DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 09-08305 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Gina Marine, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
 Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access 
to classified information is granted.  
 
On September 14, 2009, Applicant submitted An Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) for a security clearance required for a position with a 
defense contractor. After an investigation conducted by the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM), the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued two 
interrogatories to Applicant to clarify or augment potentially disqualifying information in 
his background. After reviewing the results of the background investigation and 
Applicant's responses to the interrogatories, DOHA could not make the preliminary 
affirmative finding required to issue a security clearance. DOHA issued a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR), dated June 28, 2010, to Applicant detailing security concerns for 
financial considerations under Guideline F. These actions were 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) effective within the Department of Defense on 
September 1, 2006. Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on July 7, 2010. 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on July 14, 2010. He denied all allegations under 
Guideline F. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on October 21, 2010, and 
the case was assigned to me on December 1, 2010. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing 
on December 28, 2010, scheduling a hearing for January 26, 2010. I convened the 
hearing as scheduled. The Government offered six exhibits marked and I admitted 
without objection as Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 6. Applicant and four 
witnesses testified on his behalf. Applicant offered nine exhibits I marked and admitted 
without objection as Applicant Exhibit (App. Ex.) A through I. I left the record open for 
Applicant to submit additional documents. Applicant timely submitted two documents 
which I marked and received as App. Ex. J and K. Department Counsel had no 
objection to the admission of the documents. (Gov. Ex. 7, Memorandum, dated 
February 4, 2011) DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on February 3, 
2011. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is 27 years old and has been employed by a defense contractor for 
approximately 18 months as a tank mechanic. He served over four years on active duty 
in the Army with two tours in Iraq. His first tour was from March 2004 until June 2005. 
He was wounded in combat on this tour but did not require medical evacuation. He 
served a second tour from March to May 2007. He was again wounded in combat and 
was medically evacuated. He was medically retired because of the wounds.  
 
He was married in September 2006 and divorced in January 2008. He married 
again in May 2009. He has two children, one from each marriage. His youngest child 
lives with him and his present wife. His oldest child lives with his former wife, and he is 
required to pay child support for this child. His monthly income, including retired medical 
pay, is $2,760, with monthly expenses of approximately $2,365. He has approximately 
$400 in monthly discretionary funds. (Tr. 56-60, 70-72, 90-93; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated 
September 14, 2009; App. Ex. H, Medical records, undated; App. Ex. I, Expenses, 
undated)  
 
Credit reports (Gov. Ex. 5, dated September 30, 2009; and Gov. Ex. 6, dated 
May 17, 2010) show the following delinquent debts for Applicant: a medical account in 
collection for $369 (SOR 1.a); child support payments in collection for $1,338 (SOR 
1.b); car repossession debt charged off for $13,113 (SOR 1.c); a telephone bill in 
collection for $378 (SOR 1.d); a utility debt in collection for $44 (SOR 1.e); and a bank 
account debt in collection for $128 (SOR 1.f). In response to interrogatories, Applicant 
acknowledged the debts at SOR 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, and 1.e. He provided an explanation for 
the debts as well as payment information on the debts. He denied knowledge of the 
accounts at SOR 1.d and 1.f. (Gov. Ex 2 and 4, Answers to Interrogatories, dated March 
25, 2010) 
 
 
3 
 
 
The medical debt in collection for $369 is for treatment of Applicant's daughter. 
The debt was incurred in February 2008 before Applicant left active duty in March 2008. 
Applicant did not know of the debt on his credit report until he viewed a credit report 
after receiving the SOR. He had not received a bill or a letter from the hospital. He 
contacted the hospital and was initially advised they did not have a debt pertaining to 
him. He was able to contact the collection agency and received a copy of the debt in 
September 2010. The cost of the medical care should have been covered by the military 
medical system, TRICARE. Applicant was on active duty at the time of the treatment. 
Even if he was not on active duty, he and his dependents are entitled to coverage under 
TRICARE in his status as medically retired. He contacted TRICARE again about the 
debt. If TRICARE does not cover the debt, he will use tax return money in April 2011 to 
pay it. (Tr. 43-46, 59-62, 81-83; App. Ex. E, Hospital bill, dated September 17, 2010) 
 
Applicant has been required since 2007 to pay child support for his older child 
who is living with his former wife. His initial monthly payment was $750. He sent the first 
couple of payments directly to his wife. However, he only received credit for one 
payment. He incurred a child support debt of about $1,700. Payment of $375 monthly 
for the continued child support and the arrears are taken directly from his pay. The 
arrears on the child support payments is now about $255. (Tr. 37-43, 83-88; App. Ex. B, 
Child support ledger, dated July 9, 2010; App. Ex. C, Pay voucher, dated November 11, 
2010; App. Ex. D, Order for Garnishment, dated September 22, 2009; App. Ex. J, Social 
Service Letter and Statement, dated January 20, 2011) 
 
Applicant and his first wife co-signed for the purchase of a new vehicle for 
$17,000 before he deployed to Iraq on his second deployment. His wife was the 
principal purchaser. On deployment, an allotment went directly to his wife for sufficient 
funds of $650 to make the vehicle and insurance payments on both of their vehicles. 
Applicant's wife also had access to their joint checking account. Shortly after Applicant 
arrived in Iraq, his wife stopped making the vehicle payments. The vehicle was used for 
only three months and sold at auction for $7,000 leaving a debt of $9,500. With interest 
and penalties, the debt is now over $15,000. Applicant's former wife has been making 
payments on the debt. She has asked him for help in making the payments. Applicant 
has contacted the creditor who wants Applicant as a joint account holder to pay over 
$600 to bring the account current. Applicant has offered to pay $100 month until the 
account is current, but his offer has been refused by the creditor. Payment on the debt 
continues to be made by his former wife. (Tr. 30-37, 63-69, 76-81; App. Ex. A, Creditors 
Letter, dated September 29, 2010)  
 
Applicant contacted the creditors concerning the telephone debt at SOR 1.d, the 
utility debt at SOR 1.e, and the bank debt at SOR 1.f after receiving the first set of 
interrogatories. He was not aware of the telephone bill, so he contacted the phone 
company, which did not have a debt listed for him. He tried to contact the collection 
company but was unable to locate the correct collection company. However, he is 
current with his payments to the telephone company, which may indicate he does not 
owe them a debt. (Tr. 46-50, 69-70; App. Ex. K, Statement, dated December 22, 2010) 
Applicant was able to find information on the utility debt and the bank debt and paid 
 
4 
 
 
both debts in full. (Tr. 69-71; App. Ex. F, Bank Statement, dated September 16, 2010; 
App. Ex. G, Paid-in-Full Letter, dated September 17, 2010)  
 
One of Applicant's supervisors testified that he has known Applicant since he 
started work for his company in August 2009 as a heavy equipment mechanic. He sees 
Applicant a few times a week. Applicant is a good, honest, and dependable employee. 
He knows of no instance when Applicant used poor judgment. (Tr. 15-17) Applicant's 
immediate supervisor testified that he sees Applicant daily, and Applicant does his job 
with little supervision. He considers Applicant to be honest, reliable, trustworthy, and to 
exercise good judgment. He is aware of Applicant's financial problems, and they do not 
change his opinion of Applicant. (Tr. 17-21) A government employee who works with 
Applicant testified that he has worked closely with Applicant on some projects. Applicant 
follows the rules strictly and is trustworthy and reliable. He recommends that Applicant 
be granted access to classified information. (Tr. 21-24) Applicant's company's facility 
security officer testified that Applicant was truly diligent in paying his delinquent debts. 
Applicant has always provided her with straight and clear information. She believes that 
Applicant exercises good judgment and is reliable and trustworthy. (Tr. 25-28) 
 
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 must be considered 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, 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 in seeking a favorable security decision.  
 
5 
 
 
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 that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to 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. 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations: 
 
 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 ¶ 18) Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his or her obligations to protect classified 
information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an 
indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
 A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial 
obligations. Credit reports and Applicant's statements show that he has delinquent 
debts that raise Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG ¶ 19(a) 
(inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not 
meeting financial obligations). The information indicates an inability and not an 
unwillingness to satisfy debt. 
 
 I considered Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition (FC MC) 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) and FC MC AG ¶ 20(b) (the 
conditions that resulted in the financial problems 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). These mitigating conditions apply. When Applicant deployed 
to Iraq, he provided his former wife sufficient funds to make payments on their vehicles. 
She did not make the payments. As a result, the vehicle was repossessed and a 
 
6 
 
 
delinquent debt arose when the vehicle was sold at auction. His former wife is now 
paying the debt. When Applicant switched from being employed to attending school 
under the GI Bill, he did not make some child support payments. He has been making 
the payments on the arrears and is almost current with his child support obligations. A 
medical debt should have been paid by the military health care system. He paid two 
other debts in full and the last debt is not recognized by the creditor. These delinquent 
debts were incurred under unusual circumstances and largely beyond his control when 
others did not pay bills as agreed or required. He acted responsibly under the 
circumstances by inquiring about the debts with creditors, arranging payment plans, and 
making payment on the plans.  
 
I considered FC MC AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to 
repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts). For FC MC AG ¶ 20(d) to 
apply, there must be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” to repay, and “evidence” 
of a good-faith effort to repay. A systematic method of handling debts is needed. 
Applicant must establish a "meaningful track record" of debt payment. A "meaningful 
track record" of debt payment can be established by evidence of actual debt payments 
or reduction of debt through payment of debts. An applicant is not required to establish 
that he paid each and every debt listed. All that is required is that Applicant demonstrate 
an established plan to resolve his financial problems and show he has taken significant 
actions to implement that plan. Applicant paid two of the debts in full; he is almost 
current with his child support payments; his former wife is making payments on the 
vehicle debt that is her responsibility; and he has taken the necessary steps to have the 
military health system pay a medical debt that is its responsibility. Applicant has 
sufficient funds to meet the financial obligations under his payment plans. Applicant's 
actions in paying and resolving his delinquent debts provide significant and credible 
information to establish a meaningful track record of debt payment and a good-faith 
effort to repay his creditors or resolve debt. His actions show he is now acting 
reasonably and responsibly to resolve his financial problems. His past delinquent debts 
do not now reflect adversely on his trustworthiness, honesty, and good judgment. 
 
Whole-Person Analysis  
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
relevant circumstances. An 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 a security clearance 
must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered Applicant's four years 
of active duty in the Army, his two tours in a combat zone, and that he was wounded in 
combat twice. I considered that Applicant is considered a good employee and that both 
his government and company supervisors recommend that he be granted access to 
classified information. I considered that Applicant's financial problems arose from 
conditions beyond his control. He provided his former wife sufficient funds when he 
deployed to manage their bills, but she did not do so, She is now paying that debt. He is 
almost current with his child support payments. He contacted the military health care 
system to request payment of a medical debt that is its responsibility. He resolved his 
remaining delinquent debts. Applicant established a "meaningful track record" of 
payment of his delinquent debts. Applicant's actions to pay his past financial obligations 
indicate he will be concerned, responsible, and careful regarding classified information. 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions and doubts as to Applicant’s 
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude 
Applicant mitigated security concerns arising from financial considerations and should 
be granted access to classified information.  
 
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.f:  For Applicant 
 
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. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge