Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government’s exhibits (GE) 1-7, and Applicant’s exhibits (AE) A-M. AE M1
was timely received post-hearing.
DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February2
20, 1960), 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. 09–06567
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., 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 9 September 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 7 December 2010, and I convened a hearing 5 January
2011. DOHA received the transcript 13 January 2011.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted SOR allegations 1.a-c and o. She denied the remaining
allegations. She is a 41-year-old management analyst employed by a defense
contractor since May 2008. She was unemployed from April 2003 to May 2003 and from
April 2005 to May 2005. Otherwise, she has been employed full time since January
1999. She makes $60,000 per year. She also works a second job to make ends meet.
She seeks to retain the clearance she has held since about 1994.
Applicant is the never-married mother of two children, ages 18 (son) and 13
(daughter). Her son’s father was murdered in late May 2008. He had been paying $500
monthly child support, but those payments were replaced—beginning the end of 2008—
by $1,500 monthly social security payments, which end in June 2011. Her daughter’s
father is supposed to pay $710 per month, but rarely does so and is thousands of
dollars behind in his payments. Enforcement action has been sporadic.
Applicant filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy protection in May 2000 and was
discharged of her dischargeable debt in September 2000 (SOR 1.a.). She had cosigned
a loan for her father and when he defaulted on his payments, the lender garnished her
wages, rendering her unable to pay her rent. The amount of debt discharged was about
$4,000.
The SOR additionally alleges, and Government exhibits (GE 5-6) substantiate,
19 delinquent debts totaling over $68,000. Applicant admits three delinquent debts,
totaling nearly $15,000. One of those debts—a nearly-$9,000 medical bill for a tummy
tuck in 2006 (SOR 1.o)—is duplicated at SOR 1.d and 1.p, now found for Applicant.
Applicant’s April 2009 clearance application (GE 1) disclosed a number of
delinquent debts, which she largely confirmed during her interview with a government
investigator in June 2009 (GE 2). She attributed her financial problems to the murder of
her son’s father in May 2008. However, several of her debts were delinquent before that
date. In November 2009, Applicant provided proof that she had paid a number of
delinquent debts that were not alleged in the SOR (GE 2).
Applicant paid SOR debt 1.b ($189) in December 2010 (AE A). She settled SOR
debt 1.c—a $5,500 deficiency on a March 2010 automobile repossession—for thirty
cents on the dollar in December 2010 (AE B).
The eight SOR debts at 1.e-l are educational loans that fell delinquent in 2007
and 2008, and were rehabilitated in January 2010 by Applicant paying $200 monthly for
nine months (AE D). In June 2010, Applicant obtained a four-month temporary hardship
forbearance (AE E). In January 2011, she obtained another temporary hardship
forbearance covering the year from October 2010 to October 2011 (AE M). The eight
educational loans—obtained in 1996, 2004, and 2005—total over $43,000. Applicant
has not yet obtained her degree and expects to borrow more money to complete her
undergraduate degree in business management. 
3
 Applicant claimed she had paid SOR debt 1.m ($107) five years ago. However,
she discovered that she had a second account with the creditor. She paid the account in
full in January 2011 (AE M). She disputed SOR debt 1.n ($92) and the account is being
removed from her credit report (AE F). The medical bill for Applicant’s tummy tuck (SOR
1.o, $8,954) has been in collection by several collection agents. Applicant reached an
agreement with one collection agent to pay $150 per month. Her records (AE M) show
that she made regular payments (but not regular amounts) from May 2006 to April 2007
and then made payments in February and March 2008. The loan was sold to another
collection agent and Applicant has made regular $150 monthly payments from October
2009 to December 2010 (AE C, M). However, it appears that more than half of each
monthly payment goes to pay interest, which continues to accrue.
In December 2009, Applicant reached an agreement to pay approximately $200
on SOR debt 1.q ($641) in January 2010 (AE G). Applicant did not make that payment
because the creditor offered to accept a lump-sum settlement of 50% of the balance
due in January 2010. Applicant paid the debt in April 2010. In December 2010, the
same creditor offered Applicant the same 50% discount on SOR debt 1.r ($230) and
she paid the debt the day before the hearing (AE H). Applicant paid SOR debt 1.s ($65)
in January 2011 (AE M). Applicant paid SOR debt 1.t ($565) in November 2009 (AE I).
Applicant claimed (Tr. 44) that she has a budget, but did not provide a copy. She
has not had any financial counseling because she did not want anyone else involved in
her financial affairs (Tr. 81). Applicant provided no work or character references.
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,
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
¶19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; ( c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;4
¶20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that5
it is unlikely to recur . . . 
¶20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and6
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶20.(c)  the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications7
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.8
4
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.3
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not fully mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has a history of financial
difficulties and financial irresponsibility going back several years.  Although she has4
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 considerable help to
Applicant, although not enough to fully mitigate the security concerns. Her financial
difficulties are both recent and multiple, and not apparently due to unusual
circumstances not likely to recur.  Similarly, the murder of her son’s father was a5
circumstance beyond her control, but the murder did not precipitate Applicant’s financial
problems, particularly where the $500 monthly child support was replaced within six
months by $1,500 social security payments. Applicant would have been made whole
within three months of the social security payments.
Applicant’s efforts to address her debts have been mixed, although she has
largely acted responsibly in addressing her debts.  However, the debts at SOR 1.b, 1.c,6
1.r, and1.s were not resolved until around the time of the hearing. Applicant has
received no financial counseling, nor has she produced a budget that demonstrates how
her finances—arguably stable at the time of the hearing—will remain stable in the face
of two assured events in 2011.  Applicant’s income will decline $1,500 monthly when7
her son’s social security payments end in June 2011. In addition, Applicant will either
have to resume payments on her educational loans in October 2011 or she will be
taking on even more educational debt as she finishes her degree.
The payments Applicant has made have largely been timely and in good faith,8
but the two financial events on the horizon demonstrate just how much her finances
5
remain unsettled. Put another way, while Applicant has made substantial progress
resolving her debts, she has not established a clear track record that suggests her
financial problems will not recur. I resolve Guideline F against Applicant. Assessment of
the whole-person factors yields no different result.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a–c: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs d and o: For Applicant (duplicates)
Subparagraphs e–l: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs m-q.: For Applicant
Subparagraphs r–s: Against Applicant
Subparagraph t: For 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