1 
 
 
                                                      
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 10-07080 
                                                                      )                                               
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
ANTHONY, Joan Caton, Administrative Judge: 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings and exhibits in this case, I conclude that 
Applicant failed to mitigate the Government’s security concerns under Guideline F, 
Financial Considerations. His eligibility for a security clearance is denied. 
 
                                                    Statement of Case 
 
Applicant completed and certified an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations 
Processing (e-QIP) on May 3, 2010. On July 28, 2010, he was interviewed by an 
authorized investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and 
provided information about his financial obligations. On March 16, 2011, the Defense 
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons 
(SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. 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) effective within the 
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.  
    
 
2 
 
 
                                           
 On March 29, 2011, Applicant submitted an answer to the SOR. Because he was 
serving overseas in a war zone, he requested that his case be adjudicated on the 
written record in lieu of a hearing. The Government compiled its File of Relevant 
Material (FORM) on April 26, 2011. The FORM contained documents identified as Items 
1 through 8. By letter dated May 2, 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 FORM on May 9, 2011. His response was due 
on June 8, 2011. On May 13, 2011, Applicant filed, by mail, a 25-page response to the 
FORM. On June 8, 2011, Applicant filed a 91-page supplemental response to the 
FORM by e-mail. On June 17, 2011, the Government filed a response to Applicant’s 
response and supplemental response. The Government also provided, for the record, 
two e-mail communication chains between Applicant and Department Counsel and 
offered them as supplemental Item 9 and Item 10 to the FORM. 
 
  On June 24, 2011, the case was assigned to me for a decision. Without 
objection, I marked the 25-page written response that Applicant filed to the FORM as 
Item A, and I admitted it to the record. Also without objection, I marked Applicant’s 91-
page supplemental e-mail response to the FORM as Item B and admitted it to the 
record. I marked the Government’s response to Applicant’s written response and 
supplemental e-mail response as GR 1 and admitted it, without objection. Additionally, 
without objection, I admitted Item 9 and Item 10 as supplemental exhibits to the FORM. 
 
                                                   Procedural Matters 
 
 SOR ¶¶ 1.g., 1.s., and 1.t. alleged that Applicant owed medical debts to an 
unspecified creditor. In the FORM, the Government moved to amend those allegations 
to include the name of the specific creditor. In support of its amendment, the 
Government provided documentation at Item 6 that specified the name of the medical 
creditor. Applicant did not object to the Government’s motion to amend the SOR. 
Accordingly, SOR ¶¶ 1.g., 1.s., and 1.t. were so amended.  
  
                                                     Findings of Fact 
 
 The SOR contains a bankruptcy allegation and 25 allegations of financial 
delinquency under Guideline F, Financial Considerations (SOR ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.z.). 
The 25 allegations of financial delinquency total approximately $52,882. In his Answer 
to the SOR, Applicant admitted the bankruptcy allegation and 19 allegations of financial 
delinquency. He denied six allegations of delinquent debt (SOR ¶¶ 1.g., 1.m., 1.p., 1.q., 
1.r., and 1.z.).1 Applicant’s admissions are entered as findings of fact.  (Item 1; Item 3.) 
 
 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 
3, 2010 e-QIP; official investigation and agency records; Applicant’s Answer to the SOR 
 
1 The 25 debts alleged on the SOR are listed on Applicant’s credit reports of May 19, 2010; July 23, 
2010; and January 7, 2011. (Item 5; Item 6; Item 8.) 
 
3 
 
 
                                           
and responses to the FORM; and Applicant’s credit reports of May 19, 2010; July 23 
2010; and January 7, 2011. (Items 3 through 8; Items A and B.) 
 
 Applicant is 44 years old and a high school graduate. In 1984, he enlisted in a 
National Guard unit. He served until 1990, when he was honorably discharged. Since 
April 2010, he has been employed as a Government contractor. Applicant seeks a 
security clearance for his current work. (Item 4.) 
 
 Applicant married for the first time in 1990. He and his first wife divorced in 2000. 
Applicant and his second wife married in 2003. On his e-QIP, Applicant reported that he 
is the father of six children and one stepchild. Four of Applicant’s children are young 
adults; his younger children are ages 10 and 11. His stepson is 16 years old. (Item 4.)  
 
 Applicant was interviewed by an OPM investigator about his finances on July 28, 
2010.2 He told the investigator that two events in the past ten years resulted in his 
inability to pay his creditors. The first event resulted from a business venture. From 
1994 to 1998, Applicant was self-employed and owned a trucking business. In his 
business, he operated two tractor trailer trucks which he had purchased with loans 
totaling about $100,000. When fuel costs rose and freight prices fell, Applicant’s 
business faltered. He was unable to repay the loans on the tractor trailer trucks, and 
they were repossessed. In 2000, Applicant declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy. His debts 
were discharged in about June 2000. Applicant’s bankruptcy was alleged at SOR ¶ 1.a. 
(Item 1; Item 7 at 4.) 
 
 Applicant reported that the second event impacting his financial strength began 
in about September 2003 and continued until about 2008. During that time, Applicant 
incurred large legal fees in attempting to adopt his second wife’s two children from a 
prior marriage. Applicant told the investigator that, in addition to the legal fees, his 
efforts to adopt the children resulted in certain periods of unemployment. At the time of 
his personal subject interview, Applicant cited his failed business, his bankruptcy, and 
his legal expenses attendant to the adoptions and told the investigator that he lacked 
sufficient resources to satisfy his delinquent debt.  (Item 7 at 5.) 
 
 On his e-QIP, Applicant listed a month of unemployment in April 2010, two 
months of unemployment from December 2009 to February 2010, and employment with 
a safety company, from February 2010 to March 2010, which he left after one month 
because the job did not provide sufficient money and working hours. (Item 4.) 
 
 On his e-QIP, Applicant also stated that he was self-employed as a welder-fitter 
from February 2003 until December 2009. He stated that for certain periods, he worked 
 
2 On November 8, 2010, in response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant signed a notarized statement 
affirming that he had read the summary of the interview and found it to be true and correct. He made no 
changes, corrections, or revisions to the investigator’s summary.  (Item 7 at 10.) 
 
 
 
 
4 
 
 
as a traveling contractor for a business, which laid him off in December 2009 during an 
economic downturn. From April 2000 until January 2003, Applicant was employed in a 
family business as a welder-fitter. (Item 4.) 
 
 The SOR alleged at ¶ 1.n. that Applicant was 180 days or more past due on a 
child support account in State A and owed approximately $274. Applicant denied the 
allegation. He provided documentation establishing that he was no longer in arrears in 
his child support payments in State A.  However, Applicant also provided documentation 
from State B showing an ongoing monthly child support obligation of $435 plus $87 in 
arrears for a total monthly amount of $522. Additionally, Applicant’s documentation 
showed that he owed an arrears balance of $670. The child support obligation in State 
B was not alleged on the SOR. (Item 1; Item 3; Item A, 8-14.) 
 
 The SOR also alleged that Applicant was responsible for the following delinquent 
consumer debts: ¶ 1.o ($434); ¶ 1.p ($70); ¶ 1.v. ($159); ¶ 1.w. ($66); ¶ 1.x. ($724); and 
¶ 1.z. ($78.). Applicant denied the debt alleged a SOR ¶ 1.p. because he was not sure it 
was legitimate. In his response to the FORM, Applicant reported that the debt alleged at 
SOR ¶ 1.p. had not been satisfied because he was still awaiting the creditor’s validation 
of the debt. Applicant denied the debt at SOR ¶ 1.z. because he thought it had been 
discharged in his 2000 bankruptcy. In his response to the FORM, he provided an 
annotated copy of his June 2011 bank statement showing that he had authorized 
payment of the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.z. (Item 1; Item 3; Item B at 3, 5.) 
   
 Applicant provided documentation dated March 24, 2011, showing that the 
creditor identified at SOR ¶ 1.v. had received his post-dated credit card payment of 
$127.39. He failed to provide documentation from the creditor confirming receipt of 
funds and satisfaction of the debt, listed on the SOR as $159. (Item A at 5.) 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that he had settled the $434 debt 
alleged at SOR ¶ 1.o. for $136.06. In his response to the FORM he provided an 
annotated bank statement showing a $136.06 payment made to a creditor on March 24, 
2011. (Item 3; Item A at 1, 21, 24.) 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant stated he had paid in full the $66 debt 
alleged at SOR ¶ 1.w. He also stated that he had settled for $362.33 the $724 
delinquent debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.x. In his response to the FORM, Applicant provided 
an annotated bank statement showing a payment of $71.77 made on March 25, 2011 to 
the creditor identified at SOR ¶ 1.w. In his response to the FORM, he also provided an 
annotated bank statement showing a payment of $362.33 on March 25, 2011 to a 
creditor identified in SOR ¶ 1.x. Additionally, Applicant’s response to the FORM 
included documentation showing that on March 25, 2011, he had authorized payment of 
$120.34 to the creditor identified at SOR ¶ 1.l. (Item 3; Item A at 1, 21, 24.)   
 
 Applicant told the OPM investigator that in 2001, he obtained loans to purchase 
two automobiles and a mobile home. In 2007, during his period of financial hardship, he 
was unable to continue payments on the vehicles and the mobile home, and he 
 
5 
 
 
                                           
surrendered them to the creditor in a voluntary repossession. Applicant reported this 
delinquent debt on his e-QIP, and he told the investigator that he owed the creditor 
approximately $28,026 on the debt. He also acknowledged that he had made no 
payments since 2007. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the debt but denied 
he owed the amount alleged on the SOR. This debt, which is alleged at SOR ¶ 1.q., has 
not been satisfied. (Item 3; Item 4; Item 7 at 5; Item A at 2.) 
 
 Seventeen of the 25 debts alleged on the SOR recite unpaid medical bills (SOR 
¶¶ 1.b., 1.c., 1.d., 1.e., 1.f., 1.g., 1.h., 1.i., 1.j., 1.k.,1.l., 1.m., 1.r., 1.s., 1.t., 1.u., and 
1.y.). In his interview with the OPM investigator, Applicant stated that he suffered a 
compound fracture of one of his legs in 2007, and he had no health insurance to cover 
his medical expenses. He stated that 123 of the 17 medical debts alleged on the SOR 
were incurred for the diagnosis and treatment of his broken leg. The 12 debts totaled 
approximately $21,065. At the time of his interviews with the investigator in July 2010, 
none of these medical debts had been satisfied. (Item 1; Item 7, 4-10.) 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant provided documentation corroborating 
payment of the $309.40 medical debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.b. In his response to the 
FORM, he provided documentation showing $103 payments in March, April, and May 
2011 on the medical debts alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.c. and 1.d.4 (Item 3 at 10; Item A at 23, 
25; Item B at 5.)  
 
 In his response to the FORM, Applicant provided documentation corroborating 
his claim that the medical debts alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.h., 1.i., and 1.j. had been paid. The 
three debts, totaling $225, were satisfied March 23, 2011. (Item A at 7.) 
 
 Applicant also provided information on his efforts to satisfy several other debts 
alleged on the SOR. Applicant provided annotations on his bank checking account 
statement showing a pending transaction, dated May 10, 2011, authorizing payment of 
the $283 debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.e. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the 
allegation at SOR ¶ 1.y. and identified it as “the same creditor as [the debt alleged at 
SOR ¶ 1.e.]”5 His annotated bank account statement also identified an authorization, 
dated June 1, 2011, for the payment of $630 on the $840 debt listed at SOR ¶ 1.f. 
According to Applicant’s annotations, on March 25, 2011, an authorization to pay $90 
was sent from Applicant’s checking account to the creditor identified at SOR ¶ 1.k. Also, 
according to Applicant’s annotations, on June 1, 2011, an authorization to pay $82 in 
satisfaction of the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.r. was sent from Applicant’s checking 
account to the creditor. Applicant also provided documentation that on May 11, 2011, a 
 
3 The twelve medical debts are as follows: ¶ 1.d. ($828); ¶ 1.e. ($283); ¶ 1.g. ($762); ¶ 1.h. ($175); ¶ 1.i. 
($25); ¶1.k. ($90); ¶ 1.l. ($112); ¶ 1.m ($41); ¶ 1.r ($78); ¶ 1.s. ($1,293); ¶ 1.t. ($17,177); and ¶ 1.u. 
($201). 
  
4 Together, the debts alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.c. and 1.d. totaled $1,375. 
 
5 Nothing in the record confirms that the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.y. was satisfied or was a duplicate of 
the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.e. 
 
6 
 
 
creditor acknowledged his attempted telephone payment of $1,000 in satisfaction of the 
debt identified at SOR ¶ 1.s. Additionally, Applicant provided documentation from his 
checking account statement showing that on June 2, 2011, he had authorized payment 
of $177.82 in partial satisfaction of the $17,177 debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.t. (Item A at 4, 
22-24; Item B at 4.) 
 
 The debts alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.g. ($762), 1.m. ($41), and 1.u. ($201) remain 
unsatisfied. Applicant stated in his response to the SOR that he planned to seek a 
payment plan to resolve the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.g. He stated that he had been 
unable to locate the creditors for the debts alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.m. and 1.u., and he 
would dispute them at a future time. (Item A at 2.) 
 
 Applicant provided four letters of character reference and his most recent 
employment letter. Three of the letters were from managers and supervisors who work 
with Applicant in his assignment as contractor in a war zone. All three letters praised 
Applicant’s work ethic and expertise. One of his supervisors called him the very best in 
his field in theater and “an invaluable asset to our military.” His company’s lead in the 
region stated that Applicant was part of a team that put forth great effort to keep 
equipment in readiness, and their commitment to this mission helped to save military 
and civilian lives. Applicant’s landlord provided a letter stated that Applicant had paid in 
rent on time for the past three years. (Item A 15-20.)  
 
 In his November 2010 response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant provided a 
personal financial statement. He reported a monthly net income of $8,226 and monthly 
living expenses of approximately $6,294. He also reported that he made payments of 
$613 on his current debts each month. His net monthly remainder is approximately 
$1,319. In his response to the FORM, he provided information documenting that he 
sought financial credit counseling on May 11, 2011. He also asserted that he had 
attempted to pay, settle, or enter into payment plans for 17 of the 25 delinquent debts 
alleged on the SOR. (Item 7 at 19; Item A at 1, 3.) 
Burden of Proof 
 The Government has the initial burden of proving controverted facts alleged in 
the SOR. To meet its burden, the Government must establish by substantial evidence a 
prima facie case that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest for an applicant 
to have access to classified information. 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 a heavy 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. 
 
 
  
 
 
7 
 
 
          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 revised adjudicative guidelines. In addition to 
brief 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 common sense 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 
 
8 
 
 
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or 
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally 
permissible extrapolation as to 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 relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set 
out 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 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 two disqualifying conditions that could raise security 
concerns in this case. 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. Applicant has a history of financial 
delinquency. He has accumulated delinquent debt which has not been paid or which 
has been paid only recently. This evidence is sufficient to raise potentially disqualifying 
conditions under Guideline F. 
 
The guideline also includes examples of 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 
 
9 
 
 
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 record in this case established that Applicant paid or was paying as the 
result of a payment plan the following six delinquent debts alleged on the SOR: SOR ¶¶ 
1.b., 1.c., 1.d., 1.h., 1.i., and 1.j. Moreover, he has resolved his delinquent child support 
obligation in State A, which was alleged at SOR ¶ 1.n.  Accordingly, those allegations 
are concluded for Applicant.  
  
However, Applicant has a history of financial delinquencies that began in the 
1990s and resulted in a bankruptcy in 2000. In about 2007, he again experienced 
financial difficulties. Applicant has known of some of his financial delinquencies since he 
completed his e-QIP in May 2010, and he learned of other debts when he was 
interviewed by the OPM investigator in July 2010. Yet, he addressed his financial 
delinquencies only after he received the SOR in March 2011. His debt payments are so 
recent that he has not received acknowledgments of satisfaction from most of his 
creditors. He plans to dispute some of his debts in the future. Moreover, he has only 
recently initiated financial credit counseling. He does not have a plan in place for 
managing his financial responsibilities and avoiding financial delinquencies in the future. 
 
Applicant’s trucking business failed during a financial downturn in the late 1990s, 
and he declared Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2000. His efforts to adopt his second wife’s 
two children apparently led to further financial difficulties for five years between 2003 
and 2008. In 2007, when he suffered a compound fracture of his leg, he had no health 
insurance, and he incurred many of the medical debts alleged on the SOR. His medical 
debts are at least four years old, and Applicant addressed them only in the last four 
months, under the stimulus of the SOR. Also in 2007, Applicant was unable to maintain 
payments on two vehicles and a motor home, and they were repossessed by the 
creditor. This unresolved debt was alleged at SOR ¶ 1.q. Applicant admitted knowledge 
of the debt and acknowledged that he had made no effort to resolve it. While it is 
reasonable to conclude that a financial downturn led to the failure of his trucking 
business in the 1990s and was beyond Applicant’s control, it is not clear from the written 
record that the financial consequences associated with the adoption of his stepsons 
were beyond Applicant’s control for five years or that he acted responsibly under the 
circumstances.   
 
Applicant initiated payment of the delinquent debts alleged on the SOR after 
receiving the SOR in March 2011. His personal financial statement indicates that he has 
been allocating over $600 each month to paying his more recent financial obligations, 
and he reports a monthly remainder of over $1,300. This raises a concern about 
Applicant’s good faith in paying the delinquent debts alleged on the SOR. DOHA’s 
 
10 
 
 
Appeal Board has explained what constitutes a “good faith” effort to repay overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts: 
 
In order to qualify for application of [the “good faith” mitigating condition], 
an applicant must present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to 
repay overdue creditors or some other good-faith action aimed at 
resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does not define the term 
“good-faith.” However, the Board has indicated that the concept of good-
faith ‘requires a showing that a person acts in a way that shows 
reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.’ 
Accordingly, an applicant must do more that merely show that he or she 
relied on a legally option (such as bankruptcy [or statute of limitations] in 
order to claim the benefit of [the good faith” mitigating condition. 
 
(ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. April 20, 2004) (quoting ISCR Case No. 99-
9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)). 
 
Even though he was aware of the vehicle and motor home repossessions and 
the medical debts attendant to his broken leg in 2007, Applicant took no actions to 
resolve those financial obligations until he was served with the SOR in March 2011. 
This raises concerns about his judgment, adherence to duty or obligation, and good 
faith in resolving his just debts. While Applicant deserves some credit for addressing his 
financial obligations after March 2011, this record does not reflect a consistent and 
responsible pattern of debt resolution. Insufficient time has passed to conclude that 
Applicant can avoid the recurrence of financial delinquency in the future.     
 
I conclude that AG ¶¶ 20(a) and 20(e) do not apply in mitigation to the facts of 
Applicant’s case. Additionally, I conclude that AG ¶¶ 20(b), 20(c), and 20(d) apply only 
in part to mitigate the facts of this 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. 
 
 
11 
 
 
  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. Since receiving the SOR in March 
2011, Applicant has attempted to pay, settle, or enter into payment plans for the 
majority of his delinquent debts. However, since Applicant’s efforts to resolve his 
delinquent debts are recent, it is unclear from this record whether he will maintain 
responsible financial conduct in the future. His recent attempts to satisfy his delinquent 
debts occur after years of inaction. At issue here is not simply whether he can resolve 
the majority of his financial delinquencies after receiving the SOR. Of greater concern is 
whether his financial decisions and circumstances raise concerns about his fitness to 
hold a security clearance.  
 
Applicant provided strong character references. He is undertaking contract work 
overseas that provides support to U.S. military efforts. His supervisors and managers 
consider him to be a valued employee. Despite his recent efforts to resolve many of his 
delinquent debts, his failure over many years to satisfy his creditors raises security 
concerns about his judgment and reliability. 
 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts at the present 
time as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. However, the 
awarding of a security clearance is not a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, but is based on 
applying the factors, both disqualifying and mitigating, to the evidence presented. Under 
Applicant’s current circumstances, a clearance is not recommended. It is possible that 
in the future he may well demonstrate persuasive evidence of his security worthiness.  If 
his employer concurs, Applicant can reapply for a security clearance one year after the 
date that this decision becomes final. (See Directive, Enclosure 3, Additional Procedural 
Guidance, ¶ E3.1.37.)  
 
Should Applicant be afforded an opportunity to reapply for a security clearance in 
the future, he may wish to provide documentation from his creditors showing that he has 
paid his delinquent obligations, established compliance with repayment plans, and 
established a track record of timely and consistent payment of his debts.  
 
From the record evidence in this case, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the 
security concerns arising from his financial delinquencies. A security clearance is not 
warranted at this time.     
 
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: 
 
 
 
12 
 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a.:            Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.b. - 1.d.: For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.e. - 1.g.: Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.h.- 1.j.:    For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.k. - 1.m.:`Against Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 1.n.:  For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.o. -1.z.: 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