DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: 
 ) 
            ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 10-00855 
 ) 
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 pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access 
to classified information is denied.  
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On August 21, 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 
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 October 8, 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 
 
1 
 
 
 
2 
 
 
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 October 20, 2010. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on October 27, 2010. He denied all factual 
allegations under both Guideline F and Guideline J. He requested a hearing on the 
matter. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on December 28, 2010, and the 
case was assigned to me on February 10, 2011. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on 
February 15, 2011, scheduling a hearing for March 8, 2011. I convened the hearing as 
scheduled. The Government offered eight exhibits that I marked and admitted without 
objection as Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1 through 8. Applicant testified on his 
behalf. Applicant offered four exhibits that I marked and admitted without objection as 
Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) A through D. I left the record open for Applicant to submit 
additional documents. Applicant timely submitted 15 additional documents I marked and 
admitted as Applicant Exhibits E through S. Department Counsel had no objection to 
the admission of the documents. (Gov. Ex. 9 and 10, dated March 22 and May 11, 
2011) DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on March 16, 2011. 
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant was employed by a defense contractor until January 7, 2011, when he 
was laid-off. (Hearing Exhibit 1, JPAS, dated February 4, 2011). Department Counsel 
discussed Applicant's separation with the facility security officer and determined that 
Applicant will be rehired by the defense contractor if he is determined to be eligible for 
access to classified information. I find that there is jurisdiction to determine Applicant's 
eligibility for access to classified information. (Tr. 29-32; Hearing Exhibit 2, JPAS Entry, 
dated March 4, 2011) 
 
 Department Counsel moved to dismiss SOR allegation 1.h because it was a 
duplicate of the debt listed at SOR 1.g. the motion was granted. (Tr. 70-71) 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is a 43-year- old aircraft technician. He is a high school graduate who 
attended and completed an aircraft mechanics program at a technical school from 1985 
to 1987. He was first married in 1988 and divorced in 1995. He married for the second 
time in 1996. He has four biological children and two step-children. Two of the children 
live with him and his wife. He is not required to provide child support to any of the 
children since the children either have aged out of the child support system or live with 
him and his wife. However, he presently provides some support to his children. 
Applicant's work record shows that he has been continuously employed in various jobs 
in aircraft maintenance since at least 1998. He did have short periods of time as he 
 
3 
 
 
transitioned from one position to another where he may not have been paid. He also 
missed approximately two months of work in December 2006/January 2007 when he 
was jailed on the failure to pay child support charge. (Tr. 12-14, 32-34; Gov. Ex. 1, e-
QIP, dated August 21, 2009; App. Ex. J, Bill, dated June 19, 2009; App. Ex. O, 
Employment Agreement, dated February 7, 2007) Applicant was separated by his 
employer in January 2011 because the company did not have sufficient work to keep 
him employed. His source of income now is $330 weekly in unemployment benefits for 
a monthly total of $1,320. His wife is also unemployed and she receives a similar 
amount in unemployment benefits. (Tr. 26-28; App. Ex. B, Unemployment 
Determination, dated January 21, 2011) 
 
Credit reports (Gov. Ex. 7, dated September 12, 2009; and Gov. Ex. 8, dated 
August 3, 2010) show Applicant filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in September 2003 that 
was dismissed in September 2004 (SOR 1.a). He filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 
September 2004 that was dismissed in April 2008 (SOR 1.b). He filed another Chapter 
13 bankruptcy in May 2008 that was dismissed in July 2008 (SOR 1.c). Also listed are 
collection accounts of $1,025 for a cell phone (SOR 1.d), $253 for a credit card (SOR 
1.e), $538 for another credit card (SOR 1.g), another account for $1,025 (SOR 1.h); and 
a mortgage account past due for $19,851 and in foreclosure with a loan balance of 
$155,00; and an account past due more than 120 days in the amount of $13,504 from a 
car repossession. (SOR 1.i) The total amount of the debt not including the mortgage 
debt is approximately $16,000. A criminal record review shows Applicant was convicted 
of and on probation until August 2012 for failure to pay child support. (SOR 2.a)  
 
In 1998, Applicant established child support payments of $360 monthly with the 
state where he then resided so he could see his two children still living with his former 
wife. He made the payments to the state until he moved to his present location for work 
purposes in 1999. After the move, he did not immediately find employment. After finding 
employment, he did not make payments to the state but did send his former wife 
between $100 and $600 monthly whenever he could that he considered child support. 
Since he did not send the funds to the state, the state did not consider that he paid child 
support and assessed an arrearage of child support payments. In 1999, the original 
state garnished his pay for child support arrearage payments. (Tr. 34-44)  
 
In December 2006, Applicant was subsequently arrested in the state where he 
was employed on a felony criminal warrant and returned to his original state because of 
his failure to pay child support. In February 2007, the charges were reduced to a 
misdemeanor and Applicant was convicted of failure to pay child support and placed on 
probation until the child support arrears were paid. Applicant was never listed with a 
felony conviction on court records. Applicant's child support case was considered a 
misdemeanor crime. After his conviction, Applicant made child support payments when 
employed by payroll deduction. He completed paying the child support arrears, and his 
probation was terminated earlier than required on April 21, 2011. (Tr. 62-70; App. Ex. E 
through S, various dates) 
 
 
4 
 
 
Applicant filed Chapter 13 bankruptcy petitions in 2003, 2004, and 2008 to 
prevent foreclosure of his house (SOR 1.a, SOR 1.b, and SOR 1.c). The first action was 
filed on August 4, 2003, and dismissed on September 10, 2004 by order of the trustee 
because the Applicant failed to comply with the regularly required monthly payments, 
paying only $2,769.30 of the required $4,061.64. The trustee used the funds paid by 
Applicant to make some payments to Applicant's creditors. (Gov. Ex. 5, dated 
September 20, 2004) The second action was filed on September 24, 2004, and 
dismissed on April 18, 2008 on motion of the trustee for Applicant's failure to make the 
required payments under the plan resulting in plan delinquency. Applicant should have 
paid $12,701.60 to the plan but paid only $11,316.98. The trustee used the funds to pay 
some of the creditors, including mortgage payments. (Gov. Ex. 6, dated June 27, 2008) 
The third action was filed on May 5, 2008, and dismissed on July 24, 2008 for failure of 
Applicant to fund the plan. Applicant made no payments to the plan. (Gov. Ex. 4, Dated 
September 30, 2008) In the first two actions, Applicant made some payments under the 
wage earner plans but stopped when he was not employed. As noted above, Applicant's 
work record does not show any extensive periods of unemployment. Applicant permitted 
the third filings to be dismissed because he did not consider the bankruptcy action to be 
in his best interest since he had child support and other expenses and could not afford 
the payments on the wage earners plan. (Tr. 44-46)  
 
Applicant is past due on his mortgage about $35,000 (SOR 1.f). He purchased 
the house in April 2002 for $149,000. His original monthly mortgage payment was 
$1,200 but was adjusted to $1,400 monthly to cover arrears. In the last two years he 
has been unable to make over 20 of the payments leading to the past due amount. He 
requested a readjustment of the mortgage but it was denied. (Tr. 46-50: App. Ex. C, 
letter, dated February 21, 2011; App. Ex. D, letter, dated January 6, 2011) He sought 
financial counseling to assist with his mortgage issues from a community outreach 
program. (App. Ex. A, Letter, da4teed February 18, 2011) 
 
Applicant had a telephone account with Sprint in 2009, but he no longer has an 
account with them (SOR 1.d). His wife paid the bills so he is unsure if there was a debt 
to Sprint of approximately $1,025 when he stopped the account. Applicant has not taken 
any action to inquire about or pay the debt. (Tr. 50-54)  
 
Applicant denies knowledge of the $253 collection account under SOR 1.e. He 
has not made inquires concerning this debt. (Tr. 54, 60-61) He acknowledges he had a 
credit card with the creditor for the $538 collection account at SOR 1.g. When he 
opened the account, it had a maximum credit of $300. He cancelled the card without 
using it because of the high interest rate. Applicant stated that he disputed the debt but 
he produced no information to substantiate the dispute. (Tr. 54-56) The debt at SOR 1.i 
concerns the remaining debt from a car repossession. Applicant believes the debt was 
paid under his 2003 bankruptcy filing. Bankruptcy documents show that no payments 
were made to the creditor for the repossessed car. Applicant now understands that 
there have been no payments on the car repossession debt. (Tr. 56-60)  
 
 
 
5 
 
 
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.  
 
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 about 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, 
 
6 
 
 
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 he is required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his 
financial obligations. The delinquent debts established by credit reports 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). 
Applicant incurred delinquent child support debt in 2006, late mortgage payments as 
early as 2002, and credit card debt as early as 2007. Only the child support debt has 
been resolved. He has not inquired about the status of many of his debts. The 
delinquent debts indicate a history of both an inability and 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 incurred 
delinquent debt starting in 2006. While the debts were incurred some time ago, they 
have not been paid, except for child support arrears, and are still outstanding. Applicant 
filed three bankruptcy actions, but did not complete any because of his failure to keep 
current with the payments to the wage earners plan, His failure to complete the 
bankruptcies, coupled with his repeated filings shows unreasonable and irresponsible 
financial actions casting doubt on Applicant's current reliability, trustworthiness, and 
good judgment. While Applicant claims to have incurred debt because of layoffs, his 
employment record shows continuous employment until January 2011. Applicant has 
not presented any information to show that the debts were incurred by circumstances 
beyond his control. Applicant did not present information to establish he took consistent, 
reasonable, responsible, and concerted action to pay or resolve his debts. He has not 
established a nexus between any periods of no or limited pay and a failure to inquire 
about the status of debts or make payments. He was placed on probation until child 
support arrears were satisfied after a misdemeanor conviction for failure to pay child 
support. This is the only debt he satisfied. His failure to act reasonably and responsibly 
 
7 
 
 
concerning his finances indicates that his financial problems are likely to recur and will 
continue to be a security concern.  
 
 I considered FC MC 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). This mitigating condition does not apply. Appellant 
received the required financial counseling when he filed his bankruptcy petitions. He 
also indicated he received financial counseling from a community outreach program in 
an attempt to modify his mortgage. However, there is no clear indication that the 
financial problems are being resolved or 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. Good-faith 
means acting in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence 
to duty or obligation. A "meaningful track record" of debt payment is evidence of actual 
debt reduction through payment of debts. A promise to pay debts in the future is not 
evidence of a good-faith intention to resolve debts. All that is required is a plan to 
resolve financial problems coupled with significant action to implement that plan. An 
applicant is not required to establish that he paid each and every debt listed.  
 
 Applicant provided sufficient information to establish that he paid and satisfied his 
delinquent child support. He presented no information to show payments of his other 
debts. He attempted to use the bankruptcy system three times to assist him in resolving 
debts. While bankruptcy is a legal and permissible means of resolving debt, he never 
completed any of the three bankruptcies. Only in one instance did he make a 
reasonable effort to make payments to the wage earners plan. He did make some 
payments on his mortgage but has not made payments in over two years and he is in 
arrears over $35,000. Applicant has not verified other payments on his debts or shown 
that he has a plan to resolve the debts. His lack of reasonable and responsible action to 
resolve debt shows a lack of good-faith effort to pay creditors or resolve debt. His 
delinquent debts and his failure to provide information concerning his efforts to resolve 
them reflect adversely on his trustworthiness, honesty, and good judgment. 
 
I considered FC MC ¶ 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 of 
actions to resolve the issue). Applicant indicated he disputed at least two debts. 
However, he presented no documented evidence showing he filed disputes with the 
creditors or the credit reporting agencies.  
 
 
 
 
 
8 
 
 
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 
convicted of failure to pay child support in December 2006. This criminal conviction 
raises 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). 
 
I considered Criminal Conduct Mitigating Conditions (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), and CC MC ¶ 32(d) (there is 
evidence of successful rehabilitation, including but not limited to the passage of time 
without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or restitution, job training or higher 
education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement). Applicant 
was paying child support to his original state. When he moved, he made payments to 
his wife rather than the state. The state did not consider the payments child support, 
assessed arrears, and convicted him of a misdemeanor failure to pay child support. 
Applicant was placed on probation until he completed paying the arrears. He completed 
the payments in April 2011, a year before required and was released from probation 
early. Applicant's conviction happened under the unusual circumstances of not receiving 
credit for child support payments. He completed payment of the arrears and was 
released from probation. The children are now grown and child support is no longer 
required. The offense will not recur. Applicant established rehabilitation by payment of 
the arrears. 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 
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. 
 
 
9 
 
 
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 paid his 
child support arrears and has been released from probation. Applicant's financial 
problems were well within his efforts to control. He was employed most of the time and 
seems to have sufficient funds to pay his debts. He filed three bankruptcy actions. He 
made a reasonable attempt to complete only one bankruptcy plan (SOR 1.b). The other 
two he failed to make payments to the wage earners plan. Applicant has other 
delinquent debts that he did not pay or even make inquires concerning them. He did not 
establish a connection between lack of pay and his inability to resolve the debts. While 
he indicated some debts were disputed, and was provided an opportunity to present 
documentation to support his disputes, he failed to provide the information. Applicant's 
failure to act to resolve and pay debts shows he will not be reasonable and responsible 
in safeguarding classified information. The lack of proper management of his finances 
indicates he will not be concerned, responsible, and careful regarding classified 
information. Overall, the record evidence at this time leaves me with questions and 
doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. I conclude that 
Applicant has not mitigated security concerns arising from his finances, and he should 
not 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:   AGAINT APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:   Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.b:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraphs 1.c -1.g:  Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.h:   Withdrawn 
  Subparagraph 1.i:   Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline J:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a:   For Applicant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
10 
 
 
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