1 Authorized by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), Section E3.1.2.2.
2 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[ NAME REDACTED ] )       ISCR Case No. 09-05406
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard A. Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, Applicant’s
request for a security clearance is granted.
On April 3, 2009, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Sensitive Positions (SF
86) to obtain or renew a security clearance required for his job with a defense
contractor. After reviewing the results of the ensuing background investigation,
adjudicators for the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued to
Applicant two sets of interrogatories1 to clarify or augment information obtained in his
background investigation. After reviewing the results of the background investigation
and Applicant’s responses to the interrogatories, DOHA adjudicators were unable to
make a preliminary affirmative finding2 that it is clearly consistent with the national
3 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. These
guidelines were published in the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006).
Pending official revision of the Directive, they take precedence over the guidelines listed in Enclosure 2 to the
Directive.
2
interest to grant or continue Applicant’s access to classified information. On August 13,
2010, DOHA issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which, if
proven, raise security concerns addressed in the adjudicative guidelines (AG)3 for
financial considerations (Guideline F).
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing. The case was
assigned to me on September 23, 2010. Pursuant to a Notice of Hearing issued on
November 16, 2010, I convened a hearing in this matter on December 9, 2010. The
parties appeared as scheduled. The Government presented six exhibits that were
admitted without objection as Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 6. Applicant testified and
submitted one exhibit that was admitted without objection as Applicant Exhibit (Ax.) A.
(Tr. 30 - 33) He also presented one witness. I left the record open after the hearing so
that Applicant could submit additional relevant information. (Tr. 65 - 66) The record
closed on December 20, 2010, when I received additional information that has been
admitted into the record without objection as Ax. B. DOHA received a transcript (Tr.) of
the hearing on December 28, 2010. 
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owed $20,004 for five
unpaid debts (SOR 1.a - 1.e). Applicant denied with explanation the debt alleged at
SOR 1.a. He admitted with explanation the debts alleged at SOR 1.b - 1.e. Applicant’s
admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. Having reviewed Applicant’s
response to the SOR, the transcript, and exhibits, I make the following additional
findings of relevant fact.
Applicant is 44 years old and is employed by a defense contractor as an
instructor for a company that trains military installation police forces. He served in the
U.S. Marine Corps from September 1985 until September 2005, when he retired with an
honorable discharge as a Gunnery Sergeant (E-7). Most of Applicant’s career in the
Marines was spent in law enforcement and physical security assignments. He held a
security clearance up to Top Secret while on active duty. Applicant’s DD-214 reflects
numerous personal awards and extensive qualifications achieved for his assigned
duties.
Applicant and his wife have been married since September 1990, and he has two
children, ages 22 and 19. They have lived in the same house for nine years. After he left
active duty, Applicant worked as a small engine mechanic until August 2008, when he
was hired by his current employer. 
While Applicant was on active duty, his wife handled their finances without his
help. Applicant trusted her with their finances because she has experience in
accounting. His wife currently works as an office manager. She previously worked for a
4 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).
3
now defunct real estate development company, but lost her job around the time
Applicant retired. Combined with a drastic reduction in his income when he retired, her
loss of income meant they had trouble meeting all of their financial obligations.
Also contributing to Applicant’s financial problems was the way his wife was
managing their finances. Because she had her own poor credit when they married, she
erroneously thought that opening and using more credit accounts would help rebuild her
credit rating. When they lost her income and Applicant retired, many of their accounts
became delinquent. Applicant did not know the true extent of their indebtedness until he
asked his wife for input when he had to answer financial questions on his SF 86 in April
2009. Applicant disclosed therein that he had collection accounts, charge offs, and
debts more than 90 or 180 days delinquent. He learned of more debts when he was
interviewed by a Government investigator on April 30, 2009.
After he was interviewed in April 2009, Applicant and his wife began contacting
their creditors and made arrangements to pay or otherwise resolve all of them. In
response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant provided information that showed he had
paid numerous debts that were not alleged in the SOR. He also provided information
showing that he and his wife had been able to modify their home mortgage to obtain a
lower interest rate and resolve an arrearage they had incurred. Also in response to the
interrogatories, Applicant provided a personal financial statement (PFS) that showed he
and his wife had, as of June 2010, about $4,500 remaining each month after expenses,
which included payment on some of his debts. (Gx. 2)
Of the five debts alleged in the SOR, Applicant only owes four. The debt at SOR
1.a is a duplicate of the debt at SOR 1.c. Therefore, the total debt at issue here is
actually about $17,300. In response to the SOR, Applicant presented information that
showed he had reached agreements with all four creditors to make monthly payments
that would be automatically deducted from his bank account. At the hearing and in his
post-hearing submission, Applicant established that he is, in fact, making the payments
as agreed to with his creditors. (Tr. 47 - 50; Ax. B)
Applicant’s supervisor since August 2008 regards him as thoroughly professional,
reliable, and trustworthy. Applicant is often relied on to run their office in the supervisor’s
absence. In the course of his duties, Applicant is entrusted with sensitive information
about their DoD clients’ missions, and with personal identification information. Applicant
has never failed to meet his obligations at work. Applicant’s supervisor is familiar with
Applicant’s financial difficulties, yet he still enthusiastically recommended Applicant for a
position of trust. (Tr. 34 - 40)
Policies
A security clearance decision is intended to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent with the national interest4 for an applicant to either receive or continue to
have access to classified information. Each decision must be a fair, impartial, and
5 Directive. 6.3.
6 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.
7 See Egan; Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 2(b).
4
commonsense determination based on examination of all available relevant and
material information,5 and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policies
in the adjudicative guidelines. Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors
listed in ¶ 2(a) of the new guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person”
concept, those factors are:
(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. 
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific applicable guidelines should be followed whenever a case
can be measured against them as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or
denial of access to classified information.
The Government bears the initial burden of producing admissible information on
which it based the preliminary decision to deny or revoke a security clearance for an
applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able to prove controverted facts
alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it then falls to the applicant to
refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. Because no one has a “right” to a
security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.6 A person who
has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the
Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government has a compelling
interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or her 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
Financial
The security concern about Applicant’s finances, as stated in AG ¶ 18, is that:
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
5
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.
The Government’s information, as well as Applicant’s admissions in his SF-86, in
response to DOHA interrogatories, and in response to the SOR, established the
allegations at SOR 1.a - 1.e. Credit reports obtained during his background investigation
attributed to Applicant about $20,000 in delinquent or past-due debt for five personal
credit accounts. At hearing, however, it was determined that one of the alleged debts
was a duplicate, thus lowering Applicant’s total indebtedness to about $17,000.
Available information also established that Applicant failed to pay his debts when he and
his wife experienced a loss of income. Also contributing to his past-due debt was his
wife’s misguided, but well-meaning, management of their finances. The debts are still
being repaid or otherwise resolved. Accordingly, the record requires application of the
disqualifying conditions listed at AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts),
and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations).
By contrast, the record supports application of the mitigating conditions at 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 (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); AG ¶
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); and AG
¶20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts). Applicant’s debts became delinquent, in part, due to the unexpected loss
of his wife’s income. But they are now both gainfully employed and have a significant
positive cash flow. In April 2009, four months before the SOR was issued, they began
repaying their creditors through proactive efforts to negotiate with their creditors. The
four debts for which they are still responsible are being repaid in a reliable, systematic
manner. Given Applicant’s increased income and his record of good-faith repayments, it
is not likely he will again experience such financial problems. On balance, Applicant has
mitigated the security concerns about his finances.
Whole-Person Concept
I have evaluated the facts presented and have applied the appropriate
adjudicative factors under Guidelines F. I have also reviewed the record before me in
the context of the whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is 44 years old,
has been married for over 20 years, and honorably served for 20 years in the U.S.
Marine Corps. He and his wife have responded in a mature, responsible way to their
financial problems, which, together with available character testimony, reflects well on
his overall good judgment and reliability. There has been no misconduct here, and
Applicant has provided detailed information about his financial problems and efforts to
resolve them. He previously held a security clearance without incident while in the
military, and it is highly likely that Applicant will continue his efforts to meet his financial
6
obligations or to otherwise resolve them in a responsible way. A fair and commonsense
assessment of all of the available information shows that Applicant has resolved any
doubts about his suitability for access to classified information. 
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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.e: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is clearly consistent with the national interest for
Applicant to have access to classified information. Request for security clearance is
granted.
                                         
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge