1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
-------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 09-05694
SSN: ----------- )
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant continues to owe creditors approximately $19,000 in delinquent debt
and remains unable to resolve her indebtedness. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On April 23, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns 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), as
implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.
On May 6, 2010, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting all of the allegations
except SOR subparagraphs 1.i, 1.l, 1.m, 1.n. 1.p, and 1.r. She requested an
administrative determination. On June 10, 2010, Department Counsel prepared a File of
2
Relevant Materials (FORM). On June 11, 2010, DOHA mailed it to Applicant, and she
received it on June 22, 2010, along with instructions to file any objections or
supplementary information within 30 days. Applicant did not respond, and the case was
assigned to me on September 20, 2010.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 34-year-old single woman with two children, ages eight and five.
She has a high school diploma and attended community college for one year. She has
worked as a security guard for various defense contractors since October 2006.
The SOR alleges Applicant  owes creditors approximately $19,000 of delinquent
debt.  Applicant admits owing creditors approximately $15,800 of delinquent debt, but
denies owing the remaining creditors listed in the SOR as noted in the Statement of the
Case. 
Applicant’s debts, including the ones she denies, are set forth in credit reports
from September 2007, May 2008, and March 2010. (Items 6-8) They include, among
other things, a delinquent student loan account (SOR subparagraph 1.a), a
repossessed car (SOR subparagraph 1.b), and multiple medical bills (SOR
subparagraphs 1.c - 1.e). 
Applicant did not provide documentary evidence establishing the basis for
denying the debts listed at 1.i, 1.l, 1.m, 1.n. 1.p, and 1.r. Based on the record evidence,
I find Applicant owes creditors approximately $19,000 in delinquent debt, as alleged.
Applicant purchased a car in 2000. (Item 5 at 9) In October 2003, she was fired
from her job for cause and was subsequently unemployed for the next three months.
While unemployed, she fell behind on her car payments, leading to its repossession.
(Id., Item 4 at 20)
Applicant attributes the delinquent medical bills to unexpected medical treatment
stemming from a difficult pregnancy in 2005 and a serious car accident in 2007. Her
outstanding medical bills total approximately $170.
Applicant listed several of her delinquencies on her May 2009 SOR. She listed
the status of their resolution as “in progress.” (Item 4 at 41-42) Seven months later, in
responses to Interrogatories, Applicant acknowledged that the delinquencies remained
unpaid, and provided no evidence of any steps taken to resolve them. (Item 5)
 
As of May 5, 2010, the date of Applicant’s answer, she had not provided any
evidence documenting payment of any of her delinquencies, but promised to begin
paying them “in the near future . . . when [she was] able.” (Item 3 at 4) 
3
Applicant maintains a budget. (Item 5 at 14) Currently, she spends approximately
$170 more than she earns each month. Her budget does not include the projected
expense of a future debt repayment plan.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the revised 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. 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.” 
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 as to obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “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”
(AG ¶ 18). 
Applicant’s history of delinquent debts triggers the application of AG ¶¶ 19(a),
“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations.”
The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable under AG ¶ 20:
4
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;
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;
20(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors
or otherwise resolve debts; and
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.
Applicant first began experiencing financial problems when she lost her job in
2003 and was subsequently unemployed for the next three months. Because she was
fired from her job for cause, I do not consider this a circumstance beyond her control for
AG ¶ 20(b) to apply. Although she contends that medical problems exacerbated her
financial problems in 2007, the medical bills listed in the SOR constitute less than $200. 
Applicant provided no evidence of receiving any counseling, and has yet to
arrange any payment plans. Consequently, I conclude that neither the remaining prong
of AG ¶ 20(b), nor AG ¶¶ 20(c) or 20(d) apply.
Applicant disputed several of the delinquencies listed in the SOR, but provided
no evidence of any efforts to support the bases of these disputes or any efforts taken to
resolve the disputes. AG ¶ 20 (e) does not apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the 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.
5
Applicant has approximately $19,000 of delinquent debt. Despite her promise to
implement a payment plan in the future, she currently spends more than $170 each
month than she earns. Under these circumstances, the likelihood of her financial
problems continuing remains too high, despite her intentions to resolve her debt. Upon
considering this case in the context of the whole-person concept, I conclude Applicant
has failed to mitigate the Financial Considerations security concern. 
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
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.u: 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.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge