1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-01826
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: David A. Hayes, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Leslie M. Gordon, Esq.
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On September 20, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns arising under Guideline
F (Financial Considerations). The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security
Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG), implemented in September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. DOHA assigned
the case to me on December 14, 2010. A Notice of Hearing was issued on December
23, 2010, and the case was heard on January 28, 2011. Department Counsel offered
eight exhibits, which were admitted without objection as Government Exhibits (GE) 1-8.
Applicant testified and submitted exhibits AE A through AE BB at the hearing, which
were admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on February 7,
2011. Based on a review of the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, I find Applicant met
her burden regarding the security concerns raised. Security clearance granted.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 30-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She graduated from
high school in 1998 and obtained her undergraduate degree in 2003. Applicant is
married and has one son. She received her master’s degree in 2006. Applicant has
held a security clearance since 2003. (Tr. 78) She has worked for her current employer
since August 2003. (Tr. 20) During those seven years, Applicant has received several
promotions and raises.
Financial
Applicant received unsolicited credit card offers while she was in college. During
college, she worked part time and earned a low hourly wage. Applicant accepted the
credit card offers, and eventually she obtained six credit cards in her name. She used
them frequently for meals, clothing, and trips. She acknowledged that she used the
cards and spent beyond her means. She believed that she would pay the full balances
on the credit cards after graduation from college. (Tr. 22)
Applicant continued to use the credit cards and reached the maximum allowable
credit on each of the accounts. She would transfer one balance to another in an
attempt to make the minimum payments. She made monthly payments. but eventually
the accounts became delinquent as she lacked sufficient income to pay them. (Tr. 23)
In 2006, Applicant’s car needed major repairs. She purchased a new one and
started payments. At that point she could not maintain any credit card payments. She
sought help from a credit solutions company. She paid a fee of $2,200. However, they
did not help her consolidate or organize her debts. Instead, they advised her to stop
making any payments on any of the credit cards. (Tr. 24) 
Applicant married in 2006. She was overwhelmed and knew she had to address
the financial debts. At that time, she believed the total amount she owed was $15,000.
She decided to work on a solution without the help of the credit company. She wanted
to settle as much of the delinquent debt as she could. She took out a loan against her
401(k). Although married, she was the primary support, as her husband encountered
periods of unemployment. He also suffers from depression.
The SOR lists four delinquent accounts totaling $25,000. The debts are now
paid. Applicant was paying or resolving them before the SOR, as early as 2007. The
debts are the result of six delinquent credit card balances. She closed the credit
accounts in 2006 and did not incur any more delinquent debt. Applicant provided
detailed receipts for all the collection accounts. (AE A-E) She also paid one debt that
was not on the SOR. She submitted a credit report that shows the accounts noted in
the SOR that were delinquent. Each has a zero balance. (AE G) 
In May 2007, Applicant acknowledged her delinquent debts to the investigator
from OPM. (GE 2) She explained her payment plans and projected time lines for full
3
payments on all her accounts. On her recent SF-86, she disclosed the five credit card
collection accounts and her payment process. (GE 1)
Applicant’s 2010 monthly net income was $4,492. (AE F) It would appear that
there is a net remainder of $2,500 in disposable income. Applicant has a budget. She
has savings and contributes to her 401(k) account. She has an emergency fund. She is
current on all her daily expenses. Her car note is paid. She has not incurred any new
credit card debt. She has paid her legal fees for the security hearing. (Tr. 59) She has
approximately $62,000 in her 401(k). She is also paying her student loans. 
Applicant explained that she understands that she is responsible for her son and
does not want to “borrow” against her future by using credit cards. She has one card
but she pays the balance in full each month. She only buys what she needs. She was
resolute that she would not jeopardize her current financial solvency by overusing credit
cards. She acknowledges that she made mistakes in college with the credit cards. She
now has financial goals for her family. (Tr. 60) She has matured since her college days.
Applicant now has a credit check monitoring program in place to ensure that she follows
her account and monitors her credit score. 
Applicant has completed security training sessions during her seven years of
employment with her company. She has never had a security incident. (AE S) She has
received many promotions during her time with the company. (AE H) Her performance
reviews are excellent. (AE I ) She has received several awards. (AE J)
Applicant submitted eight letters of recommendation from her employer, friends,
and colleagues. (AE L through R) Each attests to her leadership, expertise, reliability,
and superior skills. She is a program manger who supervises 20 employees and
handles contracts valued at $4 million. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations
for each guideline, the AG list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, they are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in
the adjudicative process. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a
fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a
conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole-person concept.”
An 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
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      1
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      2
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      3
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      4
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
 Id.      6
4
on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
The Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged
in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a1
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  2 3
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. This relationship
transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government
reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to
classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk
the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of 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.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance4
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt5
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a6
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
5
Failure or an 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.” It also states that “an individual who
is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in
illegal acts to generate funds.
Applicant incurred delinquent debts in the amount of $25,000. Consequently,
Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial
obligations) apply. With such conditions raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the
case against her and mitigate security concerns.  
Applicant provided documentation to show that she has paid all her delinquent
accounts. The accounts stemmed from college credit card debt. She has not incurred
any delinquent credit card debt since 2005 or 2006. Consequently, Financial
Considerations Mitigating Condition (FCMC) AG ¶ 20(a) (the behavior happened so
long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment) applies.
Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) AG ¶ 20(b) (the
conditions that resulted in the behavior 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)
does not apply. As noted, Applicant used her credit cards for items that were not always
necessary. She continued to amass the credit card debt until 2006.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) applies. Applicant provided evidence of her
receipts and previous payment plans before the SOR. She has completely paid off her
delinquent accounts. She also received financial counseling. She has a detailed budget
and has a savings and emergency fund. FC MC AG ¶ 20(c) (the person has received or
is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that the problem
is being resolved or is under control) apply.
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 the 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
6
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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case as well as the “whole-person”
factors. Applicant is 30 years old. She received many unsolicited credit cards while in
college. She spent beyond her means. However, she realized that she needed to act
responsibly and did so. She married in 2006 and she has a son. She is the primary
wage earner in the family. She closed her credit accounts in 2006. She did not incur
any new debts. Before the SOR, she had a payment plan. She has now paid all her
collection accounts. 
Applicant has received many promotions and raises with her employer. She has
received glowing references and letters of appreciation. She is a mature young wife and
mother. She was quite organized and candid at the hearing. She has held a security
clearance since 2003 without any incidents.
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 through 1.d: For Applicant
7
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 a security clearance.
Clearance granted.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge