1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-00055
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Julia Chico Abbitt, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I grant
Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
Applicant signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) version of a security clearance application (SF-86) on August 24, 2009. The
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) on June 14, 2010, detailing 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
Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines
(AG) implemented on September 1, 2006. 
 
 
2
Applicant received the SOR and submitted his written answer and one document
on July 15, 2010. Applicant requested a hearing before an administrative judge. DOHA
received the request on July 19, 2010, and Department Counsel was prepared to
proceed on August 4, 2010. DOHA assigned the case to me on August 23, 2010. DOHA
issued the first notice of hearing on September 10, 2010. Counsel for Applicant entered
her appearance on September 21, 2010 and asked to reschedule the hearing, so that
she could investigate and properly prepare her case. For good cause shown, I granted
her request and rescheduled the hearing for October 28, 2010 in an Order dated
September 23, 2010. 
On September 23, 2010, DOHA issued an amended notice of hearing, and I
convened the hearing as scheduled on October 28, 2010. The Government offered five
exhibits (GE) 1 through 5, which were received and admitted into evidence without
objection. Applicant testified. He submitted eight exhibits (AE) A through H, which were
received and admitted into evidence without objection. DOHA received the transcript of
the hearing (Tr.) on November 5, 2010. 
I held the record open until November 30, 2010 for Applicant to submit additional
documents. Applicant, through his counsel, requested an additional 15 days to submit
the requested documents. Department Counsel did not object to the extension of time.
By Order dated December 1, 2010, I granted Applicant’s request. He timely submitted
AE I through AE N, without objection. The record closed on December 15, 2010.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Motion to Amend the SOR    
Twice during the hearing, Department Counsel moved to amend the SOR to
conform with the evidence. Applicant’s counsel did not object. Department Counsel
requested to amend SOR to correct the account numbers listed in the SOR allegations
1.w and 1.ff. The motions were granted and SOR allegations 1.w and 1.ff were
amended to reflect the correct account number for the listed debts. (Tr. 37-38, 62-63)
Evidentiary ruling
At the hearing, Department Counsel did not object to the record being held open
for the submission of post-hearing documents. Department Counsel now objects to the
documents submitted by Applicant. Department Counsel argues that the Government
cannot cross-examine Applicant about the source of funds for debts paid after the
hearing, about the financial information contained in his redacted bank account
information, and about the ongoing garnishment payments. The Government’s objection
is overruled. The Government’s objections go to the weight to be accorded the evidence
and not to its admissibility. Applicant’s post-hearing evidence (AE I -AE N) is admitted
into the record.
W hen  SOR allegations are controverted, the government bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient1
to prove controverted allegations. Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. “That burden has two components. First, the
government must establish  by substantial evidence that the facts and events alleged in the SOR indeed took
place. Second, the government must establish a nexus between the existence of the established facts and
events and a legitimate security concern.” See ISCR Case No. 07-18525 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 18, 2009),
(concurring and dissenting, in part) (citations omittted). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection
between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See
ISCR Case No. 08-06605 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 4, 2010); ISCR Case No. 08-07290 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 17,
2009).
Response to SOR.2
GE 1; Tr. 23. 3
GE 1; Tr. 23, 96.4
GE 1; Tr. 95-97.5
 
3
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a-1.l,
1.n-1.r, 1-t-1.v, 1.x-1.kk, 1.mm, 1.nn, 1.qq, and 1.uu-1.xx of the SOR. His admissions
are incorporated herein as findings of fact. He denied the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.m,
1.s, 1.w, 1.ll, 1.oo, 1.pp, and 1.rr-1.tt of the SOR.  He also provided additional1
information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance. After a complete
and thorough review of the evidence of record, I make the following additional findings
of fact.2
Applicant, who is 44 years old, works as a cleaning technician for a Department
of Defense contractor. He began this employment in August 2009. He accepted this
employment because he received medical benefits. His current employer supports his
application for a security clearance.  3
From November 1988 until February 2005 and from April 2007 until August 2009,
Applicant worked for a commercial cleaning contractor. He last worked as a supervisor
for this company and earned $9.75 an hour. This employer did not provide him with
medical insurance. From February 2005 until April 2007, Applicant worked as a rip saw
operator for a national hardwood company. This company laid him off and has closed its
business operations in his locale. 4
Applicant did not complete high school, but he obtained his GED diploma.
Applicant and his first wife were married about 10 years. He married his second wife in
2001, and they divorced in 2004. He has seven children, ages 22, 20, 18, 17, 15, 9, and
7. The three oldest children no longer live at home. Applicant provides the primary
custodial care for his children. His mother helps with him with their care when he is at
work.  5
GE 2; AE L; Tr. 68.6
GE 2.7
Response to SOR; GE 2; AE A; Tr. 25-27, 73-74.8
 
4
Applicant currently earns $11 an hour. He also works overtime and receives shift
premium pay. He averages $2,492 a month in gross income and $1,616 in net monthly
income. He does not receive child support for his children. However, he receives $400 a
month in food stamps, giving him a total net monthly income of $2,016. He occasionally
receives a clothing allotment of $125 from the State for his children. When he did not
have medical insurance, the State determined that his children were eligible for medical
care under the State Medicaid Program and provided his children with a medical card.6
Applicant purchased a house in late 2007. His credit did not prevent him from
purchasing his house. He pays his monthly mortgage payment of $460. His other
monthly expenses include $550 for utilities, $600 for food (includes food stamps), and
$100 for car expenses. He failed to list his phone expenses, estimated at $60, and a
$25 payment on medical debts. His car expenses are probably low, given the high cost
of gasoline. I estimate his usual monthly car expenses at $200 for gas and insurance,
not $100. His monthly expenses average approximately $1,895. A wage garnishment of
$296 is taken from his pay, and thus, it is not included as part of his expenses. He has
approximately $120 remaining at the end of each month.7
Applicant fell and broke his leg on the job in 2005. He received medical treatment
at a local hospital. He thought his injury would be paid through worker’s compensation,
but it was not. Because he did not have medical insurance, Applicant submitted a
financial assistance application to the hospital in January 2006. He understood that his
medical bill would be paid through this program. When he met with the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) investigator in 2009, he learned that he had an unpaid
hospital bill for approximately $7,671. He did not initially connect the unpaid hospital bill
to the 2005 hospital treatment, as he thought the bill had been paid. Because the
investigator made it clear to him that this unpaid bill was a problem, he investigated the
bill and eventually spoke with representatives at the hospital. After working with him for
several months, the hospital confirmed that this bill has been resolved because he was
eligible for financial assistance. The hospital did not explain why his application had not
been processed and acted upon earlier. The $7,671 hospital bill in SOR allegation 1.uu
is satisfied.  8
In 2008, Applicant fell and broke his wrist. He received medical treatment at a
medical facility. He did not have medical insurance which would pay the bill nor did he
have funds to pay the bill. Through its credit collector, the hospital eventually obtained a
judgment against him in the amount of $3,758 plus interest and costs of $483. The
creditor enforced the judgment by garnishing his wages, starting in August 2010. The
AE K; Tr. 79-85.9
GE 3; GE 4; GE 5.10
Tr. 23-24, 68-69.11
The September 4, 2009 credit report lists Applicant’s father’s name as another name used by Applicant. GE12
4, at p. 2. See also GE 1, p. 22.
AE E; AE G; Tr. 43-44.13
 
5
creditor received its first payment in August 2010 and receives a payment of $148 twice
a month. This debt is not listed in the SOR.  9
The SOR identified 50 purportedly continuing delinquencies as reflected by credit
reports from 2009 and 2010, totaling approximately $19,237. Some accounts may have
been transferred, reassigned, or sold to other creditors or collection agents. Some
accounts are identified by complete account numbers, while others are identified by
partial account numbers, in some instances eliminating the last four digits and in others
eliminating other digits. Most of the accounts listed in the 2010 credit reports do not list
the name of the original creditor or the current creditor; rather the unpaid debts are
identified only as medical. In addition, these credit reports do not show an address or
telephone number for Applicant to contact the creditor about payment of the debt.10
Applicant’s unpaid medical bills relate primarily to problems with the Medicaid
card used for his children’s medical care. When his mother took his children to the
doctor or clinic, she did not always present or have the child’s Medicaid card with her.
Even though the doctors had the Medicaid card information in their system, Applicant
realizes now that bills were not submitted for payment.11
When he met with the OPM investigator, Applicant denied knowledge of any of
the debts listed on his credit report, except for a hospital bill. When he answered the
SOR, he denied 10 of the alleged debts because he did not recognize the debts or he
believed the debts belonged to his father, who has the same first and last name, but not
the same middle name.  After further investigation into the debts listed in the SOR,12
Applicant determined that he confused several debts. Applicant concluded that the
debts denied in SOR ¶¶ 1.m, 1.w, and 1.pp were his. He also concluded that the debts
in SOR ¶¶ 1.mm, 1.nn, and 1.xx, which he admitted as his, are not his debts.13
At the hearing, Department Counsel advised the SOR allegations 1.a and 1.b are
the same. Applicant paid this $99 utility bill in October 2010. The record evidence
showed that the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.c ($74), 1.l ($136), and 1.z ($103) had been paid.
With the assistance of his employer, who provided Applicant with a loan, he paid the
medical debts listed in SOR allegations 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, 1.h, 1.k, 1.l, 1.m, 1.n, 1.o, 1.p,
GE 5, p.1; AE C.The debt listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.m and 1.pp are the same debt. Some confusion arose at the14
hearing about SOR ¶¶ 1.g and 1.h because of account numbers. After reviewing the payments made, I
conclude that these debts have been paid.
AE J; Tr. 71, 83-85. The Government objected to the admission of AE J on the grounds it could not cross-15
examine Applicant about other redacted information on his bank statements. Through these statements,
Applicant provided the information requested at the end of the hearing on his $25 a month payment. He also
provided the Government with information on his monthly bills in his response to interrogatories and during
his meeting with the OPM investigator. From these documents, the Government had information to cross-
examine Applicant about his monthly income, bill payment and expenses. AE J is admitted for the limited
purpose of showing the payments to one creditor each month.
At the hearing, Applicant stated that he understood “charge off” to mean his bill was paid. Tr. 78.16
GE 3; GE 4; GE 5; AE E; AE G; Tr. 43-44, 49-53.17
AE N; Tr. 41.18
 
6
1.q, 1.r, 1.t, 1.w, 1.y, and 1.pp for a total debt payment of $3,138. Applicant will repay
this loan through deductions from his paycheck.14
In 2009, Applicant reached an agreement with the creditor in SOR paragraphs
1.c, 1.I, 1.aa, 1.bb, 1.ee, 1.ff, 1.hh, 1.ii, 1.jj, and 1.qq to repay these debts. Beginning in
August 2009, Applicant authorized the creditor to deduct $25 a month from his checking
account, which Applicant described as a garnishment at the hearing. Applicant provided
copies of his bank statement, showing that the creditor deducted $25 a month from
Applicant’s checking account. Applicant has reduced this $1,410 debt by at least $325.15
Applicant disputes the eight debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.ll ($556), 1.mm ($165), 1.nn
($256), 1.oo ($541), 1.rr ($79), 1.ss ($268), 1.tt ($384), and 1.xx ($189). He believes the
debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.mm, 1.nn, 1.oo, and 1.xx may belong to his father. He has no
knowledge of the debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.ll, 1.ss and 1.tt, and he denies the debt in
1.rr  as his bill with this company is current.  16 17
Applicant has encountered problems with contacting the creditor for the debts in
1.mm, 1.nn, 1.oo, 1.vv ($73), 1.ww ($164); and 1.xx. After the hearing, he mailed a
letter to this creditor at the address listed on the September 4, 2009 credit report. The
post office returned the letter as undeliverable and unable to forward. The March 15,
2010 and September 21, 2010 credit reports do not show a mailing address or
telephone number for this creditor.  18
The status of the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.j ($100), 1.s ($2,586), 1.u ($15), 1.v ($26),
1.x ($143), 1.cc ($15); 1.dd ($39), 1.gg ($136), 1.vv ($73), and 1.ww ($164) remains
unknown and unresolved. Most of the smaller debts are related to his children’s medical
bills. The $2,500 debt is unknown to Applicant. He believes that this debt belongs to his
father. His daughter acknowledged owing the cable debt in SOR ¶ 1.kk, and he
acknowledged he allowed her to use his name to obtain this service. Applicant testified
that his daughter would be paying the bill. Applicant submitted a receipt from the cable
AE I; Tr. 28-29.19
Tr. 89-90.20
AE H.21
 
7
company (AE I) showing a cash payment and a zero balance; however, the receipt does
not show an account number which matches either account number Applicant’s
daughter acknowledged owing. I am unable to determine if the debt in SOR ¶ 1.kk is
resolved.19
After he met with the OPM investigator, Applicant focused on resolving the debt
in SOR ¶ 1.uu. Applicant also identified many of the creditors in the SOR and has
worked to resolve the debts that are his. Applicant has not obtained financial counseling
or debt consolidation services.20
Applicant provided a letter of recommendation form a State police officer, who
has known him for the last two years. The police officer has no knowledge of any
improper behavior or criminal activity in the two years he has known Applicant.21
Policies
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 used 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 to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
 
8
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining 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 an 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 relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out 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. 
AG ¶ 19 describes the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the disqualifying conditions, and especially the following:
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and  
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Appellant developed significant financial problems when he broke his leg and
later his wrist, as he did not have medical insurance to pay for his medical costs.
Although he had State medical assistance for his children, much of his medical debt
arises from the non-payment of his children’s medical care by the State. He lacked
sufficient funds to pay these bills. These two disqualifying conditions apply.
AG ¶ 20(f) is not raised in this case.22
Applicant has the burden of proving the applicability of any mitigating conditions, and the burden to disprove23
a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government
 
9
The Financial Considerations guideline also includes conditions that can mitigate
security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 20(a) through 20(f), and
especially the following:
(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.22
Two recent Appeal Board decisions illustrate the analysis for applying AG ¶¶
20(a) and 20(b). In ISCR Case No. 09-08533, the Applicant had $41,000 in delinquent
credit card debt and defaulted on a home loan generating a $162,000 delinquent debt.
Id. at 2. She filed for bankruptcy the same month the Administrative Judge issued her
decision. Id. at 1-2. The Applicant in ISCR Case No. 09-08533 was recently divorced,
had been unemployed for 10 months, and had childcare responsibilities. Her former
husband was inconsistent in his payment of child support. The Appeal Board
determined that AG ¶ 20(a) was “clearly applicable (debt occurred under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and [the debt] does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment)” even though that
Applicant’s debts were unresolved at the time the Administrative Judge’s decision was
issued. The Appeal Board also decided that the record evidence raised the applicability
of AG ¶ 20(b) because of the absence of evidence  of irresponsible behavior, poor23
judgment, unreliability, or lack of trustworthiness. Id. at 4.  
 
10
Similarly, in ISCR Case No. 08-06567 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 29, 2009), the Appeal
Board addressed a situation where an Applicant who had been sporadically
unemployed lacked the ability to pay his creditors noting that “it will be a long time at
best before he has paid” all of his creditors. The Applicant was living on unemployment
compensation at the time of his hearing. The Appeal Board explained that such a
circumstance was not necessarily a bar to having access to classified information
stating:
However, the Board has previously noted that an applicant is not required
to be debt-free nor to develop a plan for paying off all debts immediately or
simultaneously. All that is required is that an applicant act responsibly
given his circumstances and develop a reasonable plan for repayment,
accompanied by “concomitant conduct,” that is, actions which evidence a
serious intent to effectuate the plan. See ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 3
(App. Bd. May 21, 2008).
ISCR Case No. 08-06567 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 29, 2009).  The Applicant in ISCR Case
No. 08-06567 used his limited resources to (1) resolve some of his debts; (2) had a
repayment plan for the remaining debts; and (3) took “reasonable actions to effectuate
that plan.” Id. The Appeal Board remanded the Administrative Judge’s decision because
it did not “articulate a satisfactory explanation for his conclusions,” emphasizing the
Administrative Judge did “not explain[] what he believes that Applicant could or should
have done under the circumstances that he has not already done to rectify his poor
financial condition, or why the approach taken by Applicant was not “responsible” in light
of his limited circumstances.” Id.  
Applicant’s unpaid medical debt arose from an on-the-job injury, which was not
covered by worker’s compensation, and the failure of medical offices to submit their bills
for payment under the State Medicaid program. These are events which occurred under
unusual circumstances which not likely to recur and do not cast doubt on Applicant’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. When he learned that the medical
treatment of his leg injury was not covered by worker’s compensation, he immediately
applied for financial assistance from the State. For unknown reasons, the State did not
act on his application until more than four years after he applied. In 2009, Applicant
reached an agreement to repay some of his children’s medical bills. Applicant has not
acted irresponsibly nor has he shown poor judgment in the management of his limited
resources. Rather, he acted responsibly under the circumstances. AG ¶¶ 20(a) and
20(b) apply to SOR allegations 1.c, 1.i, 1.aa, 1.bb, 1.ee, 1.ff, 1.hh, 1.ii, 1.jj, 1.qq, and
1.uu. 
Applicant did not receive formal financial counseling. He generated a personal
financial statement (PFS) as part of his response to DOHA interrogatories. He maintains
his own budget. Applicant’s financial situation was damaged by insufficient income and
low wages, even though he has worked steadily for 24 years. Since receipt of the SOR
and meeting with the OPM investigator, Applicant has worked to resolve his debts. He
spent months working with the hospital to resolve his outstanding bill. He contacted
The Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a “good faith” effort to repay24
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts:
In order to qualify for application of [the “good faith” m itigating condition], an
applicant must present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or some other good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts.
The Directive does not define the term ‘good-faith.’ However, the Board has
indicated that the concept of good-faith ‘requires a showing that a person acts in a
way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or
obligation.’ Accordingly, an applicant must do more than merely show that he or she
relied on a legally available option (such as bankruptcy) in order to claim the benefit
of [the “good faith” mitigating condition]. 
(internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004)
(quoting ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)).
 
11
other creditors by telephone and received offers to settle his debt through a lump sum
payment, but he lacked the cash to pay the settlement offers. In 2009, he developed a
payment plan for approximately 10 debts listed in the SOR, and more recently, his
employer lent him money which he used to resolve a number of his debts. He also paid
several smaller debts. (SOR ¶ 1.a-1.c, 1.l, 1.z) Finally, he disputed eight debts because
the debts are unknown to him or may be his father’s debts. Because the credit reports
list his father’s name as an “also known as” name for him, he has a legitimate reason to
dispute debts unknown to him. His financial problem is being resolved or is under
control. AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(e) apply. He admitted responsibility for his SOR debts, and
he is taking reasonable and responsible actions to resolve his SOR debts, showing
some good faith and partial mitigation under AG ¶ 20(d).   24
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 an applicant’s
conduct and all relevant circumstances. 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. 
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. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
 
12
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct,
but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a
nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
In assessing whether an Applicant has established mitigation under Guideline F,
the Appeal Board provided the following guidance in ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 3
(App. Bd. May 21, 2008):
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the
concept of “‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of
actual debt reduction through payment of debts.” See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 200). However, an applicant is not
required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and
every debt listed in the SOR. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-25499 at 2
(App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2006). All that is required is that an applicant
demonstrate that he has “. . . established a plan to resolve his financial
problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.” See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 6, 2006). The Judge can
reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and
his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for the
reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. See
Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (“Available, reliable information about the person, past
and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching
a determination.”) There is no requirement that a plan provide for
payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable
plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such
debts one at a time. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-25584 at 4 (App. Bd.
Apr. 4, 2008). Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually
paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the
SOR.
The evidence in support of granting a security clearance to Applicant under the
whole-person concept is more substantial than the evidence in support of denial. In
reaching this conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant
married and divorced twice. He has seven children, three of whom are now living
independently. He began working in 1986 and has worked regularly and steadily for the
last 24 years providing custodial services. During most of these years, he did not
receive medical benefits from his employer nor did he earn a high wage. To make sure
his children received medical care as they were growing, he applied for State medical
assistance and received approval for his children because of his limited income. Since
his children had a Medicaid card and the medical providers kept this information in their
records, he was unaware that their bills were not being paid. As would the average
person, he assumed the bills had been submitted to the State for payment. Applicant
 
13
has supported his children to the best of his ability. His limited income has been
supplemented by food stamps, a small clothing allowance, and medical assistance for
his children.
When he realized that the medical bills for his broken leg would not be paid by
worker’s compensation, he immediately contacted the hospital and applied for financial
assistance to pay his bill. For unknown reasons, the hospital did not act on his
application until recently. Without medical insurance and based on his limited income,
Applicant was placed in a position of choosing to buy food and provide housing for his
children or to pay his medical bills. His income and some State assistance provided for
basic needs, but left little money to pay his medical creditors. 
Applicant and his father share the same first and last name, but not the same
middle name. The close similarity in their names creates problems on Applicant’s credit
reports. The September 2009 credit report lists his father’s name as an alternative name
for Applicant, which has resulted in unpaid bills, belonging to his father, being identified
as his. He legitimately challenged those bills which he believes are not his and may
belong to his father. He has encountered problems with one medical creditor, which has
been uncooperative. When he wrote to this creditor, the letter came back from the post
office as not deliverable and unable to forward, even though this was the address listed
on the September 2009 credit report.
After meeting with the OPM investigator, Applicant worked primarily on resolving
his $7,600 unpaid hospital bill, which took him many months. He attempted to contact
his other creditors and did reach an agreement with one creditor in 2009 to repay 10
debts listed in the SOR. The 2010 credit reports in the record do not provide all of the
creditor identities or contact information, making it difficult for Applicant to determine to
whom he owed money. Nonetheless, he determined that many of the unidentified
medical bills in the SOR were his and worked to resolve his debts. His employer helped
him by lending him money to pay some of these medical bills. He will repay his
employer through automatic payments from his salary. The credit reports do not reflect
that he uses credit cards to finance a lifestyle or that, other than his medical bills, he has
numerous other unpaid bills.   
Applicant has been the sole financial provider for his seven children for many
years. In determining how to use his limited resources, he made decisions which
provided his children with their basic needs, such as livable housing, food and clothes.
Applicant manages his limited financial resources prudently. Given his limited income,
his ability to instantly pay his old medical bills is impossible. Over the years, Applicant
has made choices about using his scarce resources. He always made financial
decisions which favored providing for the needs of his children. He made an effort to
assure that his children’s medical bills were paid by applying for State medical
assistance for them. He attempted to make sure the medical bill from his broken leg
was paid by applying for financial assistance. He works steadily. By providing him
money to pay his outstanding medical bills, his employer showed its belief that he is  a
reliable and dependable employee. He pays his usual living expenses, and is paying
 
14
several of his old debts. He is not required to pay all his old debts at one-time; rather, he
must show that he has a plan to resolve his outstanding debts. Through his evidence,
Applicant has shown that he has resolved $11,714 of the SOR debts, which is more
than 55% of the debts listed in the SOR and that he is paying another $1,260 or
approximately 10% of the SOR debts. He disputed about $2,500 of the SOR debts,
which are not his. Overall, he has worked to resolve about 80% of the debts listed in the
SOR since meeting with the OPM investigator. Given some of the limited information he
had for the medical creditors, he has done a remarkable job in determining which debts
are his and then worked to resolve the debts.
Applicant has focused his attention on providing a stable domestic environment
for his family. Most significantly, he has taken affirmative action to pay or resolve many
of the delinquent debts raising security concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(6).) He has not been
able to specifically address about $3,822 in debts. These debts, however, cannot be a
source of improper pressure or duress. Of course, the issue is not simply whether all his
debts are paid: it is whether his financial circumstances raise concerns about his fitness
to hold a security clearance. While some debts remain unpaid, they are insufficient to
raise security concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(1).) Overall, the record reflects that Applicant
has worked to resolve his financial problems caused by his lack of medical insurance.
He is a solid citizen and custodial worker. He is a responsible individual as is shown by
the fact he is raising seven children on his own.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his finances under
Guideline F.
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.xx: For Applicant
 
15
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge