1
                                                           
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 09-07540
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeffrey A. Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant owes almost $50,000 in debt. After adding $42,300 for unpaid spousal
support for 33 out of 36 months, Applicant owes approximately $92,300 in delinquent
debt. He has taken no steps to satisfy any of the delinquent accounts. Applicant has
failed to meet his burden of demonstrating he warrants a security clearance. Eligibility
for access to classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on March 24, 2009. He was interviewed on August 19, 2009, by an
investigator from another federal agency. In his interrogatory answers submitted to the
Government on June 9, 2010 (Item 6), Applicant agreed that the investigator’s summary
of his August 2009 interview was correct, and that the summary could be used in a
 The decision in every security clearance case, either after a hearing or on the record of documents1
presented, is whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant an applicant eligibility for access
to classified information. Hence, the interview may be used for all purposes in both kinds of due process
procedures. 
 The memorandum assigning the case file cites the date of January 13, 2010 as when Applicant’s response2
was due. The memorandum also cites January 19, 2010 as when the case was forwarded to DOHA. The year
cited in both dates should be 2011 instead of 2010. 
 Applicant owes $22,953 for a car that was repossessed after being in his possession for a month. (GE 6 a3
97)
 The spousal support arrearage amounts to $43,200 for December 2006 to December 2009. 4
2
security clearance hearing to determine his security suitability.  On September 24,1
2010, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under
financial considerations (Guideline F). The action was taken under Executive Order
10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as
amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel
Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and
the adjudicative guidelines (AG), implemented by the Department of Defense on
September 1, 2006. 
Applicant furnished his answer to the SOR on November 2, 2010. He requested
a decision be made on the record in lieu of a hearing. A copy of the Government’s File
of Relevant Material (FORM, the Government’s evidence in support of the allegations of
the SOR) was sent to Applicant on November 24, 2010. He received the FORM on
December 13, 2010. In an attachment to the FORM, he was advised he could object to
the information in the FORM or submit additional information in explanation or
extenuation. His response was due on January 13, 2011.  No response was received.2
The case file was assigned to me on February 16, 2011. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR lists 14 allegations under the financial considerations guideline. The
allegations refer to cell phone accounts, loans, a repossessed auto, and three credit
cards. The total delinquent debt total is approximately $92,300. The largest delinquent
accounts are identified in 1.k  and 1.m.  His first account (1.f) to become delinquent3 4
occurred in August 2005. Applicant’s most recent account (1.l) to become delinquent
was in July 2010. Applicant admitted SOR 1.c, 1.e, 1.i. 1.j, 1.k, and 1.m. He denied 1.a,
1.b, 1.d, 1.f, 1.g, 1.h, 1.l, and 1.n. He explained in his denials of eight of the 14 accounts
that the accounts belong to his former wife. She had his power of attorney when she
opened several accounts without his knowledge. (GE 6) Based on his admissions and
the credit bureau reports in GE 7, 8, and 9, all financial allegations are resolved against
Applicant. 
Applicant is 29 years old. He married his first wife in June 2001 and divorced her
in December 2006 when he married his second wife. He has no children. He has been
3
employed as a pod leader at a military base since December 2008. No additional
information was furnished concerning his current employment. From April 2008 to
December 2008, Applicant was a program representative. No additional information was
furnished about his employment in this position. From June 2007 to April 2008, he was
unemployed and received unemployment compensation. 
Following his graduation from high school in 1999, Applicant took some college
courses between 2000 and 2002. In June 2007. Applicant received a general discharge
under honorable conditions (GE 10) after serving in the United States Army for eight
years.
In August 2009, Applicant told the security investigator from another agency tha
he had been struggling for the past three years. He did not know he had to file a tax
return for unemployment compensation. He has applied for small credit cards to build
his credit again. He wanted to consolidate his debts into a payment plan. A military
attorney told him he did not have enough debt to file for bankruptcy. In a personal
financial sheet (PFS), Applicant stated his monthly income was $1,168, monthly
expenses were 1,769, a monthly payment of $350 for two personal loans totaling
$3,000, leaving a net monthly remainder of $198. Subtracting his monthly expenses and
monthly payments from his net monthly income, leaves a negative, not a positive
monthly remainder. Applicant wrote on the PFS that his income varies based on the
amount of hours he actually works. (GE 6) Based on his explanation, he must work a
substantial amount of extra time to narrow the difference between his net income and
his monthly expenses. 
Character Evidence
Applicant provided no job performance evaluation evidence or other kinds of
character evidence providing his reputation in the community.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the AG. Each guideline lists potentially disqualifying
conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be used to the extent they
are deemed necessary in evaluating an applicant's eligibility for access to classified
information.
The administrative judge's ultimate goal is to reach a fair and impartial decision
that is based on common sense. The decision should also include a careful, thorough
evaluation of a significant period of a person’s life with a number of variables known as
the "whole-person concept" that brings together all available, reliable information about
the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. I have
avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. Decisions
include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or
inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain
4
degree of legally permissible extrapolation of the potential, rather than actual, risk of
compromise of classified information.
Under Directive ¶ E3.l.14., the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.l.l5., the applicant is
responsible for presenting "witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel . . . ." The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Financial Considerations 
The security concern for financial considerations is set forth in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or inability to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.
Applicant’s delinquent debts are approximately $92,300. He blames his first wife
for abusing the power of attorney she had by opening credit accounts. He is still legally
responsible for her unauthorized actions. In addition, his power of attorney explanation
does not apply to an account that became delinquent in July 2010, almost four years
after he divorced his first wife. Applicant’s inability to pay his debts falls within the scope
of AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of
not meeting financial obligations). 
Four mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: AG ¶ 20(a) (the behavior
happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it
is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness,
and good judgment); AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the financial problem
were largely beyond the person’s control, and the person acted responsibly under the
circumstances); AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has received or is receiving counseling for the
problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under
control); and AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts).
There are 13 delinquent debts and delinquent spousal support. The delinquent
accounts did not materialize under unusual circumstances, and Applicant’s failure to
address the debts and his non-payment of spousal support continue to cast doubt on
his reliability and judgment. AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply.
5
For AG ¶ 20(b) to mitigate financial problems, an applicant must present
evidence that shows “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person’s control,” and “the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances.” Applicant’s divorce in December 2006 and his unemployment from
June 2007 to April 2008 fall under the first prong of the condition. However, to receive
full mitigation under the condition, an applicant must show he made responsible
decisions about his delinquent accounts once the accounts become delinquent.
Advising the creditors of his financial predicament is one step an applicant can take.
Consulting with a financial counselor about debt consolidation plans or bankruptcy
action is another course of action. Applicant has provided no documentation that he has
taken any action to handle his delinquent debt. AG ¶ 20(b) applies only in part. 
AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) do not apply. There is no evidence of financial counseling
and that the financial problems are under control. Applicant has made no good-faith
effort to satisfy the debts. 
Applicant denied several of the listed debts. His unsupported denials are
insufficient to refute the evidence contained in the credit reports indicating that the listed
accounts are his responsibility. 
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in
my ultimate finding against Applicant under the financial considerations guideline. I have
also weighed the circumstances within the context of nine variables known as the
whole-person concept. In evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the
administrative judge should consider the following factors:
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 the participation was voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and, (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
Applicant owes about $92,300 in delinquent debt. He has one loan listed in the
SOR. His PFS reflects that he owes two personal loans. He owes his former wife
$42,300 in spousal support. Except for the support, all the debts in the SOR are for
discretionary items rather than non-discretionary items. The amount of debt, the length
of time the accounts have been delinquent, and Applicant’s passive attitude about what
he plans to do about the debts, compels a finding against Applicant under the financial
considerations guideline. See AG ¶¶ 2(a)(1) through 2(a)(9). 
6
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a through 1.n Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                      
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge