $15,652 to 13 consumer credit lenders or their
assignees as of October 2009 (SOR 1.a-1.m), and that he owed the IRS about $3,500
as of January 2010. Applicant initially admitted the debts in SOR 1.a through 1.m,
although he later successfully disputed the validity of the debt identified in SOR 1.j. He
initially questioned the IRS debt in SOR 1.n, but his post-hearing submissions
substantiate the debt. After considering the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make
the following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 31-year-old information technology administrator. He applied for a
security clearance in May 2009 while working full-time as an information systems
Jurisdiction to continue with the hearing was retained because Applicant required a security1
clearance for his part-time work with company X.
Applicant testified that he held a secret security clearance when he was in the military, and that his2
clearance was transferred in subsequent civilian employments. (Tr. 142.) However, it is difficult to see why
he would have required a security clearance while working for a hair products company.
3
security manager for a defense contractor (company X). (Ex. 1.) Applicant’s services
had been contracted out to company X by a succession of employers from 2003
through 2007. In January 2008, he began working as a temporary employee for
company X. (Tr. 67-69, 135.) In February 2009, he became a full-time employee of the
defense contractor. In November 2009, Applicant accepted a new job with another
employer, contingent in part on a satisfactory background investigation. (Ex. B.) He
continued to work for company X on a part-time basis. In early December 2009,
Applicant transitioned from full-time status to “casual status” at company X. He
contracted with company X to work no more than ten hours per week at an hourly wage
of $75.00 for as long as there is a need for his services. (Ex. C, Tr. 55-59.) Applicant still
needs a clearance for his part-time work but he does not require a security clearance for
his duties with his new employer.  (Tr. 22, 141.)1
Applicant served honorably in the United States military from March 1998 to
March 2002, and he held a secret-level security clearance during that time. He married
his spouse in October 2000. After he served his enlistment term, he worked full time as
a computer technician for a hair care products company.  Around February 2003, he2
began working in the defense sector as a network security engineer. (Ex. 1.) 
Applicant opened some credit card accounts (SOR 1.e, 1.l, 1.m) and incurred
balances that became delinquent around 2006, despite $80,000 in annual employment
income. (Tr. 68.) In February 2005, in what he now characterizes as “an epic failure in
judgment,” Applicant obtained a cash loan around $5,075 to pay for equipment for his
spouse’s “voice acting” business that never got off the ground. (Ex. 3, 4, Tr. 103-05.)
The loan had a very high interest rate (“like 50 percent”). (Tr. 103-04). In October 2005,
he took out a $20,707 automobile loan, on which he made no payments after July 2006
(SOR 1.f). The vehicle was subsequently repossessed, leaving him with a $10,580 debt
for a car that he no longer had. (Ex. 2-4.) In April 2006, his spouse incurred medical
costs of $195 that went unpaid (SOR 1.d). (Ex. 1-4, I.) 
Around September 2006, Applicant and his spouse relocated for his work as a
contractor at another company X facility. (Ex. G, Tr. 71.) They drove a recreational
vehicle across the country, and incurred about $2,500 or $3,500 in mechanical repair
costs for the vehicle en route. Gasoline expenses totaled “several thousand dollars,”
twice the amount he expected. (Tr. 146.) They owed $157 in telephone charges (SOR
1.i), $78 in library fines (SOR 1.k), and delinquent balances on several consumer credit
accounts (SOR 1.e, 1.f, 1.h, 1.l, 1.m) at the time. Applicant did not manage his finances
carefully, and did not realize that some of his delinquent debts were minimal in amount
(e.g., the debts in SOR 1.h and 1.k).  (Tr. 90-91.)
Applicant’s credit report dated January 3, 2010 (Ex. I) shows the $249 debt was satisfied after it was3
charged off and in collection.
4
In January 2008, Applicant began working for company X as a temporary
employee supporting the security department as an information security systems officer.
(Ex. H.) Over the next year, Applicant earned approximately $152,000. (Tr. 68.) He did
not make any payments on his delinquent debts because of out-of-pocket medical and
prescription drug costs for his spouse that totaled at least $300 per month. (Tr. 69-70,
73.) But Applicant and his spouse also overspent on restaurant meals. (Tr. 89, 99, 136.)
He bought a car with cash while old debts were ignored. (Tr. 136.) Some new medical
(SOR 1.a) and veterinary (SOR 1.b) debts were referred for collection. (Ex. 1-4, I.) They
moved to increasingly more expensive housing. In November 2007, they went from
spending $700 per month in rent to $1,250 per month. In August 2008, they moved to a
two-bedroom residence “on a fantastic piece of property” at $1,500 per month. (Tr. 132-
33.)
 
In February 2009, Applicant was hired as a full-time employee by company X at
an annual salary of $89,014. (Ex. 1, 2, Tr. 52-53, 67, 70.) He was given a signing bonus
of almost $5,000 that he used to pay off the cash loan acquired in February 2005.  (Ex.
4, Tr. 103-04.)
As the information systems security manager at his facility, Applicant was
responsible for guaranteeing the security of the information systems used for classified
processing. (Ex. H, Tr. 60.) On May 19, 2009, he applied for a security clearance for his
duties. In response to inquiries into his financial record, Applicant disclosed the debts
alleged in the SOR as well as a $249 collection balance not alleged.  (Ex. 1.) By his3
June 10, 2009, personal subject interview for his background investigation, Applicant
had not resolved his debts. He told the investigator that he intended to repay them, and
he was looking into hiring a financial consultant to help him sort out his debt. He was no
longer using consumer credit cards. (Ex. 2.)
In July 2009, Applicant paid $500 in medical costs up-front for elective surgery
for his spouse. He used pretax dollars to pay for some expenses related to the surgery.
Insurance also covered part of the cost. (Tr. 143-44, 147.)
From his discussions with others in the security department, Applicant believed
that the Government would tell him what he had to do to rectify his financial situation.
Consequently, he made no payments on his debts in the summer of 2009. (Tr. 88.)
When he realized that the Government would not set any requirements for repaying his
delinquent debt, Applicant retained the services of a financial advisor at an $81.25
monthly fee. (Ex. 2, Tr. 78-79.) This financial planner calculated Applicant and his
spouse’s net worth at $10,804. They had no annual cash flow surpluses or deficits. (Ex.
2.) The financial planner advised Applicant to set up payment plans with his creditors,
and borrow from his 401(k) account only as a last resort. (Ex. A.) By letter dated
September 16, 2009, Applicant notified each of the creditors identified in SOR 1.a
through 1.g (duplicated in SOR 1.m), 1.h, and 1.i that he wanted to set up a payment
schedule. (Ex. 2.) In October 2009, the creditor identified in SOR 1.e agreed to settle
5
Applicant’s debt for half of the balance, provided he made timely, biweekly payments of
$50. (Tr. 50-60.)
After he received the SOR, Applicant began searching for a job where he would
not require a security clearance, and for a new apartment to lower his rent. (Tr. 50-51.)
In November 2009, Applicant accepted an offer of full-time employment as a Linux
administrator with a new employer at a $96,000 annual salary. (Ex. B.) In early
December 2009, he transitioned to “casual status” at company X, where he has since
earned $75 per hour with no benefits for part-time duties. Applicant is expected to work
at least one hour but no more than ten hours per week.  He remains under contract for
as long as his services are needed. In the event a suitable replacement is found and
Applicant has completed all open work items, company X will then process his
separation as a voluntary resignation. (Ex. C, Tr. 56-57.)
In mid-December 2009, Applicant and his spouse moved to a new apartment,
reducing their rental cost from $1,500 to $650 per month. (Ex. D., Tr. 51-52.) They
incurred about $800 or $900 in moving costs, and had to pay a deposit of $650. (Tr.
112-13.) With his new job looking secure and with his housing costs lower, Applicant
contacted his creditors in January 2010 to arrange for repayment of his debts. (Tr. 51.)
As of early February 2010, he had made some payments, as reflected in the following
table.
Debt Delinquency history Payment status as of Feb.
2010
1.a. Medical debt $211 Incurred late Mar. 2008,
for collection. (Ex. 2, 3, I.)
Three $21.16 payments
between Oct. and Dec.
2009 under 10 month plan
(Ex. J.), paid in full as of
Jan. 28, 2010. (Ex. K.) 
1.b. Animal hospital debt
$421
$1,871 debt incurred in
2007, last activity Aug.
2007, made three $500
payments, $421 balance
for collection Apr. 2008.
(Ex. 2-4.)
Paid $37.12 per month
Oct. to Dec. 2009 (Ex. J.),
paid in full as of mid-Jan.
2010. (Ex. L.)
1.c. Telephone company
debt $110 in collection
Debt for Internet services
from Nov. 2007, $110 for
collection Dec. 2007. (Ex.
3, 4, I.)
Paid $45 Jan. 6, 2010.
(Ex. J.), satisfied in full as
of Jan. 29, 2010. (Ex. M.)
1.d. Medical debt $195 Incurred by spouse in Apr.
2006, $178.26 for
collection Feb. 2007,
balance $195. (Ex. 1-4, I,
N.)
Paid $27.50 Jan. 5, 2010
(Ex. J.), satisfied in full
Jan. 20, 2010. (Ex. N.)
6
1.e. Credit card debt
charged off $1,777
Opened Oct. 2004, last
activity Dec. 2005, $933
charged off, $1,688
balance as of May 2009.
$1,777 balance as of Sep.
2009. (Ex. 1-4, I)
Creditor agreed to settle
for half of balance. Initial
$100 payment in Oct.
2009 then $50 every two
weeks through Jan. 4,
2010. (Ex. J, Tr. 49-50.)
Balance $1,471.45 as of
Jan. 14, 2010.Settled with
$735.73 payment Jan. 15,
2010. (Ex. O.)
1.f. Auto loan charged off
around $10,000 balance
Seven year $20,707 car
loan taken out Aug. 2005,
$450 monthly payments.
Last activity Jul. 2006,
repossession, $11,508
charged off, $10,580
balance reported on his
credit record as of May
2009. (Ex. 1-4, I.)
Collection agency claims
balance almost $17,000 as
of Jan. 2010. (Tr. 141.)
Collection agency wanted
six months of payments
around $300, but then a
balloon payment that
Applicant objected to
because the creditor would
not clarify the terms. (Ex.
J, Tr. 83-84.) Applicant
intends to borrow from his 
401(k) to pay off it off in a
lump sum when he has
enough in the  401(k). (Ex.
P, Tr. 35.)
1.g. Credit card debt
$1,399 in collection
Opened Sep. 2003, $500
spending limit, $442 past
due balance, last activity
Nov. 2005, for collection
Jan. 2008, $1,399 for
collection Jan. 2008 but 
(Ex. 1-4, I.)
Collection agency agreed
to accept $250 per month,
payment by debit card, 
balance $1,149.24 as of
Feb. 1, 2010. (Ex. J, Q.)
1.h. Credit card debt
charged off $37
Opened Sep. 1997, $200
high credit, $37 balance
past due since May 2006.
(Ex. 1-4, I.)
Paid in full Jan. 4, 2010.
(Ex. J, R.)
1.i. Telephone debt $157
in collection
Balance $157 for collection
Jun. 2008, unpaid as of
Jun. 2009. (Ex. 1, 3, I.)
Satisfied Jan. 6, 2010 with
$156.67 payment. (Ex. J,
S.)
1.j. Utility services debt
$154 in collection
No activity since Jun.
2006, $154 balance in
collection as of Mar. 2009.
(Ex. 1-3, I.)
Disputed debt because
paid in 2006, removed by
two credit bureaus from
his credit record, and
creditor reports zero
balance. (Ex. I, J, T, Tr.
100.)
7
1.k. Library debt $78 in
collection
Balance $78 for collection
Feb. 2008. (Ex. 1, 3, I.)
Paid $78 to satisfy debt as
of Jan. 6, 2010. (Ex. J, U.)
1.l. Credit card debt $613
charged off
Opened Aug. 2004, last
activity Jan. 2006, $613
balance in collection. (Ex.
1-4, I.)
No success in reaching
creditor as of early Feb.
2010 despite numerous
attempts. (Ex. J, V, Tr. 81.)
1.m. Collection debt $500 In collection with agency
identified in SOR 1.g
See SOR 1.g.
1.n. Federal income tax
debt $3,500
Tax debt around $3,218
for 2007 past due as of
Nov. 2009. (Ex. X.)
Paid $281.46 by credit
card Jan. 2010, $275
monthly installment
payments to begin Feb.
23, 2010. (Ex. X.)
Around November 2009, Applicant learned from the IRS that he owed delinquent
federal income taxes for 2007 (SOR 1.n) and that the IRS had no record of him filing a
return for 2004. (Tr. 118.) On January 28, 2010, he paid $1,125, which he calculated to
be his tax debt for 2004 excluding any penalties and interest on unpaid taxes. (Ex. X.)
Applicant owed an additional $2,937 for tax year 2007. He paid $281.46 by credit card
on January 4, 2010, toward his 2007 federal income tax debt. (Ex. X, Tr. 120.) On
January 28, 2010, he and his spouse entered into an installment agreement authorizing
the IRS to debit their bank account at $275 per month starting February 23, 2010. (Ex.
X.)
As of mid-January 2010, Applicant had around $5,500 in 401(k) assets (Tr. 114.),
$300 in checking account deposits, and $118 in savings. (Tr. 116.) He was saving little
to pay off his old debts because of expenses related to his move, to acquiring his new
job (a new suit), and veterinary bills (“The cats all got sick again.”). (Tr. 111.) In January
2010, he tried to open a new credit card account because he thought he had made
some progress in repairing his credit, but he was turned down. (Tr. 123-24.) Applicant
and his spouse drive older model vehicles. He bought one vehicle with cash and paid off
the other car in November 2009. (Tr. 116.) Applicant pays $195 per month for cellular
phone service for him and his wife. (Tr. 127.) Her financial contributions to the home
have been minimal. Applicant’s spouse has not held any job for longer than four months
at a time. (Tr. 130.) 
Company X’s corporate security director is familiar with Applicant’s job
performance since he started as a contractor in 2003. In her opinion, Applicant takes his
professional responsibilities very seriously. On assuming the duties of an information
systems security officer and more recently as information systems security manager,
Applicant worked diligently to understand and comply with the National Industrial
Security Program Operating Manual, and with company X’s corporate security policies
within the classified work environment. (Ex. H.) Company X’s local facility security
officer (FSO) has been impressed by Applicant’s “dedication, persistence, and
commitment to his work.” Applicant handled a number of secure computer systems
8
within the facility, and had access to all of the classified labs. While there were some
“minor administrative incidents” at the facility, none of them resulted in compromise.
Applicant gave the FSO no reason to question his integrity, or to suspect that he would
be incapable of safeguarding classified information. (Ex. G.) In August 2009, the
Defense Security Service accredited a network system for processing secret-level
information. Applicant was given self-certification authority for similar information
systems that operate in equivalent environments. (Ex. F.)
Policies
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,
emphasizing that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy
v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a
security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines.
In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative
guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are
required to be considered 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. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. 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.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record. 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 to
obtain a favorable security decision.
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
that 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.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the
9
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).
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern about finances is set out 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
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.
Applicant did not monitor his or his spouse’s spending, and he made some poor
financial decisions, most notably acquiring the cash loan in February 2005. He began to
fall behind on some accounts during the 2005/06 time frame. He stopped paying on a
car loan, and his vehicle was repossessed. Three sizeable credit card delinquencies
(SOR  1.e, 1.g (duplicate in 1.m), and 1.l) went unpaid, despite Applicant’s $152,000 in
gross pay as a temporary employee for company X in 2008. While he had substantial
medical and prescription costs for his spouse, he did not have a budget. Applicant and
his spouse continued to eat out frequently. He bought a car with cash rather than make
payments on his past due debts. By September 2009, he owed more than $15,000 in
delinquent consumer credit debt. In November 2009, Applicant learned he owed
delinquent federal income taxes. AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,”
and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” are implicated. AG ¶
19(b), “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,” aptly describes his financial behavior from 2005 until September 2009, when
he began to take steps to address his debts and to monitor his spending habits.
Concerning potential factors in mitigation, while the debts identified in SOR 1.d
through 1.h and 1.l were from 2006 if not before, Applicant was financially negligent in
taking no steps to resolve them before September 2009. Furthermore, it was
irresponsible of Applicant to have allowed relatively recent obligations, such as those in
SOR 1.a through 1.d, to be placed for collection. Under the circumstances, 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,” is not pertinent.
AG ¶ 20(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,” also does not apply. Many of the debts
The adjudicative process requires assessment of the following factors:4
(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
10
were incurred voluntarily. Although Applicant had no control over the high cost of his
spouse’s prescriptions, they were a known, ongoing expense. Applicant’s income, which
ranged from $70,000 to about $152,000 annually, was sufficiently ample to cover their
expenses had he budgeted for them. While Applicant had unexpected mechanical costs
when he relocated in 2006, it was his choice to drive across the country in a recreational
vehicle. He should not have been surprised by the cost of gasoline. Nor does AG ¶
20(b) mitigate the poor judgment he exhibited when he took out the loan with an interest
rate around 50% to pay for equipment for a business venture for his spouse.
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,”
must be considered because Applicant has been working with a financial planner since
late summer 2009 to sort out his debt and establish a sound financial plan for the future.
AG ¶ 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts,” is also pertinent because Applicant satisfied his smaller debts,
albeit not until after his hearing. In late January 2010, he entered into an installment
plan to repay his federal tax delinquency for tax year 2007. But it is difficult to fully
mitigate the financial judgment concerns under either AG ¶ 20(c) or AG ¶ 20(d). His
efforts to repay his debts are too recent to establish a track record of financial
responsibility. Furthermore, in September 2009, his net worth was only $10,804, less
than the balance of his delinquent debts. Despite an annual salary of $96,000 from his
new employer, and extra income from his part-time work at company X, he had minimal
savings and checking funds as of mid-January 2010. His move to a less expensive
apartment in mid-December 2009 is a credible effort to increase his financial assets, but
it is unclear when he will be able to resolve the financial concerns. 
AG ¶ 20(e), “the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to
substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the
issue,” applies only to the $154 utility debt in SOR 1.j. After the hearing, Applicant
provided a record from the collection agency showing that he had a zero balance on the
account (Ex. T.), which tends to corroborate his claim that he paid the debt in 2006.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the conduct
and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative process factors listed at
AG ¶ 2(a).  Applicant’s financial problems are of his own making. He did not monitor his4
recurrence.
11
spending on restaurant meals. He took out some questionable loans, most notably the
cash loan at a 50 percent interest rate.
As of late January 2010, Applicant had paid off his smaller debts. He was under
payment plans to repay his federal income tax debt at $275 per month and the credit
card debt in SOR 1.g at $250 per month. He consulted a financial advisor, and reduced
his expenses, especially his rent. These are some positive initial steps toward financial
responsibility, but they are too recent to fully alleviate the financial judgment concerns.
Even assuming he continues to make these payments, I cannot conclude at this time
that his financial problems are behind him. Applicant’s plans to address his remaining,
larger delinquencies include borrowing from his 401(k) assets to pay off the debt in SOR
1.f in a lump sum. The collection agency is demanding payment of almost $17,000. As
of January 2010, he did not have enough in his 401((k) account. He has had no success
in reaching the credit card lender identified in SOR 1.l. He was turned down for a credit
card in January 2010 due to his poor credit despite a salary of $96,000 per year. He has
little money saved because of other expenses (e.g., new suit for his new job, moving
costs, veterinary expenses). While his record of compliance with the procedures for the
handling of classified information is in his favor, he has not fully mitigated the judgment
concerns raised by his years of overspending and of disregard of known debts.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the
amended SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.l: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.m: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: For Applicant
12
Conclusion
In light of the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national
interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to
classified information is denied.
Elizabeth M. Matchinski
Administrative Judge