Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government’s exhibits (GE) 1-6, and Applicant’s exhibits (AE) A-L. AE L was1
timely received post-hearing.
DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February2
20, 1990), 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)
effective within the DoD on 1 September 2006. 
1
               
               
               
         
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 09–04215
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: James F. Duffy, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  Applicant’s clearance is denied.1
On 26 March 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) sent
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F,
Financial Considerations.  Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing.2
DOHA assigned the case to me 3 May 2010, and I convened a hearing 8 June 2010.
DOHA received the transcript 16 June 2010.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted SOR allegations 1.b, d-e, g, l-n, and t-w. She denied
allegations 1.a, c, f, h-k, and o-s. She is a 39-year-old proposal coordinator employed
by a defense contractor since June 2008. She was unemployed from December 2007 to
February 2008 and from June 2001 to September 2001. Otherwise, she has been
employed full time since September 2001. She is a divorced mother of two. She held an
interim secret clearance in March 2006 (GE 1). Her current clearance status is
unknown.
The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits (GE 4-6) substantiate, 23 delinquent
debts totaling nearly $27,000. Applicant admits 11 delinquent debts, totaling nearly
$14,000; she denies 12 debts totaling just over $13,000. Applicant reported an unpaid
judgment, two garnishments, and 20 delinquent debts on her November 2008 clearance
application (GE 1). She stated that she was working with each creditor to establish a
repayment plan.
In a December 2008 interview with a Government investigator (GE 2), Applicant
attributed her financial problems to her unemployment from December 2007 to February
2008, her underemployment from February 2008 to June 2008, losing a roommate who
was sharing expenses, and sending her oldest child off to college for the first time.
However, she also acknowledged that some of her indebtedness was due to her neglect
of her financial responsibilities. Although she had received some credit counseling, she
was living paycheck to paycheck. During her interview, she acknowledged 22 delinquent
accounts, some of which fell past due before her unemployment and some of which fell
past due after she got her current job.
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.a has been in collection since October 2009 (AE
A). Applicant claimed (Tr. 25), through an unconfirmed telephone conversation, to have
a settlement offer to resolve the account by making a lump-sum payment of $395, or
two payments of $232 (the account having now grown to $464). She also claims (Tr. 25)
that she agreed to pay SOR debt 1.b in two equal payments in June and July 2010.
However, her post-hearing exhibit (AE L) contains no confirmation of the first payment
despite the fact that AE L was submitted after the first payment was due.
Applicant purportedly settled SOR debt 1.c in August 2009 (AE B, GE 3),
conditioned on equal monthly payments September–December 2009. She made the
September and October payments (AE K), but did not make payments in November and
December. Applicant claims (Tr. 25) that the account has been sold to a new collection
agent.
Applicant states that SOR debts 1.d and 1.e are the same, but the credit reports
show different account numbers for both. The creditor for 1.e offered Applicant a
settlement at a 50% discount in March 2010, conditioned on her accepting the offer
within two weeks. However, Applicant did not have the funds to take advantage of the
settlement offer.
However, the amount alleged in 1.f is only the amount past due reported by the collection agent at the time.3
The total amount due reflects the past-due amount in 1.j, plus interest (GE 5).
The original debt was $780.4
Totaling $1,750.5
3
 Applicant paid SOR debts 1.f and 1.j by equal monthly payments
September–November 2009 (AE K, D). The credit reports (GE 4-6) confirm that the two
allegations reflect the same account.  Applicant established that SOR debt 1.k was a3
mistake and the account has been deleted from her credit report.
In April 2009, Applicant agreed to make $200 monthly payments by automatic
payment on SOR debt 1.g (GE 3), and documented payments in April 2009 (AE E),
June 2009 (GE 2009) and June 2010 (AE L). She claimed (GE 3) to have changed the
payment to $100 monthly beginning September 2009. However, Applicant’s February
2010 credit report (GE 4) shows that the amount delinquent was reduced only $200
from the June 2009 credit report (GE 5). Applicant believes (Tr. 25)  she should not
have to pay SOR debt 1.h—a time-share mortgage she co-signed for a friend (Tr.
45)—because the friend is legally obligated to pay it. However, Applicant acknowledged
(Tr. 58) that she knew her friend could not qualify for the mortgage without Applicant as
co-signer.
SOR debts 1.i and 1.l reflect the same debt listed by the original creditor and the
second collection agent (GE 4-6). Beginning in November 2008 (AE F), the first
collection agent offered to settle the debt for an 80% discount, payable in two equal
monthly payments. However, Applicant lacked the funds to take advantage of the
settlement. The collection agent offered to negotiate a settlement figure in February
2009, without success. In October 2009, the original creditor offered the same 80%
discount. This time, Applicant accepted. Applicant made the first payment of $393 in
October 2009 (AE F, K). Applicant claims (Tr. 30) that she made all but the last payment
before the account was sold to a second collection agent, but AE K shows no payments
from November 2009 to January 2010. As the second collection agent reported the
account in January 2010 (GE 4), I conclude that Applicant made one payment in
October 2009 and made no further payments, causing the account to be sold again.
 
Applicant made three equal monthly payments September–November 2009 to
satisfy SOR debt 1.r (AE K, L). Applicant settled SOR debt 1.s in August 2009, and
made the first of four required payments (GE 2).   She made the remaining payments as4
scheduled in September, October, and November 2009 (AE K).
Applicant also used pay-day loans to meet expenses and then could not repay
the loans. She made a repayment plan on SOR debts 1.t, 1.u, and 1.v  in August 20095
and made required payments in August 2009 (GE 2), October 2009 (AE K, I),
The payments seem to correspond to the monthly payments for August 2009, October 2009, November 20096
and December 2009.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).7
4
November 2009 (AE K), and January 2010 (AE K).  However, she was unable to keep6
up the payments, and after the hearing in June 2010 settled the three accounts for
$917, conditioned on paying half by the end of June 2010 and half by the end of July
2010 (AE L). However, Applicant provided no proof that payment was actually made.
Except as noted above, Applicant’s debts remain unresolved. She has paid three
debts (f/j, r, and s) and had one debt removed from her credit report as not hers (k). She
had repayment plans on a number of other debts that she was not able to complete, or
has had to renegotiate with no confirmation of payment on the new plan. 
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability
for access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Any one disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case
can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to
classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does,
the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.7
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has a history of financial
¶19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; ( c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;8
¶20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that9
it is unlikely to recur . . . 
¶20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and10
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶20.(c)  the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications11
that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
¶20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.12
5
difficulties and financial irresponsibility going back several years.  Although she has8
made some progress on her debts, that progress is insufficient to overcome the security
concerns raised by her financial situation.
The mitigating factors for financial considerations provide little help to Applicant.
Her financial difficulties are both recent and multiple.  The problems are partly due to9
circumstances beyond her control (unemployment and loss of roommate), but also due
to her irresponsibility (pay-day loans for living expenses and co-signing a time-share
mortgage for a friend who could not afford it).
Applicant’s efforts to address her debts have been mixed. She has taken no
action on a number of debts, or has been unable to take action. She paid several debts
before the SOR was issued, and had made progress on, but not completed repayment
plans on several others. She had settlement offers from creditors that she was unable to
take advantage of, even though the offers presented substantial discounts on her
original debt. Thus, her response has been only partly satisfactory.  She has had some10
credit counseling, but the fruits of that counseling have not been completely effective.
Substantial progress remains to be made to bring her financial problems under control.11
The payments that have been paid have been paid largely in a timely, good-faith
manner,  but her inability to see some of the repayment plans through to completion12
demonstrates just how much her finances remain unsettled. I resolve Guideline F
against Applicant. Consideration of the whole-person factors yields no different result.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a–e: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs f and j: For Applicant
Subparagraphs g–i: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs k and l: For Applicant
Subparagraphs m–q: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs r and s: For Applicant
6
Subparagraphs t–w: Against Applicant
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge