DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 09-02762 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Gina Marine, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Julio A Rossington, Esquire 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
 Based on a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility 
for access to classified information is denied.  
 
On December 7, 2008, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to be granted access to classified information as 
required for a position with a defense contractor. After an investigation conducted by the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR), dated March 8, 2010, to Applicant 
detailing security concerns for financial considerations under 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) effective within the 
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. Applicant acknowledged receipt of the 
SOR on March 11, 2010. 
 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on March 25, 2010, admitting ten and denying four 
of the 14 factual allegations under Guideline F. He denied that the admitted factual 
allegations were a security concern. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on 
May 26, 2010, and the case was assigned to me on August 11, 2010. DOHA issued a 
Notice of Hearing on September 2, 2010, scheduling a hearing for September 22, 2010. 
I convened the hearing as scheduled. The Government offered nine exhibits, marked 
and admitted into the record without objection as Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 
through 9. Applicant and two witnesses testified on his behalf. He offered four exhibits, 
marked and admitted into the record without objection as Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) A 
through D. The record was held open for Applicant to submit additional documents. 
Applicant timely submitted nine additional documents marked and admitted without 
objection as App. Ex. E though M. (Gov. Ex. 10, Memorandum of No Objection, dated 
October 12, 2010) DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on October 6, 
2010.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant admitted ten of the 14 factual allegations in the SOR. He denied that 
these facts raised a security concern. I include Applicant's admissions in my findings of 
fact. After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is 51 years old and has been an electronics technician for a defense 
contractor for approximately three years. Applicant has been married for over 26 years 
and has three grown children. He served 20 years on active duty in the United Stares 
Air Force as an avionics technician working on various military aircraft. He retired in 
1997 as a master sergeant (E-7) with an honorable discharge. He served both overseas 
and in the continental United States and received numerous awards including awards of 
the good conduct medal. He held a security clearance during his entire active duty 
service. He also was awarded an Associate's degree from the College of the Air Force. 
Appellant has never been arrested or charged with a crime while in the Air Force or as a 
civilian. (Tr. 31-35; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated December 7, 2008; App. Ex. A, Resume, 
undated; App. Ex. C, Criminal Justice report, dated September 22, 2010)  
 
Appellant's present yearly salary with his employer is approximately $63,667.09. 
He is making approximately $15,000 to $20,000 less per year from his top salary since 
he is not working overtime pending a decision on his access to classified information. 
His wife is employed as a GS-7 Education Specialist with a yearly salary of $42,000. 
Applicant also receives $20,000 annually in retired pay. The family's total yearly income 
is over $120,000. Applicant's Personal Financial Statement lists his and his wife's 
combined monthly income as $9,625 with monthly expense of $5,633 leaving $3,992 in 
disposable income. (Gov. Ex. 2, Response to Interrogatories, dated July 16, 2009, at 1) 
However at the hearing, Applicant revised these figures to show a monthly remainder in 
discretionary funds of $1,500. The revision of the available discretionary funds is based 
on the approximately $15,000 annually decrease in Applicant's income because he 
cannot work certain projects pending the determination of his access to classified 
 
3 
 
 
information. He has also received cash awards from his defense contractor employer. 
(Tr. 49-56, 141-143; App. Ex. B, Cash Award, dated March 26, 2009; App. Ex. C, Salary 
information, dated March 29, 2010) His wife also has over $34,000 in a thrift savings 
account. (Tr. 81-83) Applicant and his wife purchased a used car in 2007 for 
approximately $23,000. He is current with the monthly payments of $575. Applicant and 
his wife purchased a used car in 2009 for over $20,000 using a $5,000 down payment. 
He is current with his $517 monthly payment. The payments are included in the 
calculation of his monthly expenses. (Tr. 109-112)  
 
Applicant worked as an electronics technician for a few months for an electronics 
firm after retiring from active duty in April 1997. He then started to sell life insurance in 
September 1997 for a prominent insurance company. For his first two years with the 
insurance company, he received both a salary and a commission from his sales. He 
attended classes, took examinations, and received the required certifications to sell both 
life insurance and financial services. He maintained his certifications by attending 
annual continuing education. (Tr. 35-38)  
 
After his initial two years, Applicant's income was only from the commissions paid 
on sales. The company procedure was that sales representatives received a 
commission from the sale of a policy based on the potential premiums for the first 12 
months. If the policy or payments lapsed in the first 12 months, the sales representative 
would be required to forfeit the 12 months premium commission that they had been 
paid. If the policy lapses or premiums not paid after the 12 months, the sales 
representative did not receive any continuing commission payments. Agents also had to 
sell a minimum number of policies. Applicant fell below the required threshold of sold 
policies to remain with the company. Applicant became an independent representative 
in January 2006, and received commissions based on his insurance policies and 
financial services sales. The percentage of commission was higher as an independent 
representative than as a company employee. (Tr. 38-41) 
 
Applicant started to experience a large number of charge-backs from lapsed 
policies and unpaid premiums around February 2005. He spent a lot of effort to sell and 
maintain policies, but the circumstances of his clientele were such that most could not 
maintain the premium payments. His income from sales and commissions was sporadic 
and decreased over time. To maintain his income and support his family, Applicant had 
a second job delivering newspapers for about a year. His mother became sick in 2004 
and he had to travel often to another state to care for her for periods of time. The time 
away contributed to his inability to sell and maintain policies and commission income. 
He was unable to maintain his income levels and incurred delinquent debts. (Tr. 41-47) 
 
Applicant admits to financial problems stemming from his decision to enter and 
stay in the insurance sales business. Credit reports (Gov. Ex. 5, dated January 9, 2009, 
Gov. Ex. 6, dated September 24, 2009; Gov. Ex. 7, dated February 1, 2010; and Gov. 
Ex. 8, dated September 15, 2010) show that Applicant filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy on 
January 8, 2004 which was dismissed on September 20, 2006. (SOR 1.a; Gov. Ex. 9, 
Bankruptcy records) The credit reports also show car repossession debt of $4,425 
 
4 
 
 
(SOR 1.b); a delinquent medical debt for $228 (SOR 1.c); a charged-off credit card debt 
for $516 (SOR 1.d); an automobile car loan in collection for $1,198 (SOR 1.e); a 
discount store account in collection for $590 (SOR 1.f); a bank debt in collection for 
$530 (SOR 1.g); three charged-off accounts for a finance company for $2,510 (SOR 
1.h), for $1,962 (SOR 1.i), and for $10,149 (SOR 1.j); a credit card bad debt for $391 
(SOR 1.k); a department store account in collection for $97 (SOR 1.l); a second 
mortgage account in collection for $16,763 (SOR 1.m); and a bank account past due 
over 120 days for $1,018 on a balance of $7,180 (SOR 1.n). Applicant admitted the 
bankruptcy at SOR 1.a, and the debts at SOR 1.b, through 1.e, and SOR 1.h through 
1.m. He denied the delinquent debts at SOR 1.f, 1.g, 1.k, and 1.n. Applicant admits he 
has not had any financial counseling. (Tr. 87-88)  
 
Applicant purchased his home in 1994 while he was on active duty for 
approximately $132,000 using a Veteran's Administration (VA) loan. He took out a 
second mortgage to make home repairs and pay other debts in 1997 when he retired. 
His initial mortgage payments were $1,200 monthly. The second mortgage in 1997 
increased the monthly payments by $300. At the time of the second mortgage, the 
house value had increased to approximately $160,000. (Tr. 88-93) 
 
When his insurance business income was unstable starting in approximately 
2000, Applicant tried to keep up his mortgage payments but he could not meet his 
obligations because his income was not consistent. One week, he might receive little 
income and the next could be a good income. He initially tried a loan modification but it 
was refused. He kept up his efforts to obtain a loan modification but to no avail. In 2003, 
the mortgage was in danger of being foreclosed because his payments were 10 to 11 
months behind. He consulted an attorney and was advised to file a Chapter 13 
bankruptcy to protect his interest in the house. Under the bankruptcy wage-earners 
plan, he was required pay the trustee approximately $1,300 monthly, and maintain his 
full mortgage payments. Applicant's mortgage was resold to another company and they 
offered a loan modification on the mortgage. Since he had a mortgage loan 
modification, Applicant stopped making the bankruptcy payments after approximately 
two years and the bankruptcy was dismissed in September 2006. (SOR 1.a) He only 
had approximately one year of bankruptcy payments remaining to complete his 
payment plan.  
 
Applicant is now current with his monthly mortgage payments of $1,423 for the 
initial mortgage and $491 on the second mortgage. He does have an arrearage with the 
second mortgage but the mortgagor has added the arrearage to the end of the loan. 
The arrearage is $6,862.20 and not the $16,763 listed at SOR 1.m. (Tr. 57-61, 93-96, 
100-107, 142-146; Gov. Ex. 3, Response to Interrogatories, dated July 16, 2009 at 1; 
App. Ex. M, Statement, dated January 15, 2010) 
 
Applicant's debts were being paid by the Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Once the 
bankruptcy was dismissed these debts were no longer being paid. Applicant had a car 
loan with the financial subsidiary of a car manufacturer. The amount of the debt left on 
the car loan after the bankruptcy dismissal was approximately $5,000. Applicant was 
 
5 
 
 
now working full time with the defense contractor so he tried to negotiate a payment 
plan with the creditor. The creditor would settle only for the full $5,000 remaining on the 
loan. Since Applicant could not pay the $5,000, the car was repossessed. After the car 
was sold, Applicant still had a debt of $4,425. He has not made any payments on this 
debt nor made any attempt to contact the creditor or collection agency for the creditor. 
(SOR 1.b; Tr. 62-63, 83-87) 
 
Applicant's strategy to resolve his delinquent debts is to pay his smaller debts 
first and then pay his larger debts after freeing funds. He states he disputed some debts 
but presents no information to support any disputes. He has a steady income now 
permitting him to resolve his debts. (Tr. 65-66) Applicant has provided adequate 
information to show he paid and resolved the debts listed at SOR 1.f (Tr. 125, 138-139; 
App. Ex. J, Letter, dated March 1, 2010), and SOR 1.g. (App. Ex. K, Letter, dated March 
1, 2010)  
 
The medical debt at SOR 1.c is for the remainder of a medical bill for Applicant's 
visit to an emergency room after payments were made by his work and military health 
insurance. Applicant made a $100 payment on the debt after the hearing. (Tr. 126-127; 
App. Ex. H, Payment, dated October 7, 2010)  
 
Applicant had not made contact or a payment on the charged-off credit card debt 
at SOR 1.d prior to the hearing. His last contact with the creditor had been in the 
summer of 2010. After the hearing, Applicant made a payment of $78.50 on the debt as 
part of a payment plan. The plan requires six more monthly payments of $74. (Tr. 125-
126; App. Ex. I, message, dated October 6, 2010)  
 
The debt to a car manufacturer at SOR 1.e is for the balance on a leased vehicle. 
Applicant has not paid this debt. (Tr. 126-127) The debts listed at SOR 1.h and 1.i were 
incurred by Applicant and his wife for furniture purchased prior to their bankruptcy filing 
in 2004. These debts have not been paid or resolved. The debt at SOR 1.j is a loan 
consolidation that was made prior to the 2004 bankruptcy filing and has not been paid 
or resolved. Applicant stated the credit card debt at SOR 1.k had been paid and 
resolved. There is documentation to establish at least one payment on the debt. The 
debt at SOR 1.l to a department store is not $97 but actually over $800. This debt also 
has not been paid or resolved. (Tr. 65-66, 127-129, 138-139; Gov. Ex. 4, Response to 
Interrogatories, at 9) Applicant notes that the debt at SOR 1.n is his wife's debt. His wife 
inquired about the debt with the creditor bank after the hearing but has not received a 
response. (App. Ex. G, Letter, dated October 7, 2010) 
 
Applicant also admits other debts and loans not listed in the SOR that have been 
paid, are being paid, or are delinquent. He paid credit card debts to a discount store and 
the military store system. (Tr. 65) He had a state tax lien for tax year 2008 that has been 
paid and satisfied. (App. Ex. F, Tax Lien Satisfaction, dated June 16, 2010). He is in 
arrears on his homeowner's association dues for four years totaling $1,600. After the 
hearing, he discussed the debt with the homeowner's association and agreed to pay 
$200 monthly until the debt is resolved. The first payment was due November 15, 2010. 
 
6 
 
 
There is no documentation of any payments under this plan. (Tr. 120-122; App. Ex. L. 
Letter, dated October 1, 2010)  
 
Applicant's pastor testified that he has known Applicant for over 16 years since 
he joined their church. Applicant was chosen to serve as a trustee and deacon because 
of his good character. He is also the head of the church community center. A trustee 
takes care of the church business to include church funds. A deacon is entrusted to take 
care of the needs of other church members and to assist them in time of need. As a 
deacon, he has access to sensitive personal information on church members. As leader 
of the community center, Applicant is directly involved with the funds for the center. The 
pastor has received only good comments on Applicant from other church members and 
he is pleased with Applicant's performance. There have not been any issues concerning 
the management of any funds under Applicant. (Tr. 19-24) 
 
A fellow deacon testified that he is a retired police officer. He was chairman of 
the trustee council when Applicant was the secretary for the trustees. He believes 
Applicant is a trustworthy person. His opinion is based on their work together on a 
$1,500,000 church building project requiring Applicant to manage a checking account 
and paying the building and contractor fees. He has loaned Applicant money in the past 
that has been repaid. He completely trusts Applicant. Even knowing about Applicant's 
personal financial issues has not changed his opinion of Applicant trustworthiness and 
integrity. (Tr. 25-29) 
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition 
to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list 
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must 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.  
 
7 
 
 
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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations: 
 
 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. 
(AG ¶ 18) Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his or her obligations to protect classified 
information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an 
indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
 A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial 
obligations.  
 
 Applicant's delinquent debts, as reported in credit reports and admitted by 
Applicant, are a security concern raising Financial Considerations Disqualifying 
Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and FC DC 
AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations). Applicant incurred delinquent 
debts after he retired from Air Force active duty and commenced a career in insurance 
sales. The business was not lucrative and his sales commissions did not meet 
expectations. He incurred delinquent debt because he did not have sufficient income to 
meet his financial obligations. After he started work with a defense contractor at a good 
 
8 
 
 
salary, he did not take adequate action to pay or resolve his delinquent debts. 
Applicant's management of his finances shows both an inability and an unwillingness to 
satisfy debt. 
 
 I considered Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) 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). This mitigating condition does not 
apply. Applicant's financial problems started in 2000 when his insurance business 
income was limited. He has numerous delinquent debts which are recent since they 
have not been paid or resolved. The circumstance that caused his financial problems, a 
career that did not provide sufficient funds to maintain a lifestyle, could likely recur. His 
debts continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. 
 
 I considered FC MC AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the financial 
problems 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). This mitigating condition 
only has limited application to Applicant's case. The condition causing Applicant 
financial issues was not largely beyond his control. It is clear his financial problems 
resulted from the lack of consistent income from his insurance sale business. The 
problem was exacerbated by the need to spend some time away from the business to 
care for his sick mother. However, Applicant himself admitted that he stayed with the 
business longer than he should after realizing the business financial problems. It was 
not beyond his control to change professions when he realized the business was not 
working to provided him needed income. He eventually did but it was too late for the 
state of his finances. Also, when he did gain good steady employment in 2007, he did 
not use his income to responsibly resolve his delinquent debts. He has only recently 
started to take reasonable action to resolve some of his past due obligations.  
 
I have also considered FC MC ¶ 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). This mitigating condition does not apply. Applicant has not 
received financial counseling and his financial problems are not resolved and are not 
under control. 
 
I considered FC MC AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to 
repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts). For FC MC AG ¶ 20(d) to 
apply, there must be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” to repay, and “evidence” 
of a good-faith effort to repay. A systematic method of handling debts is needed. 
Applicant must establish a "meaningful track record" of debt payment. A "meaningful 
track record" of debt payment can be established by evidence of actual debt payments 
or reduction of debt through payment of debts. An applicant is not required to establish 
that he paid each and every debt listed. All that is required is that Applicant 
demonstrates an established plan to resolve his financial problems and show he has 
taken significant actions to implement that plan.  
 
9 
 
 
Applicant has not established a meaningful track record of debt payment for his 
delinquent debts. His filing a bankruptcy in 2004 is not a financial security concern since 
bankruptcy is a legal and permissible means of resolving debt and Applicant had a 
reason to discontinue making the payments to the trustee. This decision may not have 
been the most reasonable or responsible since with one more year of payments, he 
could have resolved his unsecured, non-priority debt at that time. He showed that he 
paid some of his smaller delinquent debts whether the debts were listed in the SOR or 
not. (SOR 1.c, 1.f, 1.g, 1.k, state tax lien, military store and discount store debts) He 
established that he is current with his primary mortgage payments and is paying the 
arrears on a second mortgage. He has shown two credit card debts are being paid 
under a payment plan. However, most his debts have not been resolved or are not 
being paid. Applicant's strategy is to pay smaller debts first before moving to pay larger 
debts. Applicant has substantial discretionary funds monthly but he has not shown he is 
using those funds in a reasonable and responsible manner to pay and resolve his 
delinquent debts. Some debts have been or are being paid but not many and not merely 
those that can be paid using available discretionary funds. He used funds for personal 
purchases and not for debt reduction. He has not established a meaningful track record 
of debt payment. Applicant did not present sufficient evidence to establish a good-faith 
effort to pay his creditors, and his finances are not under control. He has not mitigated 
security concerns for financial considerations.  
 
I considered FC MC 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). This mitigating condition has only limited application. 
Applicant states he disputed some of his debts but presented no information to establish 
his disputes. He notes that the debt at SOR 1.n is his wife's debt and not his debt. He 
does show that she recently wrote the creditor inquiring about the account and its 
status.  
 
Whole-Person Analysis  
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
relevant circumstances. An 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 
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or 
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
 
 
10 
 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance 
must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered Applicant's 20 years of 
honorable service in the Air Force both overseas and in the United States. I considered 
that he held a security clearance for his entire Air Force service, does not have a 
criminal record, and has never been arrested. I considered the opinions of his pastor 
and fellow deacon that he is an honest, trustworthy, and ethical individual who 
established his trustworthiness by managing a large fund for his church. I considered 
that Applicant became an insurance agent and worked hard at this career.  
 
Applicant has significant debt incurred during the time he tried to establish a 
career as an insurance salesman. He established a "meaningful track record" of debt 
payment, including evidence of actual debt reduction through payment of debts, for a 
limited amount of his delinquent debts. Applicant freely and willingly incurred delinquent 
debt by staying in the insurance sales business longer than he knew he should. He now 
has steady, significant income but he has not used enough of that income to help 
resolve his delinquent debts. He has purchased two cars in recent years using credit. 
He and his wife have significant discretionary funds each month but they use only a 
limited portion to pay delinquent debt. They also have savings that could be considered 
to use for debt reduction, if financially feasible.  
 
While some of Applicant's financial problems were caused by circumstances 
beyond his control, he has not acted responsibly to resolve his debts. He paid only a 
small amount of his delinquent debt before the hearing. He had not contacted many of 
his creditors to find ways to resolve some of the debts. After the hearing, Applicant took 
some reasonable steps to resolve his debts. He has the potential of establishing a 
"meaningful track record" of debt payment. However, his efforts are only recent and 
more time is needed for him to establish the "meaningful track record" required to show 
his finances are not a security concern. If Applicant continues to take reasonable, 
responsible, and significant action in the near future, he can in time establish that his 
finances are not a security concern, and that he can be trusted with access to classified 
information. However at this time, Applicant has not mitigated financial considerations 
security concerns, and the management of his finances suggests he will not be 
concerned, responsible, and careful regarding classified information. Overall, the record 
evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about Applicant’s present eligibility and 
suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant should 
not be granted access to classified information at this time.  
 
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: 
 
 
11 
 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.b:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.c:   For Applicant (paid after hearing) 
  Subparagraph 1.d:   For Applicant (paid after hearing) 
  Subparagraph 1.e:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.f:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.g:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.h:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.i:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.j:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.k:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.l:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.m:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.n:   Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by 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. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge