1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 09-00955
SSN:  )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline H. Jeffreys, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
The Statement of Reasons (SOR) lists four delinquent debts totaling $49,827.
Applicant claimed that he started paying $1,100 a month in February 2008 into a debt
consolidation plan to satisfy the delinquent accounts identified in ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, and 1.d, of
the SOR. However, because he lost his job, he was no longer enrolled in the plan.
Without any evidence of payments under the debt plan, e.g., cancelled checks,
checking account statements, or evidence of a debt plan, Applicant has not met his
burden of showing that he qualifies for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to
classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant signed and certified his Security Clearance Application (SCA, Item 5)
on November 18, 2008. He was interviewed by an investigator from the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) on November 25, 2008. This interview appears in his
Interrogatory Answers provided to the Government on March 19, 2010. In his
interrogatory answers submitted to the Government, Applicant agreed with the
 It is also unclear from the record when and how many payments Applicant made to this creditor independent1
of those payments he made into the debt consolidation plan. It is not clear from the record exactly which
creditors were in the debt plan.
2
investigator’s summary of his November 2008 interview, and that it could be used in a
security clearance hearing to determine his security suitability. On June 9, 2010, DOHA
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under financial
considerations (Guideline F). 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). 
Applicant furnished his answer to the SOR on June 18, 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 August 2, 2010. He received the
FORM on August 11, 2010. In an attachment to the FORM, Applicant was advised he
could object to the information in the FORM or submit additional information in
explanation or extenuation. His response was due on September 9, 2010. No response
was received. The case was assigned to me on October 25, 2010. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR contains four allegations under financial considerations (Guideline F).
The underlying accounts represent one loan, two credit cards, and security system
maintenance costs. Applicant admitted all allegations.
Applicant is 50 years old. He married in June 2001, and divorced in November
2006. He entered the United States Army in 1980, and was honorably discharged in
February 2000. He seeks a security clearance. 
Information for the four delinquent debts listed in the SOR appears in Item 6
(Interrogatory Answers, dated March 19, 2010), Item 7 (Interrogatory Answers, dated
August 29, 2009), Item 8 (Interrogatory Answers, August 16, 2009), Item 9 (Credit
Bureau Report, April 2, 2010), Item 10 (Credit Bureau Report, April 24, 2009), and Item
11 (Credit Bureau Report, November 18, 2008). The delinquent accounts shall be
discussed in the order they are listed in the SOR.
SOR 1.a, $16,566, credit union loan. The loan became delinquent in January
2009. Applicant claimed the delinquent account was placed with two other debts into a
debt consolidation plan that he joined in February 2008. (Item 8)  In August 2009,1
Applicant indicated he made his most recent payment leaving a balance of about
$13,000. No documentation was provided to support Applicant’s claims of payments
independent of or through the debt plan. 
 Item 5 (SCA) reflects Applicant has had uninterrupted employment from 2001 to the present. Under Section2
11 of Item 5, Applicant’s employment is as follows: (1) a co-owner of a dental care business from October
2001 to July 2005; (2) an analyst from July 2005 to November 2006; (3) an insurance consultant from
December 2006 to December 2007; (4) an instructor from January 2008 to September 008; and, (4) a
consultant from October 2008 to the present. (Id., at 3)
3
SOR 1.b, $25,037, credit card. The account became delinquent in February
2009. Applicant indicated he also placed this account in a debt consolidation plan that
was discontinued when he lost his employment.  He estimated his last payment on the2
debt into the debt plan was October 2008. (Item 8)
SOR 1.c, $707, home security system. This account became delinquent in May
2008. According to Applicant, he opened the account in September 2004. He and his
wife used the service until their divorce in August 2006. In the divorce, she was
awarded the house and the costs to maintain the house. Applicant cancelled the service
at some time in 2008 after he lost his employment, and even though the SCA does not
show he was unemployed. He did not have plans to pay the debt because it was his
former wife’s responsibility. (Item 6)
SOR 1.d, $6,977, credit card. The account became delinquent in May 2006.
Applicant recalled making a $120 payment to the creditor in September 2007, but
supplied no documentation verifying proof of payment. Applicant also indicated this debt
was in the debt plan that he joined in February 2008. (Item 6, Item 7) He estimated his
last payment on this debt was also in October 2008. 
Character Evidence
Applicant joined the United States Army in February 1980. He obtained an
honorable discharge from the service in February 2000. During his service, he received
six military awards for his performance. He furnished no other character evidence from
his work or his 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
4
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.
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 his November
25, 2008 interview), 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. AG ¶ 19(a) applies based on Applicant inability to pay the delinquent
accounts totaling approximately $48,800. The credit bureau reports establish that AG ¶
19(c) applies because Applicant let four accounts fall delinquent between May 2006 and
February 2009. 
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). The four listed debts
became delinquent between May 2006 and February 2009. The amount of delinquent
debt and the lack of documented action to address the debt forecasts the probability the
financial delinquencies will persist in the foreseeable future. The likelihood of financial
5
problems in the future without a strategy to eliminate the debt continues to cast a pall
over Appellant’s reliability 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). Based on the information Applicant provided about the loss of his job,
this unanticipated event would weigh in his favor under AG ¶ 20(b) to explain why he
could not continue to pay his delinquent debts. However, his SCA shows he has been
employed consistently since 2001. Without more information, his unemployment claim is
not a credible reason for not paying the listed delinquent accounts. 
Applicant should receive credit for joining a debt consolidation plan to
demonstrate he acted responsibly after becoming unemployed. However, the credibility
of his debt consolidation claim is substantially diminished by the lack of documentation
of the plan’s existence and of payments under the plan. The passage of time from the
end of 2008 (after he claims he made his most recent payments to three of the listed
creditors) to June 9, 2010 (issuance of the SOR), without documented action to address
his delinquent accounts, results in no mitigation for Applicant under AG ¶ 20(b).
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)
does not apply. The record does not indicate Applicant had financial counseling. His
enrollment in a debt plan in February 2008 indicates that he was concerned about his
delinquent debts, and initially took responsible action to pay the accounts in an
organized manner. However, he furnished no evidence showing he paid into the plan or
that he paid any of the debts independent of the plan. Since there is no indication of
counseling or that the delinquent debts are under control, AG ¶ 20(c) does not apply.
Applicant receives no mitigation under AG ¶ 20(d), (a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) because there is no documentation
confirming payments under the plan. After weighing and balancing the disqualifying
evidence against the mitigating evidence under the financial guideline, Applicant has not
presented sufficient favorable evidence to receive access to a security clearance. 
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;
6
(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 is 50 years old. He had a successful 20-year career in the United
States Army. He received six prestigious awards for laudable military service in the field
of information technology. 
The credit bureau reports indicate that Applicant began having financial problems
in May 2006 when the first listed debt became delinquent. After his divorce in
September 2006, three additional debts became delinquent by February 2009. To
substantiate his enrollment in the debt plan and/or payments to the plan, Applicant
could have provided documentation. For some reason, he decided not to, even though
he had a chance to explain his positions after he received the FORM. Since the end of
2008, Applicant could have tried another strategy, including a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, to
eliminate his debts. He could have tried a Chapter 13 bankruptcy to bring his delinquent
debts under control. Instead, the record shows the only action taken was to cancel the
security system contract. Without a plan to address the debts, the chances are that
Applicant’s current financial problems will continue in the future. See AG ¶ 2(a)(1)
through AG ¶ 2(a)(9). The financial guideline is resolved against Applicant.
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 through 1.d Against Applicant
Conclusion
7
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