1 
 
                                                              
                          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE    
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
   )     ISCR Case No. 09-06111 
 ) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Candace L. Garcia, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant owed about $45,000 in delinquent credit card debt and about $467 in child 
support arrearage when he applied for his security clearance in April 2009. He paid off his 
child support in July 2009, and in February 2010, he settled a $10,319 past due credit card 
balance. But he has had to borrow from lines of credit to pay some expenses. While he 
intends to work overtime for the funds to settle his remaining debt when he returns to work 
from temporary disability, it is too soon to conclude that his financial problems are behind 
him. Clearance denied. 
 
 Statement of the Case  
 
On February 2, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a 
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing the security concerns under Guideline 
F (Financial Considerations) that provided the basis for its preliminary decision to deny him 
a security clearance. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of 
 
  
 
 2 
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 as of September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant responded to the SOR allegations on February 12, 2010, and he 
requested a hearing before a DOHA administrative judge. On April 30, 2010, the case was 
assigned to me to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant 
or continue a security clearance for Applicant. On April 27, 2010, I scheduled a hearing for 
May 25, 2010. 
 
I convened the hearing as scheduled. Five Government exhibits (Ex. 1-5) and four 
Applicant exhibits (Ex. A-D) were entered into evidence. Applicant expressed some 
concerns about the relevance of a credit report dated November 19, 2009, that would not 
reflect current information. I admitted the document as evidence of Applicant‟s prior 
financial history. Applicant also testified, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on June 
2, 2010. 
 
I held the record open for three weeks after the hearing for Applicant to provide 
evidence of efforts to refinance his mortgage or otherwise settle his outstanding debts. No 
documents were received. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
The SOR alleged that as of February 2010, Applicant owed $56,201 in delinquent 
credit card debt (SOR 1.a-1.e) and a $467 past due state debt
1
 (SOR 1.f). Applicant 
admitted the debts in SOR 1.a, 1.d, and 1.e. He denied owing the other debts, and claimed 
that the debt in SOR 1.b was settled in full in November 2004; the debt in SOR 1.c was 
satisfied with a final payment on February 10, 2010; and the tax debt in SOR 1.f was paid 
in full on or before July 8, 2009. After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I 
make the following findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is a 54-year-old electrical maintenance technician, who has been 
employed by a defense contractor since March 2007. (Ex. 1.) He went on temporary 
disability for medical reasons in March 2010, and was scheduled for surgery in mid-June 
2010. He expected to return to work five or six weeks after his surgery. (Tr. 59-60.) He 
seeks a security clearance for his duties. 
 
Applicant married his now ex-wife in May 1990. He and his spouse had two 
daughters, who were born in 1989 and 1991. Applicant and his ex-wife divorced in 
February 1995. He was ordered to pay child support. (Ex. 1.) 
 
                                                 
1The debt in SOR 1.f is a child support arrearage, which was reported past due on his credit record by the 
state‟s department of taxation. 
  
 
 3 
Applicant served in the U.S. military as an active duty reservist from April 1992 to 
April 2000. From May 1997 to around April 2004, he was employed full-time as a controller 
in service and sales for a test and field service company. (Ex. 1.) 
 
Applicant took advantage of the many credit card offers extended to him during his 
marriage and after his divorce. (Ex. Tr. 62-63, 66-67.) He made his payments as required 
on several accounts, in part relying on two lines of credit with his bank. (Ex. 5.) In April 
2004, he was laid off. He cared for his mother until her death later that year, and he worked 
part-time for a local farm. In October 2004, the credit card account identified in 1.b was 
charged off in the amount of $6,542, although he paid $4,000 to settle the debt in 
November 2004. (Ex. C.) He borrowed the funds from a personal line of credit. (Tr. 70.) 
 
In late 2004, Applicant was offered a job by his current employer. Before he could 
start work, the company instituted a hiring freeze and Applicant was without full-time 
employment. (Ex. 1; Tr. 53-54.) In January 2005, Applicant and his fiancée began 
cohabiting in his home, which he had inherited from his mother. (Ex. 1.) Despite his 
fiancée‟s financial assistance, he could not keep up with all of his credit obligations. Some 
credit card accounts became delinquent. He stopped paying on the accounts identified in 
SOR 1.a, 1.c, 1.d, and 1.e in 2005. (Ex. 2-5.) In November 2005, he took out a mortgage 
loan of $200,000, and was current on his $1,000 monthly payments. (Ex. 3, 5.) Applicant 
took the equity in his home and bought a used car, a dump truck, and a trailer for $23,000 
total. He planned to start his own landscaping business but it did not work out. (Tr. 115-16.) 
 
From May 2006 until November 2006, Applicant worked full-time as a commercial 
trap fisherman earning between $60 and $70 a day. (Ex. 1; Tr. 55-56.) He was unemployed 
from November 2006 until March 2007, when he began working for the defense contractor 
at $17 an hour. (Ex. 1; Tr. 56.) His delinquent credit card balances went unpaid even after 
he refinanced his mortgage through a new loan of $236,000 in November 2007. (Tr. 112-
13.) His monthly payment increased to about $1,600 (Ex. 2.) because of his credit rating. 
(Tr. 114.) He fell behind as well in his child support in 2008. (Ex. 3-5.) He contacted a debt 
resolution company in 2007, but he could not afford the payment required by the firm to 
resolve his debts. (Ex. 2.) However, he made timely payments on that mortgage as well as 
on two lines of credit that he had taken out with a bank in February 1989 for $9,000 and in 
June 1998 for $10,000. (Ex. 5.) 
 
 Around April 2009, Applicant‟s employer requested that he apply for a security 
clearance for his duties.  He obtained his credit report for the details about his delinquent 
accounts. On his April 29, 2009, Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP), he disclosed several outstanding accounts, as set forth in the following table. 
 
Debt Delinquency history Payment status  
Credit card debt in collection 
$12,383 (SOR 1.a) 
Opened Apr. 2002, $12,383 
written off Jan. 2006, for 
collection Jun. 2008. (Ex. 1-
5.) 
No effort to contact assignee 
to resolve debt as of May 
2010 (Tr. 62, 68.) 
  
 
 4 
Retail revolving charge debt 
in collection $6,542 (SOR 
1.b) 
Opened Jan. 1986, high 
credit $8,229, last payment 
Apr. 2004, $6,340 in 
collection Nov. 2004. (Ex.1, 
2, 3, 5.)  
Paid $4,000 to settle on 
Nov. 8, 2004, with borrowed 
funds from line of credit. (Ex. 
C; Tr. 70.) Deficiency 
balance $2,542 still on his 
credit record (Ex. 2, 3, 5) but 
not owed.  
Credit card debt charged off 
$9,467 (SOR 1.c)  
Opened Dec. 2002, credit 
limit $7,500, 30 days past 
due Jun.-Sep. 2004, Mar.-
Jun. 2005. Apr. 2009 credit 
report listed $18,082 charge-
off balance (Ex. 5), but 
collection agency reported a 
$10,319.44 balance as of 
Feb. 2010. (Ex. A.)  
On Feb. 4, 2010, assignee 
offered to settle for 
$2,579.86 in lump sum. 
Applicant sent check dated 
Feb. 10, 2010, with error in 
draft, returned not cashed. 
(Ex. B.) Paid $2,579.86 to 
settle debt on Feb. 21, 2010. 
(Ex. A.) 
 
Credit card debt charged off 
$7,724 (SOR 1.d) 
Opened Mar. 1996, credit 
limit $6,280, last activity Mar. 
2005, $1,442 past due as of 
Nov. 2005, $7,724 written 
off. (Ex. 1-5.)  
No payments as of May 
2010, and no attempt to 
contact creditor. (Tr. 75.) 
Credit card debt $305 (not in 
SOR) 
Opened Mar. 2001, last 
activity Oct. 2003, charged 
off Oct. 2004, $305 written 
off Jan. 2005. (Ex. 1, 2.)  
Paid Sep. 28, 2009, after 
charge off . (Ex. 2-4.) 
Gasoline credit card debt 
charged off $41 (not in SOR) 
Opened Jun. 1987, last 
activity Apr. 2004, $41 in 
collection Oct. 2004. (Ex. 1, 
2, 5.) 
Paid Sep. 30, 2009. (Ex. 2.) 
 
Child support arrearage 
$791.95 (SOR 1.f) 
Opened Apr. 1999, history of 
late payments, from 30 to 
180 days, $467 past due as 
of Apr. 2009 (Ex. 1, 2, 5.)  
Wages garnished at $82 per 
week, child support 
obligation ended, paid $648 
to satisfy arrearage as of 
Jul. 2009. (Ex. D.) 
Credit card charge off debt 
$15,479 (not on e-QIP) 
(SOR 1.e.) 
Opened Jan. 1993, $13,505 
credit limit, $15,479 balance 
charged off Aug. 2005. (Ex. 
2, 4.) 
No payments as of May 
2010, and no attempt to 
contact creditor. (Tr. 75.) 
 
 
On May 20, 2009, a Government investigator interviewed Applicant, in part about his 
financial issues. Applicant did not deny the debts, which he attributed to his divorce and 
later reduction in his income. With the help of his fiancée, he was meeting his day-to-day 
expenses. Concerning the old debts, he expressed his intent to refinance his mortgage to 
free up funds to pay off as many creditors as he was able. As for the smaller debts, he 
  
 
 5 
planned to pay off the $41 debt in the next few weeks and the $305 debt in the next few 
months. He was hoping to reach settlements on the larger debts (SOR 1.a, 1.c, and 1.e). 
Applicant disputed the $2,542 reportedly owed the creditor identified in SOR 1.b as the 
debt had been settled. (Ex. 2.) 
 
On September 18, 2009, DOHA requested an update from Applicant about his 
efforts, if any, to resolve his past-due debts. He paid off the $41 and $305 balances in late 
September 2009. On October 21, 2009, Applicant contacted a credit counseling agency. 
The firm created a budget and action plan for him. He was operating under a net monthly 
deficit of $883. Under the budget proposed for him, Applicant was to eliminate $140 per 
month spent eating out, but to increase his debt payments from $310 (the two lines of 
credit) to $1,126, which would leave him with a greater deficit of $1,089 per month. 
Applicant was advised to consult with an attorney about a possible bankruptcy filing. (Ex. 
2.)  
 
Applicant assumed that a bankruptcy would jeopardize his chance of obtaining a 
security clearance, so he decided to address the debts on his own. He began working with 
his mortgage company in an effort to reduce his monthly mortgage payment, which was 
$1,609.94. Based on an hourly rate of pay at $24.51, he took home $951.52 for 43 hours. 
He estimated he had a net monthly deficit of $1,380.70 as of November 3, 2009, although 
his fiancée was helping pay the bills. (Ex. 2.) In December 2009, he bought for $1,100 a 
1995 model-year vehicle from a friend when his truck broke down. (Tr. 109-10.) He wrote 
his friend a check from one of his lines of credit. (Tr. 110.) 
 
Applicant worked as many overtime hours as were available to him in early 2010 so 
that he would have some extra funds to put toward his debts. (Tr. 104-05.) With net 
earnings between $1,100 and $1,200 (Tr. 39.), he settled a credit card debt (SOR 1.c) in 
February 2010.
2 
(Ex. A.) Applicant failed to take advantage of an earlier settlement offer 
because it did not fit into his budget at the time and it may not have been as advantageous 
to him. (Tr. 72-73.) Applicant contacted his mortgage lender to lower the interest rate on his 
loan from its present 7.25%, but he did not follow through. (Tr. 62-63.) He wanted to pay off 
some of his smaller debts first in the hope of increasing his credit score. (Tr. 75.) As of 
March 2010, he was making payments as agreed on his two lines of credit, which had 
balances of $8,776 and $9,802. (Ex. 4; Tr. 70-71.) 
 
As of March 2010, Applicant‟s hourly wage for his work with the defense contractor 
was $25.25. In mid-March 2010, Applicant was hospitalized for a week. On his discharge, 
he was out of work on temporary disability pay of $672 per week. With less income, he 
could not afford to make any further payments toward his old debts. (Tr. 39.) He received a 
settlement offer from a creditor (he cannot now recall whether from the creditor in SOR 1.a 
or 1.e) on his discharge, but he could not afford the terms. (Tr. 62.) Applicant rescheduled 
his surgery from March 2010 until mid-June 2010 because his clearance was his first 
priority and he did not want to postpone his hearing. (Tr. 58-59.)  On his return to work 
about four to six weeks after his scheduled surgery, he planned to contact his remaining 
                                                 
2 
The creditor or assignee apparently filed a civil action against Applicant. (Ex. A.) 
  
 
 6 
creditors about possible settlements. (Tr. 61, 76.) Applicant intends to work as much 
overtime as is available to him for the funds needed. (Tr. 104.) He has not considered 
making small payments on the debts, as he had heard that the creditors hike the interest 
rate once you start repaying the debt. (Tr. 74-75.) In mid-May 2010, Applicant re-contacted 
his mortgage lender about a possible refinancing. As of his hearing on his clearance 
eligibility, he was waiting to hear back from a mortgage specialist. (Tr. 77-78.) With his real 
estate taxes being paid out of an escrow account, his mortgage payment is currently 
$2,009 per month. (Tr. 84.) 
 
Applicant lives with his fiancée and their two teenage children. (Tr. 80, 82, 106.) His 
fiancée contributes about $700 to the household each month from her income. (Tr. 95.) 
Despite current income and expense figures that would indicate a $569 negative monthly 
remainder while he is out on disability, Applicant testified that he was managing to meet his 
monthly bills by conserving where he can and juggling payments. (Tr. 82-93, 101). 
Applicant continues to spend about $80 per month on beer. He realizes that he “could 
probably” cut that expense and the $175 in monthly miscellaneous expenses somewhat. 
(Tr. 102.) He has borrowed against his lines of credit to pay for expenses as recently as 
March or April 2010. (Tr. 99.) He no longer relies on consumer credit cards for purchases 
because credit cards “got [him] into this mess.” (Tr. 98.) Applicant does not operate under 
a budget. (Tr. 101.) The trailer and dump truck that he bought with the thought of entering 
the landscaping business remain in his yard. He has considered selling them. (Tr. 116.) 
 
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 
  
 
 7 
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 protect or 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. Section 7 of 
Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the 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 for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18, as follows:  
     
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.  
 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG 
¶ 19. Three are potentially applicable in this case: 
 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; and 
 
(e) consistent spending beyond one‟s means, which may be indicated by 
excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-income 
ratio, and/or other financial analysis. 
 
 When Applicant applied for a security clearance in April 2009, he owed about 
$45,000 in delinquent credit card debt and about $467 in child support arrearage. He took 
advantage of credit card offers extended to him before (e.g., SOR 1.b), during (SOR 1.e), 
  
 
 8 
and after (SOR 1.a, 1.c, 1.d) his marriage to his ex-wife. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) apply. 
Furthermore, AG ¶ 19(e) is established in several aspects. He spent on credit without 
regard to what he could reasonably afford before he started his current employment. When 
he had no income other than from part-time maintenance work for a local farm, he 
refinanced his home, and used $23,000 of his home equity to purchase a dump truck and 
trailer for a planned landscape business that did not work out. He refinanced again in 
November 2007, which increased his monthly payment by $600 or $700, and not 
surprisingly, could not afford to repay his old debts. As of October 2009, he reported 
expenses that exceeded his income by $883 each month. He was spending $140 on 
restaurant meals and an additional $80 for beer each month. While out of work on 
temporary disability since mid-March 2010, his utility costs have lessened but his expenses 
still exceed his income by more than $500 each month. He has had to borrow from his 
lines of credit to pay his expenses. 
 
  Five Financial Considerations mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially 
applicable:  
 
(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; 
 
(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; 
 
(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; 
 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts; and  
 
(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. 
 
AG ¶ 20(e) applies in limited part. Applicant successfully disputed that he was liable 
for the $2,542 alleged in SOR 1.b as of the issuance of the SOR. While he had owed a 
collection balance of $6,340 on the account as of November 2004, he settled the debt for 
$4,000, albeit with funds borrowed against his line of credit. He paid off his child support 
arrearage in July 2009. In contrast, the debt in SOR 1.c, which he also denied, was not 
settled until February 21, 2010, about 20 days after the SOR was issued. 
 
  
 
 9 
The recency of Applicant‟s financial problems precludes favorable consideration of 
AG ¶ 20(a). He still owes $35,586 in delinquent debt (SOR 1.a, 1.d, and 1.e), and in March 
or April 2010, had to turn to one of his lines of credit to meet his monthly expenses. 
 
However, mitigating condition AG ¶ 20(b) applies only in part. There is no evidence 
that Applicant‟s ex-wife ran up the balances of his credit cards during their marriage without 
his knowledge. To the contrary, Applicant admitted at his hearing that he “fell victim” to the 
credit card lenders that were “just passing credit like out, like candy.” (Tr. 63.) Applicant‟s 
financial problems are partially attributable to his divorce in that his child support obligation, 
at around $82 per week, took funds that he could have used to pay off his credit cards. He 
also experienced an unforeseen job layoff in March 2004. He took advantage of the time 
off to care for his terminally ill mother, and around September 2004, he began to fall 
behind in some of his obligations. After her death, he inherited the house, and had a 
mortgage obligation. Although his fiancée moved in with him in January 2005, Applicant 
was unemployed full-time until May 2006, when he started working in the fishing industry. 
More recently, he was out of work on temporary disability pay from mid-March 2010, and 
not scheduled to return until July or August 2010. The financial burden of income loss is 
contemplated within AG ¶ 20(b) when determining whether the debts were incurred as a 
result of circumstances beyond Applicant‟s control. That said, Applicant has not always 
acted responsibly with respect this personal finances. He used the equity in his home to 
purchase a dump truck and trailer in 2005 or 2006 with the thought that he might start a 
landscaping business. It is difficult to justify the expenditure when some of his credit card 
debts were being charged off or referred for collection or both. Then, by refinancing his 
mortgage in 2007, Applicant further stressed his finances by increasing his monthly 
mortgage obligation by $600. 
 
Applicant‟s satisfaction of the retail credit debt in SOR 1.b in November 2004; of his 
child support arrearage in July 2009 (SOR 1.f); and of the $305 and $41 credit card debts 
in September 2009 (not alleged); qualify as good-faith efforts to resolve his debts under AG 
¶ 20(d). Applicant‟s settlement of the debt in SOR 1.c for $2,579.86 in February 2010 is 
also viewed favorably, but it is difficult to fully apply AG ¶ 20(d). He now surmises that he 
waited to settle the debt until the creditor offered more advantageous terms (Tr. 72-73), 
although the record of settlement shows it was likely in response to a civil action by the 
assignee. Furthermore, Applicant has taken no steps to address the debts identified in 
SOR 1.a, 1.d, and 1.e. Although having delinquent debt does not automatically disqualify 
an applicant from holding a security clearance, the DOHA Appeal Board has repeatedly 
held that the concept of good faith requires that a person show “reasonableness, 
prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.” See e.g. ISCR Case No. 07-
10575 at 3 (App. Bd. Jul. 3, 2008). Applicant can reasonably be excused for not repaying 
his creditors while he is on temporary disability, given the decrease in his monthly gross 
income from about $4,040 to $2,688. However, he has an obligation to notify his creditors 
of his current financial situation and to attempt to negotiate future repayment terms.  He 
had not done so by late May 2010.  Nor had he followed through on the recommendations 
of a debt resolution firm to reduce some of his discretionary expenditures. He 
  
 
 10 
acknowledged at his hearing that he could probably “trim back a little bit” his monthly 
miscellaneous expenses of $175 (Tr. 102.) 
 
 Applicant asserts that on his return to work around July 2010, he will take advantage 
of overtime to earn the funds needed to settle his remaining debts. Although I do not doubt 
his sincerity in that regard, the record before me provides little assurance that he will be 
able to resolve his $35,586 in outstanding past due balances in the near future. While he 
testified he is managing to meet his expenses with some help from his fiancée, his 
expense figures show he was operating at a monthly deficit of over $500. He has been 
timely in his monthly payments on his two lines of credit, but they are almost “maxed out.” 
As of March 2010, the balances were $8,776 and $9,802 on credit lines of $9,000 and 
$10,000. Without a clear showing that he is able to live within his means without relying on 
these credit lines, or that he is following through on sound recommendations to trim or 
eliminate some discretionary expenditure, I cannot apply AG ¶ 20(c). 
 
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 his conduct and 
all relevant circumstances in light of 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. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security 
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of 
the guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
 
Applicant overextended himself on consumer credit when he was gainfully 
employed. An unforeseen job layoff and subsequent underemployment led him to stop 
paying on several accounts. But he was also not proactive in addressing his delinquent 
obligations once he started working for his current employer in March 2007. It was not until 
DOHA inquired about his past due balances in September 2009 that he paid off a $41 gas 
credit card debt that had been owed since 2004. As of October 2009, Applicant was 
operating at a net monthly deficit despite his full-time employment and financial assistance 
from his fiancée. Due largely to a reduction in utility costs from the winter, Applicant‟s 
deficit had reduced by about half as of late May 2010. But largely because of his mortgage, 
which he acquired in November 2007, Applicant does not have the funds available to make 
  
 
 11 
appreciable payments toward his sizeable credit card debt. He was given three weeks after 
his hearing to demonstrate efforts to address his remaining debts, including through a 
refinance of his mortgage. No documents were received. Applicant‟s situation could 
improve once he returns to work and presumably takes advantage of available overtime. 
Based on the record before me, it is too soon to conclude that his financial problems are 
behind him. 
 
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:   Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.b:   For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.c:   For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.d:   Against Applicant 
 Subparagraph 1.e:   Against Applicant 
 Subparagraph 1.f:   For 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. 
 
 
________________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge