1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 09-05710
SSN: )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant lost her job in November 2008. She accumulated 10 delinquent debts
totaling $35,433 between November 2008 and June 2009. During the period, she also
was indebted to a bank creditor for a first real estate mortgage in the amount of
$215,000, and a second real estate mortgage for $53,876. Applicant’s case in mitigation
is insufficient to meet her ultimate burden of persuasion under the financial guideline
because she presented no documentation. Eligibility for access to classified information
is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant signed and certified her Security Clearance Application (SCA, Item 5)
on May 15, 2009. She was interviewed by an investigator from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) on June 18, 2009. In her interrogatory answers submitted to the
Government on September 22, 2009 (Item 2), Applicant agreed with the investigator’s
summary of her June 2009 interview, and that it could be used in a security clearance
hearing to determine her security suitability. (Interrogatory answers, Item 6) On January
 In her SCA (Item 5), Applicant indicated she has been employed by her current employer since May 2008.1
That information is deemed incorrect as it is contrary to the Applicant’s statements in her interview, the credit
reports, and her answer to the SOR. Therefore, I find that Applicant unintentionally entered the wrong
information on the form regarding her current employment.  
2
11, 2010, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns
under 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’s undated answer to the SOR was received by DOHA on February 4,
2010. A copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM, the government’s
evidence in support of the allegations of the SOR) was sent to Applicant on April 29,
2010. She received the FORM on May 4, 2010. In an attachment to the FORM,
Applicant was advised she could object to the information in the FORM or submit
additional information in explanation or extenuation. Her response was due on June 3,
2010. No response was received. The case file was assigned to me on August 4, 2010. 
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleges Applicant owes approximately
$35,433 for 10 delinquent debts. A review of Item 7 (credit report dated August 14,
2009) and Item 8 (Credit report dated May 14, 2009) disclose that the 10 delinquent
accounts are credit card accounts. Applicant admitted the validity of the credit card
accounts. The SOR also alleges she is indebted for two real estate mortgages totaling
$268,876 that are at least 120 days delinquent. Applicant admitted that both mortgages
were delinquent, and that the house carrying the two liens was foreclosed on and
repossessed. (Answer to SOR) All the accounts became delinquent between December
2008 and May 2009.
Applicant is 51 years old. She has been married for 19 years. She has no
children. Applicant has been employed as an electronic records/reference librarian since
June 2009.  She was also an electronic records librarian while employed by her1
previous employer. She received a master’s degree from a local university in July 1998.
She seeks a secret security clearance. 
After learning her mother was ill in late 2008, Applicant requested time off in
December 2008 to travel to the foreign country to console her mother. (Item 6, June
2009 interview) Because she was a contractor employee, her employer could not
accommodate the amount of leave she requested, but did provide her with a good
reference. She was unemployed and stopped making payments on the credit accounts
from December 2008 until May 2009. (Id.)
3
In her June 2009 interview, Applicant indicated she began her current job in June
2009 (Id.), and would be able to pay her financial obligations. She had arranged a
consolidation of six of her credit accounts to two listed creditors, and was making a
monthly payment to each creditor at reduced interest rates. She noted that she
answered “no” to all the financial questions of her SCA (Item 5, May 15, 2009) because
she did not know her debts were delinquent when she signed and certified the SCA.
Applicant provided no documentation showing an agreement with the creditors or a
record of payments to the creditors. 
Character Evidence
Applicant indicated her previous employer gave her a glowing character
reference for prospective employers. She did not provide the reference or any other
independent character evidence from individuals or supervisors on her job, or
individuals in the community.
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 are useful 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 sound and prudent judgment. 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. 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 protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a
certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to 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 as to obtaining a favorable security
decision.
4
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
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 (showing the delinquent
debts listed in the SOR), Applicant’s interrogatory responses (including her June 2009
interview), and her 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. AG ¶ 19(a) applies based on Appellant’s inability to pay the
delinquent accounts. Having 10 delinquent accounts and two mortgage foreclosures
dating to December 2008 activates AG ¶ 19(c).
Four mitigating conditions are potentially applicable. No mitigation is available
under 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). All 12 debts became
delinquent within the last two years. The amount of delinquent debt and the lack of
documented action to address the debt foreshadows the likelihood the financial
delinquencies will persist in the foreseeable future. The recency, number, and amount
of delinquent debts, continues to cast doubt on Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness,
and good judgment 
The unexpected medical emergency of Applicant’s mother entitles her to some
mitigation under 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). The serious illness of her mother requiring Applicant’s travel to see her
is entitled to mitigation under the condition. However, as a contract employee, Applicant
knew that her employer could not grant her the amount of leave she wanted. Therefore,
her decision to take the unauthorized leave was entirely within her control when she
could have taken leave in reduced amounts and/or at different times. 
5
In her June 2009 interview, she appeared to use good judgment to consolidate
six of her credit accounts with two creditors so that she could make two monthly
payments at reduced interest rates. In her undated answer received by DOHA on
February 4, 2010, she provided an explanation claiming she partially paid some
creditors while attempting to enroll in some kind of debt consolidation plan regarding
other creditors. However, her claims of consolidation and paying off some creditors do
not carry any probative weight under the last element of AG ¶ 20(b) of “acting
responsibly under the circumstances” because she provided no documentation to
support her claims. Applicant receives limited mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b).
Applicant’s undocumented claims of consolidation of the delinquent debt and
payment of some of the debt renders the essential element of AG ¶ 20(d), “a good-faith
effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” inapplicable. Without any
evidence of payment of creditors individually or collectively in a debt consolidation plan,
the financial considerations guideline is found against Applicant.
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. 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 listed in 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.
Applicant was 49 years old when she lost her employment in December 2008.
She must have performed her job at a satisfactory level in order to obtain the favorable
6
character reference for future employment. Her success in persuading the two primary
creditors to consolidate the payment amounts and reduce the interest rate on multiple
credit accounts demonstrates good judgment. It also shows she must have developed a
credible payment history with the creditors in order to obtain the favorable treatment
regarding the six delinquent credit card debts. 
The problem with Applicant’s evidence in mitigation is that it is unsupported by
documentation that would prove some debts were satisfied while others received partial
payments. A key element in the whole-person analysis of financial cases is whether an
applicant has launched a meaningful track record of reducing her debts. While the track
record does not mean that all debts have to be resolved at the same time, the track
record should demonstrate a plan and measurable efforts to implement the plan. In
certain instances, a reasonable plan could be payment of delinquent debts one at a
time. Considering the evidence as a whole, Applicant has presented no independent
evidence corroborating that she paid off any of the listed delinquent debts. Without a
comprehensive plan to deal with her creditors, her current financial problems will
continue in the future. See AG ¶ 2(a)(1) through AG ¶ 2(a)(9). Applicant has not met her
burden of persuasion under the financial considerations guideline.  
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 to 1.l Against 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