1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 )         ISCR Case No. 09-01010
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Krystal M. Limon, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Even though eight of Applicant’s nine accounts became delinquent in a three month
period in 2005, Applicant has done almost nothing to address the listed indebtedness. In
addition, he has suspended his repayment plans until after he receives a decision on his
security clearance. Applicant’s favorable character evidence in the military and at his
current position do not successfully mitigate his financial problems. Eligibility for access to
classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP)(GE 1) on May 30, 2008. On April 30, 2010, DOHA issued a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under financial considerations (Guideline F).
2
The action was 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) implemented by the Department
of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted his answer to the SOR on June 4, 2010. DOHA issued a Notice
of Hearing on September 14, 2010, for a hearing on October 7, 2010. The hearing was held
as scheduled. At the hearing, four exhibits (GE 1 through 4) were admitted in evidence
(without objection) in support of the Government’s case. Applicant testified. His 14 exhibits
(AE A through AE N) were admitted without objection. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.)
on October 15, 2010. The record closed on October 15, 2010. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR alleges security concerns raised under the financial considerations
guideline. The nine financial allegations, which total approximately $87,728, identify eight
credit card account and one medical account. In his Answer, Applicant denied SOR 1.a and
1.b, however, with no documentation from the creditor or one of the credit agencies
showing that the accounts do not belong to him, the two accounts remain his responsibility.
Except for SOR 1.f (medical account), he denied the remaining allegations as being
factually incorrect. Applicant denied SOR 1.h urging that the account belongs to his wife.
(Tr. 52) Without additional documentation supporting his claim regarding this account and
the remaining accounts in the SOR, SOR 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 1.g, 1.h., and 1.i, remain
his responsibility. His claim of satisfying SOR 1.f (medical account) is corroborated by
documentation (AE I; Tr. 50). SOR 1.f is resolved in Applicant’s favor. 
Applicant is 42 years old. He married his wife in August 1998. He has four children
whose ages range from four to ten. Applicant has been working as an avionics technician
at the same job location since October 2006. A new defense contractor assumed the
contract in February 2009. (Tr. 27)
Military and Employment History
Applicant joined the U.S. Air Force in June 1986 after graduating from high school.
He trained in missile maintenance and graduated in June 1987, at the top of his class. He
was granted a security clearance in August 1987. Applicant participated in additional
training to become a master missile technician in 1989. While there, he received a
leadership award in 1990. He also earned 47 hours toward his degree in electronics. He
received an honorable discharge in December 1990. After a few months he entered the Air
National Guard to become an avionics technician. (AE F)
 AE C reflects moving expenses of $3,600 for 2010, but no expenses for 2009. 1
3
Applicant received additional avionics training from June 1992 until February 1993,
and again graduated at the top of his class. After a few months, he found an Air Guard
position and also began working at a security company where he was promoted. Applicant
was selected for additional avionics training which he completed in 1999. He also received
two awards for exemplary scholarship during training. (Id.)
In August 1999, Applicant’s unit was ordered to take mandatory anthrax vaccination.
Applicant suffered a severe reaction to the vaccine, and unsuccessfully sought an
exemption from additional inoculations by the Air National Guard base commander. In
February 2000, the commander allowed Applicant to resign with an honorable discharge.
In February 2000, Applicant began working at a telecommunications company. In
February 2005, he found a job in his field and moved to another location where he worked
as an electrician until September 2005, when he was laid off. In the next three months he
was unemployed, and the listed accounts became delinquent because he did not have the
funds to pay them. (Tr. 75) In November 2005, he resumed employment as an electronics
technician.  
In September 2006, Applicant’s employer sold his business, and Applicant was
unemployed until late October 2006, when he was hired at his present location. In July
2008, Applicant was reassigned by his employer to the current satellite location, where he
earns extra money. (AE F)
Applicant’s Actions to Resolve SOR Accounts
Applicant indicated that when he resumed employment in 2005, he contacted a
financial counseling firm, but stopped his relationship with them after six months. No
additional information was provided. Then, he contacted a debt consolidation firm who,
instead of consolidating his debt, stole his money. (Tr. 90) They were sued by a several
individuals for not delivering unidentified debt consolidation services. (Tr. 77) 
In August and October 2008, Applicant was interviewed by investigators from the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) about his delinquent debt. (Tr. 85) Applicant
attended 13 weeks of financial counseling in 2008 where he learned how to make a budget,
save money, and pay off debts. (AE B; Tr. 77-79) The financial counseling taught him to
pay off one delinquent debt at a time. By the end of 2009, using the saving methodology
for paying delinquent debts provided by the financial counseling, Applicant saved
approximately $5,000 to pay off a debt. He had to use $3,000 to move his family to his
employer’s headquarters.  1
4
Applicant currently has $9,700 to pay one of the listed creditors. (AE H) He has not tried
to settle the listed account because he is afraid he could lose his security clearance. He
stated:
I would have [settled the account], except for the fact that I was afraid that if
I do lose my clearance, that I will immediately lose my job, and I will have no
money for my family to live on. So, I was waiting to find out the decision, and
once I get a decision then I will be able to continue with my original plan. (Tr.
81)
According to one of the financial counseling principles Applicant learned in 2008,
providing food and shelter for the family is the first priority. (Tr. 81). Paying the credit card
debt is last on the list to be addressed, although a budget should leave a remainder to
apply to debt. (Id.)
As the credit bureau reports show, except for SOR 1.f, the listed debts became
delinquent in September 2005. In an effort to raise money to pay off the listed debts and
other unlisted debts, Applicant sold his home in June 2005, but recognized no gain on the
sale. (Tr. 63) Applicant liquidated other possessions, but could not keep the listed accounts
current. (Tr. 40, 75) He indicated, “the combination of losing my wife[”]s income, the
medical bills from her pregnancies, home repairs, and the lack of training on how to live on
a budget, caused me to get behind the curve financially.” (GE 2 at 69)
In attachments to his interrogatory answers dated December 22, 2009, Applicant
provided copies of letters he sent to the SOR creditors and credit agencies between
October and December 2009. In those letters, Applicant requested: (1) proof of the debt,
(2) an audit be conducted on the delinquent debt, and (3) tax documents related to the
account be produced. In other letters to the credit agencies, he requested that the listed
debts be researched to remove any errant entries, and that the applicable statute of
limitations was in effect to make the debts uncollectible, and justifying removal of the debt
from his credit report. Applicant claimed that based on the advice of a debt firm and a
lawyer, he sent the letters to the creditors requesting information “to show that I at least had
attempted to keep up with the debt and not just let it slide.” (Tr. 69) Applicant raised the
statute of limitations so that he could seek a settlement with one creditor and not worry
about being sued by the other listed creditors. (Tr. 82-83)
Character Evidence
Six character statements were furnished in Applicant’s behalf. A coworker since
1993 described Applicant as a self-starter who needed little supervision. (AE A) Witness
E hired Applicant in October 2006. He believes Applicant is a skilled employee who has the
5
expertise to solve problems in an efficient and professional manner. Witness K, who has
been Applicant’s coworker since the Fall of 2006, considers Applicant a diligent worker.
Witness L has known Applicant since July 2008. In view of Applicant’s outstanding job
performance, Witness L does not see why his financial issues should hinder his chances
of receiving a security clearance. Witness M has known Applicant since July 2008, and
believes he will do what is necessary to ensure the job is performed correctly. Applicant
received a letter of commendation for eliminating an unsafe situation at his work station.
(AE N; Tr. 26)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the administrative
judge must consider the AG. Each guideline lists potentially disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions, which are required to be used to the extent they apply in evaluating
an applicant's eligibility for access to classified information.
The administrative judge's ultimate goal is to reach a fair and impartial decision that
is based on common sense. The decision should also include a careful, thorough
evaluation of a number of variables known as the whole-person concept that brings
together all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable, in making a decision. 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
about the potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14., the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.l5., 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 for obtaining a favorable security decision.
Analysis
Financial Considerations 
The security concern for financial considerations is set forth in AG ¶ 18:
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
6
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.
There are two disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 that may apply:
AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and 
AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations). 
In approximately September 2005, Applicant was unable to maintain a current
payment status on eight of nine debts, and they became delinquent. An SOR listing the
nine accounts totaling $87,728, was mailed to Applicant on April 30, 2010. The total
indebtedness is reduced by $53 with the documented satisfaction of SOR 1.f in May 2008.
At the present time, Applicant still owes $87,675 to eight creditors. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c)
apply.
Five conditions under AG ¶ 20 could potentially mitigate Applicant’s delinquent
indebtedness: 
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); 
AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person’s control, and the person acted responsibly under the
circumstances); 
AG ¶ 20(c) (the persona has received counseling for the problem and/or
there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under
control);
AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts); and
AG ¶ 20(e) (the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy
of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence to resolve the issue).
7
AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply. Though the financial problems occurred more than five
years ago, the number of delinquent credit card accounts occurred under circumstances
that could recur. Resolving only one small debt in five years continues to raise uncertainty
about whether Applicant is truly committed to resolving the remaining debts. This doubt is
aggravated by Applicant’s conditional position of addressing the debts after he receives a
decision regarding his security clearance. 
AG ¶ 20(b) is partially applicable. Applicant’s financial stability was strained by his
unemployment for different periods in 2005 and 2006. However, he has been working full
time at his present job since October 2006, and has not acted responsibly in that time to
address the listed accounts. In addition, Applicant has provided inconsistent positions about
his intentions of repaying the debts. The documentation he sent out to the creditors and
collection agencies between October and December 2009 provides a strong suggestion
he was doing more than simply letting the creditors know he was monitoring the debt while
seeking information about the accuracy of the delinquent accounts. 
Because there are no clear indications that Applicant’s financial problems are under
control, AG ¶ 20(c) has minimal applicability to Applicant’s case in mitigation. He testified
persuasively about the positive impact that the 13-week financial counseling had on his
financial practices. He created a budget and started a savings account. But while he claims
the financial counseling enabled him to structure a plan to repay the delinquent debts, the
only debt resolved is SOR 1.f, which was satisfied in May 2008. On balance, Applicant’s
successful completion of the financial counseling entitles him to minimal mitigation under
AG ¶ 20(c).
Except for SOR 1.f, the record fails to show a good-faith effort by Applicant to repay
the listed delinquent accounts. Applicant’s saving of money in a savings account and his
conditional willingness to repay his delinquent debt does not qualify as a good-faith effort
to repay overdue creditors. AG ¶ 20(d) does not apply.
Applicant filed several letters to the listed creditors and credit agencies. There is no
evidence from any of the credit agencies that the disputed debts were removed from
Applicant’s credit report because the accounts were not his responsibility. The fact that
most of the listed creditors do not appear on his updated credit report September 29, 2010,
does not mean he no longer owes the underlying debt. AG 20(e) does not apply.
Applicant’s favorable job performance evidence, and his evidence in mitigation under AG
¶¶ 20(b) and 20(c) does not overcome the adverse evidence under AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c).
Whole-Person Concept 
In evaluating Applicant’s security clearance worthiness, I have examined the
evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of the financial guideline. I have
8
also weighed the circumstances within the context of nine variables known as the whole-
person concept. In evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the administrative
judge should consider the following factors:
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 the participation was 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.
The record reflects that Applicant joined the Air Force in 1986 right after high school.
In June 1987, he graduated at the top in his class in missile maintenance. He attended
additional training to become a master missile technician in 1989, and received a coveted
leadership award while earning 47 hours in electronics. After a few months away from the
service, he joined the Air National Guard to become an avionics technician. He completed
additional avionics training in 1992, and received awards for his training performance in
1999. In February 2000, Applicant received an honorable discharge from the Air National
Guard. Between 2000 and February 2005, he worked for a telecommunications company
before returning to his field of avionics. However, until October 2006, the jobs were short-
lived and there were periods of unemployment. 
The listed accounts in the SOR were caused by up to three months of
unemployment in September 2005. He maintains he simply ran out of money and could not
repay the debt. 
Applicant has been employed consistently since October 2006. He was placed on
notice in August and October 2008 that his debts were a security concern to the
Government. The second notification by the Government came in December 2009 when
Applicant was asked what specific action he had taken with respect to the individual
accounts listed in the SOR. The documentation Applicant provided in response to the
interrogatories does not show an effort to repay the debts. Rather, it suggests Applicant
was demanding the debts be removed because of the relevant statute of limitations. 
At the hearing, Applicant’s position is that he is not going to pay the debts until he
gets decision on his security clearance. Applicant’s understanding of the security clearance
hearing process demonstrates poor judgment. Under the Directive, the purpose of the
hearing is to determine whether an applicant has the qualifications to possess a security
clearance. Demonstrating qualifications under the financial guideline includes corroborating
evidence demonstrating that an applicant has taken credible steps to restore control over
9
his financial delinquencies. Applicant knew about the delinquent debt in 2005 when he
engaged a debt firm to address the indebtedness. He was advised by the Government in
August and October 2008, and December 2009, that his delinquent debts were a security
concern to the Government. Applicant’s limited efforts to satisfy the delinquent accounts
and favorable character evidence are not sufficient to mitigate the negative evidence under
the financial guideline.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant access to classified information.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge