DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 10-03004 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
 Based on a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility 
for access to classified information is denied.  
 
On October 1, 2009, Applicant submitted An Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) as 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 an Interrogatory to Applicant to 
clarify or augment potentially disqualifying information in her background. After 
reviewing the results of the background investigation and Applicant's responses to the 
Interrogatory, DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding required to issue 
a security clearance. DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR), dated August 13, 
2010, to Applicant detailing security concerns for financial considerations under 
Guideline F, and criminal conduct under Guideline J. 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 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
Defense on September 1, 2006. Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on August 
17, 2010. 
 
 On August 30, 2010, Applicant answered the SOR admitting all factual 
allegations under Guideline F, and admitting five and denying two of the factual 
allegations under Guideline J. She requested a decision on the record for the 
allegations under Guideline F, but did not state a preference for disposition of the 
Guideline J allegations. Department Counsel timely requested a hearing pursuant to 
Paragraph E3.1.7, directive (Transcript at 10; Hearing Exhibit 1) Department Counsel 
was prepared to proceed on October 27, 2010, and the case was assigned to me on 
December 22, 2010. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on January 5, 2011, scheduling 
a hearing for January 20, 2011. I convened the hearing as scheduled. The Government 
offered seven exhibits marked and admitted without objection as Government Exhibits 
(Gov. Ex.) 1 through 7. Applicant and one witness testified. Applicant offered five 
exhibits marked and admitted without objection as Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) A 
through E. I left the record open for Applicant to submit additional documents. Applicant 
timely submitted seven documents marked and received as App. Ex. F through L. 
Department Counsel had no objection to the admission of the documents. (Gov. Ex. 8, 
e-mail, dated February 4, 2011) DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on 
February 4, 2011. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant admitted all of the financial factual allegations and five of the seven 
criminal conduct allegations in the SOR. I included Applicant's admissions in my 
findings of fact. After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make 
the following essential findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is 43 years old and has been employed by a defense contractor as an 
engineering technician for over three years. She was married in October 2001 and 
divorced in June 2003. She has two girls born when she was 19 years old and two boys 
born when she was 22 years old. None of the children live with her. She is a high school 
graduate. This is her first request for eligibility for access to classified information. Her 
monthly net pay is approximately $2,100, with approximately $1,700 in monthly 
expenses, leaving $400 in monthly discretionary funds. She has $4,000 to $5,000 in a 
401K savings account, and is current with her federal and state taxes. (Tr. 11-12, 21-30, 
32-37, 68-70; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated October 1, 2009) 
 
A credit report (Gov. Ex. 7, dated June 29, 2010) shows approximately $20,000 
in 18 delinquent debts for Applicant from vehicle repossessions, breach of a lease, 
utility bills, medical bills, and unpaid phone bills. She admitted the debts both in an 
interview with a security investigator (Gov. Ex. 2, Response to Interrogatories, dated 
June 23, 2010), and in her response to the SOR. Criminal history reports show that from 
1986 until 2009, Applicant was arrested and charged once with assault, twice with 
larceny, three times with criminal domestic violence, and once for fraudulent check. 
(Gov. Ex. 3, Criminal History report, dated October 19, 2009, Gov. Ex. 4, Criminal 
 
3 
 
 
History record, dated October 19, 2009; Gov. Ex. 5, Federal Bureau of Investigation 
Criminal Justice report, dated October 18, 2009; and Gov. Ex. 6, Court Record, 
undated) Applicant admits all of the criminal offenses except for the larceny and the 
fraudulent check under SOR 2.b and SOR 2.f. (Response to SOR) 
 
The $390 debt at SOR 1.a is for a loan Applicant received. The $364 debt at 
SOR 1.b is for Applicant's former husband's telephone bill for which she was a joint 
account holder. The debts at SOR 1.c for $234 and 1.d for $40 are medical debts for 
Applicant's medical care. The $385 debt at SOR 1.e is for unpaid rent for an apartment 
vacated early without payment of the last month's rent by Applicant. The $140 debt at 
SOR 1.f is for unpaid utilities for the apartment. All of these debts are still outstanding. 
(Tr. 44-48)  
 
SOR allegation 1.g is a $4,426 deficiency remaining on a loan after her car was 
repossessed. The $679 debt at SOR 1.h is an unpaid bill for Applicant's personal cell 
phone. The debt at SOR 1.i is for an initial $1,500 personal loan acquired by Applicant 
using a car she paid off as collateral. She made payments on the loan but continued to 
draw funds on the loan so the debt is now over $8,000. Some of the funds from this loan 
were used for debt consolidation. SOR allegation 1.j is a $168 unpaid telephone bill. 
Applicant acknowledged the $71 debt at SOR 1.k but does not recognize the reason for 
the debts. SOR allegation 1.l is a $1,647 debt for another car repossession. SOR 
allegations 1.m for $475 and 1.n for $2,777 are both unpaid personal loans. SOR 
allegation 1.o for $107 and 1.p for $231 are unpaid medical bills. While Applicant did not 
recognize the $92 debt listed at SOR 1.q and the $222 debt at SOR 1.r, she did 
acknowledge they were her debts. (Tr. 48-52) 
 
Applicant was interviewed by a security investigator in November 2009 and 
learned she had financial issues that would affect her eligibility for access to classified 
information. She obtained a copy of her credit report and sought help from friends and 
supervisors to determine the course of action she should take to resolve her credit 
issues. She called the creditors she could identify from the credit report in an attempt to 
establish repayment plans or programs. She received payment offers from some 
creditors but she was unable to make these payments. Most creditors wanted either full 
payment of the debt or larger payments than she could afford. She did not make any 
payments on her debts from the time of her interview until December 2010. (Tr. 37-43) 
After receiving the SOR, Applicant relinquished her car to the finance company in 
December 2010 to gain over $300 in disposable income to apply to her debts. (Tr. 30-
32) 
 
In September 2010, Applicant arranged with a debt consolidation company to 
assist her in paying off and resolving some of her debts. The debts at SOR 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, 
1.h, 1.j, 1.l, 1.o, and 1.p, are listed with the company for payment. (Tr. 52-55, 66-68; 
App. Ex. E, Letter, dated December 27, 2010; App. Ex. L, Letter, dated February 4, 
2011) She pays the company $219 monthly which is debited from her account. She has 
made five payments to the company. (Tr. 55; App. Ex. F, Initial Statement, dated 
September 20, 2010; App. Ex. G, Statement, dated October 20, 2010; App. Ex. H, 
 
4 
 
 
Additional Statement, dated October 20, 2010; App. Ex. I, Statement, dated November 
20, 2010; App. Ex. J, Statement, dated December 20, 2010; and App. Ex. K, Statement, 
dated January 20, 2011)  
 
In January 1986, Applicant was a 19 year old new single mother of twin girls 
without any support and living by herself. One of the girls rolled off a counter and started 
crying and would not stop. Applicant became frustrated and threw the girl against a wall. 
Her daughter received permanent injuries and the twin girls were taken from her. She 
was charged with injury to a child. She had two sons born when she was 22 years old 
that were taken from her. (Tr. 67-69) 
 
Applicant denied a petty larceny charge from November 1988 because she did 
not remember it. The criminal domestic violence charges stem from altercations she 
had with her husband both before and after they were married. In these incidents, she 
was defending herself but used a weapon to do so. She was never ordered to undergo 
anger management counseling or training. Applicant stated that the theft of funds listed 
at SOR 1.f was a case of mistaken identity. The fraudulent check at SOR 1.g was 
caused by her writing a check on her account before the funds she deposited became 
available for withdrawal. She repaid the check as well as a fine and court costs. (Tr. 69-
70, 78-81) 
 
Applicant's supervisor testified that he has held a security clearance for over ten 
years. He has known Applicant for approximately two years. He considers her to be 
reliable, dependable, and very trustworthy. Applicant is the go-to-person in his unit. He 
is due to rate her performance shortly and he would rate her relatively high. Applicant 
takes over for him when he is not in the unit. (Tr. 72-78)  
 
Applicant presented four letters of recommendation. A Coast Guard officer wrote 
that she has known Applicant for over 15 years. Applicant suffered abuse, 
abandonment, and betrayal by her husband who was the officer's relative. Applicant is 
loyal and dependable. It is her opinion that Applicant can be trusted with classified 
information. (App. Ex. A, Letter, undated) Applicant's supervisor wrote that he has 
known Applicant for over three years and considers her a dependable and devoted 
employee. She has excellent integrity and a strong work ethic. (App. Ex. B, Letter, dated 
January 19, 2011) One of Applicant's fellow employees wrote that Applicant is a 
dependable employee who should be granted access to classified information. (App. 
Ex. C, Letter, undated) A quality assurance inspector for Applicant's employer wrote that 
he considers Applicant to be dependable, reliable, hard-working, and honest. (App. Ex. 
D, Letter, undated) 
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
 
5 
 
 
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 to obtain a favorable security decision.  
 
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 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 
 
6 
 
 
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 her 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 her finances in such a way as to meet her financial 
obligations. Applicant admitted, and a credit report confirms, that she has 18 delinquent 
debts totaling over $20,000 which raises a security concern under 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). 
Her finances show 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 do not apply. Applicant has not 
established that her debts were incurred under circumstances unlikely to recur or were 
caused by reasons beyond her control. The debts appear to be incurred by Applicant 
willingly in the normal course of her everyday business affairs. Some debts may have 
been initiated by her former husband but she was also a willing cosigner of the debts. 
Under these circumstances, she could likely incur additional delinquent debt. It is noted 
that she has started to act responsibly towards her finances by contacting her creditors 
and recently establishing a payment plan for some of the debts.  
 
I considered FC MC ¶ 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). This mitigating condition partly applies. While Applicant did not 
affirmatively testify that she received financial counseling, she has commenced a 
payment plan with a credit counseling agency to pay some of her debts. She 
undoubtedly received financial counseling to establish her payment plan. However, it is 
not clear that her financial problems are resolved and under control. 
 
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 
 
7 
 
 
that she paid each and every debt listed. All that is required is that Applicant 
demonstrates an adequate plan to resolve her financial problems and show she has 
taken significant actions to implement that plan. Applicant recently started a debt 
repayment plan with a credit counseling agency. She has made approximately six $219 
monthly payments to the agency under this plan. The plan covers less than half of 
Applicant's delinquent debts and would resolve only about one-third of the total amount 
owed in delinquent debt. While Applicant has sufficient funds to make the payments 
under the payment plan, her actions are only recent and cover only a portion of her 
delinquent debts. These actions do not provide significant and credible information to 
establish a meaningful track record of debt payment and a good-faith effort to repay 
creditors or resolve debt. Her actions at this point do not show she is acting reasonably 
and responsibly to resolve her financial problems. Her continued delinquent debt 
adversely reflects on her trustworthiness, honesty, and good judgment. 
 
Criminal Conduct 
 
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and 
trustworthiness. By its very nature it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness 
to comply with laws, rules, and regulations (AG ¶ 30). Appellant was arrested and 
charged with assault, domestic violence, and larceny seven times from 1986 until 2009. 
These criminal acts raise Criminal Conduct Disqualifying Conditions (CC DC) AG ¶ 
31(a) (a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses), and CC DC AG ¶ 31(c) 
(allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was 
formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted). 
 
Applicant raised by her testimony Criminal Conduct Mitigating Condition (CC MC) 
AG ¶ 32(a) (so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it 
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not 
cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment). Two of the 
offenses happened over 20 years ago in 1986 and 1988. These were unfortunate 
incidents that happened when Applicant was a young single mother trying to raise small 
children without any support. They happened long ago and under unusual 
circumstances. Applicant and her former husband were both equally responsible for the 
three incidents that led to her arrests for criminal domestic violence. These were minor 
criminal offenses, committed over 12 years ago, under the unusual circumstances of 
mutual action by both parties. This type of incident is not likely to happen again. As 
minor offenses, they do not cast doubt on her reliability, trustworthiness, or good 
judgment. While the fraudulent check and petty larceny charges are more recent, 
occurring 11 years and 3 years ago, they have been resolved and are more indicative of 
financial issues than criminal conduct. I find for Applicant under criminal conduct.  
 
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 
 
8 
 
 
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, 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 that Applicant is 
considered a trusted and valued employee who does an excellent job. I consider the 
recommendations of her supervisors and fellow employees that she be granted access 
to classified information. I considered that Applicant's financial problems arose from 
ordinarily incurred debt and not by circumstances beyond her control. While Applicant 
has initiated a plan to repay some of her debts, the plan is only recent and covers only a 
limited part of her delinquent debts. The plan and some payments under the plan do not 
establish a "meaningful track record" of payment of her past-due obligations. Applicant 
did not present sufficient information to show she has now taken the necessary 
reasonable and responsible actions to resolve her financial liability. Applicant's criminal 
actions are mitigated since two were over 20 years ago, the domestic assault charges 
were minor mutually confrontational situations with her then husband, and the larceny 
charges are resolved. Applicant's lack of clear positive action to pay her past financial 
obligations indicate she will not be concerned, responsible, and careful regarding 
classified information. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and 
doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these 
reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated security concerns arising from financial 
considerations and should not be granted access to classified information. She has 
mitigated security concerns based on criminal conduct. 
 
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 - 1.r:  Against Applicant 
 
 
9 
 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline J:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.g:  For 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 eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge