1 
 
 
                                                      
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
      
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
                                                                      ) 
        )    ISCR Case No. 09-08119 
                                                                      )                                                 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
 
  
Appearances 
 
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
ANTHONY, Joan Caton, Administrative Judge: 
 
 After a thorough review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, I conclude that 
Applicant failed to rebut or mitigate the Government’s security concerns under Guideline 
F, Financial Considerations. His eligibility for a security clearance is denied. 
 
                                                      Statement of Case 
 
Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing 
(e-QIP) on May 7, 2009. On September 24, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security 
concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. DOHA acted 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 Defense for SORs 
issued after September 1, 2006.  
 
2 
 
 
                                           
 Applicant submitted an answer to the SOR on November 20, 2010. He declined a 
hearing and requested that his case be adjudicated on the written record. The 
Government compiled its File of Relevant Material (FORM) on February 17, 2011. The 
FORM contained documents identified as Items 1 through 9. By letter dated February 
23, 2011, DOHA forwarded a copy of the FORM to Applicant, with instructions to submit 
any additional information or objections within 30 days of receipt. Applicant received the 
file on March 8, 2011. His response was due on April 7, 2011. Applicant did not submit 
any information within the required time period. On April 27, 2011, the case was 
assigned to me for a decision.   
 
                                                      Findings of Fact 
 
 The SOR contains 14 allegations raising security concerns under AG F, Financial 
Considerations (SOR ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.n.). The allegations recite financial 
delinquencies totalling approximately $22,811. In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant 
admitted the allegations at SOR ¶¶ 1.b., 1.c., 1.e., 1.g., 1.i., 1.j., 1.k., 1.l., and 1.m. He 
denied the allegations at SOR ¶¶ 1.a., 1.d., 1.f., 1.h., and 1.n. Applicant’s admissions 
are entered as findings of fact.  (Item 1; Item 2.) 
 
 Applicant is 50 years old and a high school graduate. As an independent 
contractor, he hauls freight for a government contractor. Applicant and his wife, also an 
independent contractor truck driver, work together as a team. Applicant was first 
awarded a security clearance in 1979, when he served in the U.S. military. (Item 2; Item 
4.) 
 
 Applicant was married for the first time in 1980. He and his first wife divorced in 
1991. Applicant married his second wife in 1992. Applicant is the father of five children 
from his first marriage, and he is the stepfather of four children from his second 
marriage. (Item 4.) 
 
 The facts in this case are established by the record provided by the Government 
and by information provided by Applicant. The record evidence includes Applicant’s May 
7, 2009 e-QIP; official investigation and agency records; Applicant’s responses to 
DOHA interrogatories; and Applicant’s credit reports of August 1, 2009, April 8, 2010, 
April 26, 2010, and January 27, 2011. (Items 4 through 9.) 
 
 On his e-QIP, Applicant reported that from November 1991 to January 2001, he 
worked as an electrician for a local government. Applicant was interviewed by an 
authorized investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on 
August 18, 2009.1 He told the investigator that he had surgery in 1999, which resulted in 
medical costs to him of $12,000. In the interview, he also stated he had several 
thousand dollars in medical expenses in 2007. Applicant stated that he paid some of his 
 
1 In response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant indicated that the investigator’s report accurately 
reflected the information he provided during his personal subject interview. (Item 5 at 29.)  
 
 
3 
 
 
                                           
past medical bills, but acknowledged that delinquent medical bills alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1. 
g. and 1.k. remained unsatisfied.2 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant also admitted 
that medical debts alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.b., 1.c., 1.e., 1.i., 1.j., 1.l., and 1.m. remained 
unsatisfied.3 In response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant stated that he would pay 
his delinquent medical bills when he was able to do so, but “right now keeping our 
home, utilities, and food are priority.” (Item 4 at 20-21; Item 5 at 61-62.) 
 
 Applicant told the investigator that from January 2001 until December 2007, he 
and his wife worked for a company that sold exotic birds. Applicant drove a truck for the 
company and delivered exotic birds to various locations around the United States. 
When the owner sold the company in 2007, Applicant and his wife learned that the new 
owner intended to cancel their health insurance. (Item 2; Item 5.) 
 
 Applicant and his wife left the exotic bird company in about May 2008. He 
enrolled in truck driving school, and he acquired a truck driving job with another 
company. However, he was terminated from the company in December 2008 for 
violating company policy. Applicant then found work with still another company, where 
he worked for approximately two months and was paid by the load. The owner of that 
company terminated Applicant over a disagreement over a repair to the vehicle that 
Applicant drove. Applicant then found work as a long-distance truck driver with his 
current employer. (Item 2; Item 5.)  
 
 Applicant’s employment problems made it difficult for him to pay his bills and 
meet his financial obligations. Applicant observed that he and his family have always 
lived paycheck to paycheck, “and probably always will.” In February 2009, his personal 
truck was repossessed. Applicant estimated that the balance owed on the vehicle at the 
time of repossession was approximately $22,000. He also estimated that he was 
$12,000 past due on the debt. The debt resulting from the vehicle repossession is 
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f. Applicant denied the debt and asserted that he was paying $100 a 
month to the creditor. He provided a copy of a stipulation for payment with final 
judgment upon default by which he agreed to remit $100 a month to the creditor, 
beginning December 10, 2009, to satisfy the debt. He also provided documentation 
showing that he had made the required payments in January and February 2010. 
Applicant’s credit report of April 2010 shows the $11,041 debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.f. as a 
charged-off account. Applicant provided no other evidence of consistent payment after 
February 2010. (Item 2 at 6; Item 5; Item 8.)    
 
 Applicant told the authorized investigator that beginning in 1995, he took 
prescription medication to manage his depression and anger. Between 1995 and May 
2009, he took the prescription drug Effexor XR. Since 2009, he takes the prescription 
 
2 Applicant’s credit reports reveal that the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.l. is a duplicate of the debt alleged at ¶ 
1.g.  (Item 6; Item 8; Item 9.) 
 
3 Applicant’s credit reports established that the allegation at SOR ¶ 1.j was a duplication of the allegation 
at SOR ¶ 1.e. and the allegation at SOR ¶ 1.i. was a duplication of the allegation at SOR ¶ 1.c.  (Item 6; 
Item 8; Item 9.) 
 
4 
 
 
drug Prozac. His wife, who works with him, also takes Prozac for depression. In 
response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant confirmed his use of Prozac and denied 
any mental health counseling. (Item 5 at 2-6, 63-64.)  
 
 Applicant denied a $2,137 debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.a. The debt is listed as 
unpaid on his credit report of April 26, 2010. Applicant provided documentation 
confirming that he owed the debt and had made two $100 payments to the creditor, one 
in January 2010 and one in February 2010. He also provided a hand-written note stating 
that he had authorized an automatic monthly deduction of $100 to satisfy this debt, and 
the account was up-to-date. However, he failed to provide documentation corroborating 
the automatic monthly deductions or the current status of the account. (Item 2; Item 5 at 
18-19, 23, 27.) 
 
 Applicant denied SOR ¶ 1.d., a $394 delinquent debt to a communications 
company. He claimed the debt was not his but was his son’s responsibility. He also 
claimed to have disputed the debt with credit reporting agencies. However, he failed to 
provide documentation to corroborate his statements that that the debt was not his and 
that he had disputed the debt. Additionally, the debt appears as unpaid on Applicant’s 
credit bureau reports of August 1, 2009, April 8, 2010, April 26, 2010, and January 27, 
2011. (Item 2; Item 5 at 8; Item 6; Item 7; Item 8; Item 9.) 
 
 Applicant also denied SOR ¶ 1.h., which alleged that he was 120 days past due 
on a mortgage account of $4,000, and the debt remained unpaid as of September 24, 
2010. Applicant provided documentation showing that he had made two payments on 
the mortgage, one in February 2010 and one in March 2010. Additionally, Applicant’s 
credit bureau report of April 8, 2010 reported that he was paying the mortgage under a 
partial or modified payment agreement. (Item 2; Item 5 at 9-10, 22, 25; Item 7.) 
 
 Applicant denied SOR ¶ 1.n., which alleged that he owed a creditor $1,943 on a 
delinquent debt that remained unpaid as of September 24, 2010. Applicant provided 
documentation, dated November 27, 2009, showing a payment agreement with the 
creditor of $50 a month until the debt was satisfied. The creditor further stated that as of 
November 27, 2009, the account was current. Applicant provided a copy of his bank 
statement showing payments to the creditor of $50 in January 2010 and February 2010. 
He provided no other documentation showing the current status of the debt. (Item 2; 
Item 5 at 21, 23, 27.) 
 
 Applicant acknowledged that as an independent contractor, he was required to 
file federal income taxes on his income. His pay stubs confirmed that his employer did 
not deduct federal income taxes from his net pay.  (Item 5 at 50-55.) 
 
   When he was interviewed by the OPM investigator in August 2009, Applicant 
reported that he and his wife had a monthly income of $2,796. He reported monthly 
expenses of $1,804. His monthly debt payments total $1,231 and include a first 
mortgage payment of $744 and a second mortgage payment of $269. Additionally, 
Applicant paid $159 each month on credit card debt and $59 on a personal loan. At the 
 
5 
 
 
end of the month, after paying his fixed expenses, his two mortgages, and his credit 
card and personal loan debts, Applicant had a negative net remainder of $239. (Item 5 
at 62-63.)  
  
 In response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant provided a personal financial 
statement. He reported that he and his wife had a net monthly income of $4,238. He 
reported the following fixed monthly expenses: groceries, $800; clothing, $100; utilities, 
$700; car expense, $100; life and other insurance, $488; medical expenses, $200; and 
miscellaneous, $300. Applicant’s fixed monthly expenses total $2,688. (Item 5 at 45.) 
 
 Applicant reported that each month he paid the following debts: first mortgage, 
$700; second mortgage, $499; credit card debt payment, $100; personal loan debt 
payment, $100; payment of debt identified at SOR ¶ 1.a., $100; payment of debt 
identified at SOR ¶ 1.f.; payment of debt identified at SOR ¶ 1.n., $100. Applicant’s 
monthly debt payments total $1,699. His personal financial statement shows a negative 
monthly remainder of $149. (Item 5 at 45.) 
 
 Applicant’s personal financial statement did not include payments on the medical 
debts alleged on the SOR. Additionally, his financial statement did not indicate how he 
planned to pay his federal and state income taxes. Applicant and his wife contacted an 
agency to seek credit counseling. (Item 5 at 45, 54.)   
Burden of Proof 
 The Government has the initial burden of proving controverted facts alleged in 
the SOR. The responsibility then shifts to the applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate 
the Government's case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the 
applicant carries the burden of persuasion. The "clearly consistent with the national 
interest" standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant's 
suitability for access to classified information in favor of protecting national security. 
  
          Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the 
Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security, and 
it has emphasized that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the 
Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the 
authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine 
whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. 
at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant 
an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.”  Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.    
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
 
6 
 
 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used 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, the administrative judge applies these guidelines in 
conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s 
over-arching 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 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 protect classified 
information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation 
about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. 
  
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of 
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the 
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information).   
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG & 18:       
 
 
7 
 
 
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.  
 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under 
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.  
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise 
security concerns. For several years, Applicant has accumulated delinquent debt which 
has not been paid. This evidence is sufficient to raise potentially disqualifying conditions 
under Guideline F. 
 
The guideline also recites conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising 
from financial difficulties. Several Guideline F mitigating conditions could apply to the 
security concerns raised by Applicant’s financial delinquencies. Unresolved financial 
delinquency might be mitigated if “it 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(a)). 
Additionally, unresolved financial delinquency might be mitigated if “the conditions that 
resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control,” such as 
“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(b)). Still other mitigating circumstances that might be applicable include 
evidence “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” (AG ¶ 
20(c) or “the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts.” (AG ¶ 20 (d)).  Finally, security concerns related to financial 
delinquencies might be mitigated if “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.” (AG ¶ 20 (e)). 
   
The debts alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.i., 1.j., and 1.l duplicate the debts alleged at SOR 
¶¶ 1.c., 1.e., and 1.g. Accordingly, the duplicate allegations are concluded for Applicant. 
Additionally, there is sufficient record evidence to establish that Applicant has 
negotiated a payment plan with the creditor identified in SOR ¶¶ 1.h. and that he is 
making payments consistent with the payment plan. The allegation at SOR ¶ 1.h. is 
concluded for Applicant. 
 
However, Applicant’s overall financial situation raises security concerns.  
Applicant has failed to demonstrate that his financial problems are resolved or are under 
control. His personal financial statement indicates that he spends more than he earns 
each month. Moreover, he lacks a clear and timely strategy for resolving his delinquent 
 
8 
 
 
debts, paying his federal and state income taxes as an independent contractor, and 
avoiding financial delinquency in the future.    
 
Applicant has been employed by his present employer since February 2009.  
While he provided some documentation to show he had made good-faith efforts to 
resolve the debts alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.a. and 1.f. and 1.n., he failed to provide sufficient 
documentation to show a track record of consistent payment of those debts over time. 
While he asserted that the delinquent debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.d. was not his, he failed 
to provide documentation to show that he had disputed the debt with the credit reporting 
agencies. By spending more than he earned each month, Applicant failed to establish 
that he acted reasonably when confronted with financial problems.  
 
 In response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant stated that he intended to pay 
his delinquent medical debts in the future. However, his several delinquent medical 
debts remain unresolved. In determining an individual's security worthiness, the 
Government cannot rely on the possibility that an applicant might resolve his or her 
outstanding debts at some future date. ISCR Case No. 98-0614 at 5 (App. Bd. Jul. 12, 
1999). It is also well settled that failure to resolve debts over a period of time constitutes 
a continuing course of conduct that raises concerns about an applicant’s reliability and 
trustworthiness. ISCR Case No 07-10575 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul 3, 2008). Accordingly, I 
conclude that none of the Guideline F mitigating conditions fully applies to the facts of 
Applicant’s case. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s 
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The 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 eligibility for 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. Applicant is a mature adult. While he 
has taken steps to address some of his delinquent debts, his financial situation is 
 
9 
 
 
unstable. With negative monthly remainders, it is not clear that he has sufficient 
resources to continue to pay his delinquent debts consistent with the payment plans he 
negotiated with the creditors identified at SOR ¶¶ 1.a., 1.f., and 1.n. Moreover, as an 
independent contractor, he must set aside a portion of his annual income to pay his 
federal and state income taxes, and the record does not establish that he has done so. 
Despite over two years of steady employment, Applicant has failed to satisfy his 
delinquent medical debts, several of which are for relatively small amounts of money. 
His failure to satisfy his creditors raises security concerns about his judgment and 
reliability. 
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial 
delinquencies.     
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.g.:            Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.h. – 1.j:  For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 1.k.:   Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 1.l.:   For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.m. -1.n.:  Against 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. 
                                                
________________________________ 
Joan Caton Anthony 
Administrative Judge