1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-04453
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: David A. Hayes, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A, Administrative Judge:
On October 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 18, 2011. Department Counsel offered
four exhibits, which were admitted without objection as Government Exhibits (GE) 1-4.
Applicant testified and submitted exhibits AE A through AE G at the hearing, which
were admitted. I kept the record open at Applicant’s request, and she submitted AE H
through S, which were admitted into the record without objection. DOHA received the
transcript (Tr.) On January 26, 2011. Based on a review of the pleadings, testimony,
2
and exhibits, I find Applicant failed to meet her burden regarding the security concerns
raised. Security clearance is denied.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 47-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She graduated from
high school in 1983. Applicant is divorced and has four children. Applicant is not certain
that she has previously held a security clearance. (Tr. 43) She has worked for her
current employer since August 2009. (Tr. 34)
Financial
Applicant was unemployed on various occasions for two or three month periods.
After her divorce in 2000, Applicant was the sole support for her children. (Tr. 45) She
did not receive any child support from her ex-husband. She worked as much as she
could. She also attended college in the evening to better her job opportunities. From
2003 until 2005, Applicant attended a college. Applicant acknowledges that she
obtained student loans for the program. (Tr. 45) She did not complete her courses due
to a family emergency. 
In 2005, Applicant’s mother died. Applicant was deeply upset and depressed.
She discontinued her college courses. (Tr. 36) She found it difficult to organize her
financial affairs. She acknowledged that she did not open the mail or pay her bills. (Tr.
47) Applicant admitted that she did not file her taxes for three years. She believed that
one could wait for three years before filing the annual tax form. She contacted a tax
accountant to help with the situation. (Tr. 51) She stated that she paid the accountant to
help her file her taxes, but he did not file the taxes because she has a $45,000 tax lien
and a $16,000 tax lien. (Tr. 51) She does not believe that she owed such huge
amounts. (Tr. 26)
The SOR lists 27 delinquent accounts totaling $80,000. The debts include tax
liens, student loans, medical bills, and judgments. The credit reports confirm these
debts. (GE 2, 3, and 4) Applicant notes that she paid some small debts that are not
listed on the SOR. (AE R and AE S) She submitted documents showing a release of
two state tax liens from 2002 and 2005. (AE B and C) Applicant is paying a medical and
hospital bill that is not listed on the SOR.  She and her daughter had some medical
problems that were not covered by insurance.
Applicant contacted a credit consolidation company to help her with her
delinquent bills in July 2010. She paid them an initial fee of $288, but they did not help
her dispute some debts or organize her debts. (Tr. 66)
She is not sure what amount she owes the college college. (Tr. 26) She made
payments on her student loans in 2003. She believes she was paying $50 monthly. (Tr.
37; AE G) The college is no longer in operation. Applicant does not know how much
she owes but does not believe it is $16,000 as reported in the 2006 judgment. She
3
acknowledged that she signed many forms, but had no clear idea of the number of
loans or the amounts.
The SOR lists almost $42,000 in student loans with various collection
companies. (SOR 1.e, 1.j., 1.k, 1.l, 1.p., and 1.q) She was adamant that she has been
trying to find out how to resolve the issue and exactly what she owes on the student
loans. (Tr. 50) It does appear that several of the allegations for the various student
loans are duplicates. However, the issue is not yet resolved. She hopes that the U.S.
Department of Education will aid her in resolving the issue. (Tr. 100) She submitted a
letter dated January 21, 2011, from a collection unit that appeared to be a loan
rehabilitation agreement for two loans from 2003 for a total of $7,393. (AE J) The U.S.
Department of Education is also holding a claim for a defaulted student loan in the
amount of $4,109 which will be collected by treasury offset. (AE E)
Applicant stated that she did not have the “know how” to resolve her credit
issues and is doing the best she can. (Tr. 126) Applicant admitted that she is
overwhelmed and disorganized. She has tried to obtain help since her depression in
2005 to deal with her financial issues. She finds it difficult to trust the various agencies
that proclaim to help with finances due to her past experience. She is trying to handle
these debts and work two jobs. She has obtained her credit report. Her latest credit
report confirms that she has officially disputed the account in SOR allegation 1.j for
$1,273. (GE 3) At the hearing, she also admitted that she has no idea what the
accounts in SOR 1.r, 1.s, and 1.aa represent. (Tr. 31) 
Applicant intends to pay her debts and tax liens. She obtained the services of the
community tax center in November 2010 to investigate the status of the federal tax liens
listed in SOR 1.b and 1.c. that total approximately $62,600. (AE F) Applicant gave the
tax center a power of attorney so that they could act on her behalf. She entered into an
agreement with them to resolve the tax liens. She paid an $800 fee for their
investigation. (AE F) It is not clear from the documentation, but it appears that she has
agreed to pay them $312 monthly until December 25, 2011, for a total of $4,850.
However, this may be part of a larger “resolution fee” and not the offer in compromise to
settle the tax liens. She has made the first payment has made the first payment of
$300. (AE G). She believes the total settlement or offer in compromise to IRS is for
$3,000. (Tr. 53)
Applicant submitted documentation showing that certain accounts relating to
SOR allegations 1.d. ($168), 1.o ($683); and 1.t ($664) have been settled. (AE A and
D)  Other accounts she believes she has paid but does not have any documentation.
Applicant submitted a handwritten sheet noting a possible payment plan with the
collection company for debts in (SOR 1.h and 1.I). A copy of a money gram for $187
and $105 was attached, but the dates were not legible. (AE I) Applicant stated that she
has not receive a formal letter of repayment from the company. (Tr.70)
Applicant submitted receipts of payment (money orders) for SOR allegations 1.w,
1.x, 1.y, and 1.v. (AE L through) O) These miscellaneous debts were incurred due to an
 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
4
unpaid carry-out bill, parking ticket and public storage unit. The dates and amounts
were not legible.
Applicant’s 2009 pay was approximately $23 an hour from one job. She was not
sure what her monthly net income is. She does not believe she has much of a net
remainder at the end of the month. She started working a second job but the hours are
not certain. She has no health insurance. She has not received any financial
counseling. (Tr. 86) She did not present a budget, but she explained that she is
restricting her spending on cable and internet. She hopes to borrow against her
retirement fund to pay more debts. (Tr. 114)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines 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
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
 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
5
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:
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 currently has delinquent debts and judgments. She has had the
delinquent accounts since 2005. She also failed to file taxes for three years and has tax
liens. Consequently, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) AG ¶
19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not
meeting financial obligations), and FC DC AG 19(g) (failure to file income taxes) apply.
With such conditions raised, it is left to Applicant to overcome the case against her and
mitigate security concerns.  
6
Applicant is still unsure of the amount she owes in student loans. She has almost
$60,000 in tax liens. She has unresolved debt for some accounts and does not yet have
a payment plan in place. 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) does not apply.
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 was divorced in 2000. She had some
unemployment and was the sole support of her children. She attended college, but was
not able to complete the course due to her mother’s death. Applicant acknowledges
that she did not open the mail or pay her taxes after her mother’s death because she
could not focus and became depressed. Much of this was out of her control. These
2006 events, no doubt, impacted her finances. However, there is no evidence that she
acted responsibly under the circumstances for several years. She allowed the
delinquent debts to remain unpaid for several years.  
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) does not apply in full. Applicant has made
attempts to obtain help with her delinquent accounts. She tried to get help in July 2010
but that was not successful. She intends to pay her debts and is now beginning some
repayment plans. However, at this time a concrete plan is still in the future. Her failure
to provide information about financial counseling obviates the applicability of 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). She does
not have much money left at the end of the month. She is still unsure about what she
really owes and admits she is not organized. She may be on the right track but she has
not med her burden in this case.
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
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,
7
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 47 years old. She is the mother of four children. After her divorce in  2000,
she worked hard to support her family. She attempted to better her job opportunities by
attending college. She obtained student loans. She did not complete the program due
to her mother’s death in 2005. The college is no longer in existence and she has been
trying to find out what she owes. She did not open her mail or file taxes for three years.
She acknowledges that she is not organized and despite her good efforts she does not
have her finances under control. She did pay an accountant to help her with her tax
liens, but that was not successful through no fault of her own. She is on the right track,
but at this time she has not met her burden in this case.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.aa: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance.
Clearance is denied.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge