1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 08-11509
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: William T. O’Neil, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Even though Applicant received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in January 2009,
he still has two delinquent student loan accounts that have not been mitigated. The adverse
personal conduct is mitigated by the passage of more than five years without the
recurrence of acts of poor judgment. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified a Standard Form 86 (SCA, GE 1) on June 24,
2008. He was interviewed by an investigator from the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) on August 5, 2008. A summary of this interview appears at pages 209 through 219
of GE 3 (page numbers appear in the lower right corner of page) dated June 17, 2010. On
page 102 of GE 3, Applicant acknowledged his agreement with the interview summary, and
2
indicated the summary could be used in a security clearance hearing to determine his
security suitability. (Id. at 103) 
On April 18, 2011, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security
concerns under financial considerations (Guideline F) and personal conduct (Guideline E).
The action was taken pursuant to 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)
implemented by the Department ofd Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant’s answer to the SOR was notarized and submitted on May 10, 2010.
DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on July 1, 2011, for a hearing on July 20, 2011. The
hearing was held as scheduled. At the hearing, eight exhibits (GE 1 through 8) were
admitted in evidence in support of the Government’s case. Applicant testified and offered
one exhibit (AE A). All exhibits were admitted in evidence without objection. He was
granted time after the hearing to submit additional evidence regarding his delinquent
financial obligations. He submitted one exhibit (AE B), which was admitted into evidence
without objection. DOHA received the transcript on August 4, 2011. The record closed on
August 4, 2011. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR lists six allegations under the financial considerations guideline. Applicant
denied subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, and 1.e. He admitted subparagraph 1.f that he
filed a Chapter 13 petition on May 9, 2008, and received a Chapter 7 discharge on January
12, 2009. Applicant admitted all allegations under the personal conduct guideline. 
Applicant is 45 years old and has been married for about a year. He has one child
from this marriage and two from a previous marriage. He served in the United States Navy
from February 1998 until his honorable discharge in January 2000. In the same month, he
was hired by his current employer a cable installation technician, and has been working
there since then. In February 2011, he accepted a lateral transfer for a job in the local area
where he supervises projects. (Tr. 37-39) In 2004 and 2005, Applicant applied for and
received student loans (subparagraphs 1.e and 1.f) for attending information technology
training. He is two classes away from completing the training. (Tr. 42) Applicant has held
a security clearance since 1998. (Tr. 37)
Financial Considerations
Applicant believes his financial problems were caused during his temporary work
relocation to Florida for six months between February and July 2010. (Tr. 56) Before
3
Applicant left, he and his brother agreed to take care of Applicant’s house in another
location and pay the utilities during the temporary duty period in the local area. Applicant’s
brother breached the agreement by permitting guests in the house and failing to keep the
house clean. Applicant returned to find the house dirty, and the utilities unpaid or shut off.
(Tr. 56-58) While on temporary duty, Applicant occasionally called his brother and returned
to the location where his brother was taking care of the house to renew his auto license.
He realized his house was not being maintained, but did not have time to deal with the
problems because of his temporary work assignment. (Tr. 58)
Applicant has never had financial counseling other than the counseling required as
a condition precedent to filing bankruptcy in May 2008. (GE 3)
The credit bureau reports show his financial problems appeared between October
2004 and February 2008 when five debts listed in the SOR became delinquent. (GE 6-8)
Ten additional unlisted debts that had become delinquent during the foregoing period were
discharged under a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in January 2009. (SOR 1.f) AE B reflects
that SOR 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c, were also discharged in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy. 
SOR 1.d and 1.e are student loans Applicant received in 2004 to pay for the
information technology training he received in 2004. He explained that he originally applied
and received eight student loans. Some of the loans were held by private companies and
others were managed by Student Loan Marketing Association (Sallie Mae). (Tr. 43-44)
Applicant disregarded Sallie Mae’s payment request notices because he mistakenly
believed he had consolidated all the loans with another company. Applicant observed that
the Sallie Mae and other loans were currently being processed by other companies. (Tr.
42-44) He stated he had bank statements to support his claim of making payments to Sallie
Mae for three years. (AE 15) Applicant provided no documentary support to support his
contention that all student loans were current. (Tr. 44)
Personal Conduct
Applicant explained that the four incidents cited in paragraph 2 of the SOR occurred
during a troublesome part of his life that began in 1999 when his first wife left him after five
months of marriage. His wife’s departure caused him to leave the Navy. Applicant’s
association with the wrong people led to marijuana use in April 2004, his possession of
marijuana charge and driving on a suspended license in August 2004. His marijuana use
was brief in 2004. (Tr. 49) He has changed his lifestyle by no longer associating with the
wrong people. Instead, he spends more time at home engaging in family activities like
camping with his children. (Tr. 55)
In September 2004, Applicant got into an altercation with his girlfriend and hit her
before immediately calling the police. (Tr. 18) In September 2005, he was convicted of
4
driving while under the influence (DUI) and driving with a suspended license. (Tr. 51-53)
Applicant indicated he does not have a history of violence and has a clean record since
September 2005. (Id.)
In October 1997, Applicant certified an SCA. (GE 4) On the last page of the exhibit,
he noted that he had used marijuana three times and had no intention of using the drug in
the future. On at least two occasions in 2004, Appellant used marijuana while holding a
security clearance. He indicated his choice to resume marijuana use several years later in
2004 was not a good choice. (Tr. 53)
Character Evidence
Applicant provided no character evidence regarding his job performance or his
lifestyle in the community where he lives. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the administrative
judge must consider the AG. Each guideline lists potentially disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an applicant's eligibility for access to
classified information.
The administrative judge's ultimate goal is to reach a fair and impartial decision that
is based on commonsense. The decision should also include a careful, thorough evaluation
of a number of variables known as the "whole-person concept" that brings together all
available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and
unfavorable, in making a decision. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded
on speculation or conjecture. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 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 the potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14., the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.l5., 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 as to obtaining a favorable security decision.
5
Analysis
Financial Considerations 
The security concern for financial considerations is set forth 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. Compulsive gambling is a concern
as it may lead to financial crimes including espionage. Affluence that cannot
be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern. It may
indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.
The Government has the responsibility of presenting sufficient information to support
all allegations of the SOR. Based on the credit reports, Applicant’s interrogatory responses,
and his answers to the SOR, the Government has presented sufficient information to
establish the financial allegations in the SOR. AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts) applies to Applicant’s inability to satisfy or address delinquent student loans
under the first paragraph of the SOR. The accumulation of delinquent accounts between
2004 and 2008, culminated in the filing of a Chapter 13 petition in May 2008, a Chapter 7
discharge in January 2009, with two delinquent student loan accounts remaining,
constitutes a history of not meeting financial obligations with the scope of AG ¶ 19(c) (a
history of not meeting financial obligations).  
Four mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable. 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 reliability,
trustworthiness, and good judgment) does not apply. Though Applicant received the
student loans in 2004, both accounts continued to be delinquent. Applicant’s claim of
payments to Sallie Mae and the successor collection agency is not credible because he did
not produce supporting documentation. The failure to articulate a plan to resolve the
student loan debt after receiving the loans in 2004 rules out the application of AG ¶ 20(a).
AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond
the person's control and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances) does
not apply because there was no unforeseen event beyond his control and close in time to
his financial problems. Applicant separated from his first wife in 1999. He did not begin
accumulating delinquent debt until five years later in 2004. While he accumulated 15 
6
delinquent accounts between 2004 and 2008, he was employed throughout the period. AG
¶ 20(b) does not apply. 
Applicant received financial counseling in advance of filing his May 2008 Chapter
13 petition. Even though three of the delinquent accounts have been resolved through the
Chapter 7 discharge in January 2009, more than two years have passed since the
discharge and Appellant has not indicated what he intends to do about the two student
loans. 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)
applies on a limited basis. 
Though Applicant has not made a good-faith effort to repay creditors as set forth in
AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts), he has resolved the debts to three creditors through a Chapter
7 bankruptcy. Applicant receives limited mitigation under AG ¶ 20(d).  Having weighed the
negative evidence under AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) with the limited mitigating evidence under
AG ¶¶ 20(c), and 20(d), the financial considerations guideline is resolved against Applicant.
Personal Conduct
The security concern for personal conduct is set forth in AG ¶ 15:
AG ¶ 15. Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and
candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to
cooperate with the security clearance process. 
The disqualifying condition that may apply is AG ¶ 16(c) (credible adverse
information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse
determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole,
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other
characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard classified information).
The record indicates that Applicant’s 2004 drug use, the 2004 aggravated battery, and the
2005 alcohol-related traffic offenses, fall with the scope of the AG ¶ 16(c).
There are two mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 17 that may apply: AG ¶ 17(c) (the
offense was so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it
happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment); and AG ¶ 17(d) (the
7
individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior
or taken other positive steps to alleviate stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused
untrustworthy, unreliable or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to
recur). I find the traffic offenses mitigated by Applicant’s admission and the passage of
more than five years. I accept Applicant’s explanation that he realizes striking his former
girlfriend was inexcusable. Applicant’s choice to use marijuana again in 2004 after he
stated his intention in 1997 not to use the drug again is extenuated by the brief nature of
his use in 2004 and the passage of six years since Applicant’s most recent use. Applicant’s
credible explanations for his misconduct between April 2004 and September 2005 support
a finding in Applicant’s favor under the personal conduct guideline.
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of
the two guidelines. I have found against Applicant under the financial considerations
guideline and for him under the personal conduct guideline. I have also weighed the
circumstances within the context of nine variables known as the whole-person concept. In
evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the administrative judge should
consider the following factors:
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 the participation was 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.
Applicant is 45 years old. His background includes an honorable discharge from the
Navy in 2000. Applicant began working for his employer as a technician and became a
platform manager of the waterfront in February 2011. 
While Applicant stated his financial problems surfaced while he was on temporary
duty in 2010, the record reflects Appellant began to have financial problems in 2004 when
his first account became delinquent. Because Applicant’s first wife left him five years before
his delinquent debts started to accumulate, it is unreasonable for him to blame her for his
financial problems. Rather, his financial difficulties occurred because of his poor choices
in managing the money he earned from his uninterrupted employment. His financial
mismanagement of 15 accounts led to the Chapter 13 petition he filed in May 2008, which
he converted to a Chapter 7 before he received a discharge in January 2009. More than
two years have passed since his discharge, but he has taken no documented action to pay
8
down the student loan debt. Alternatively, he has not tried to place the loans in
forbearance, to provide himself additional time to decide how he wants to resolve the debt.
In sum, Applicant’s successful Chapter 7 discharge in January 2009 is insufficient to find
in his favor under the financial considerations guideline. 
The personal conduct allegations have been mitigated by Applicant’s credible
explanations coupled with the passage of five years since the last adverse incident. 
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
Subparagraph 1.a through 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.d through 1.f: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2 (Guideline E): FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a through 2.d:  For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge