1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 10-09931 
                                                                     )  
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Gina L. Marine, 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 rebut or mitigate the Government’s security concerns under Guideline 
F, Financial Considerations. Her eligibility for a security clearance is denied. 
 
Statement of Case 
 
Applicant completed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing 
(e-QIP) on April 13, 2010. On June 16, 2010, she was interviewed by an authorized 
investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and provided 
information about her financial obligations. On February 17, 2011, the Defense Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 
detailing the 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 responded to the SOR on March 18, 2011, declined a hearing, and 
requested that her case be adjudicated on the written record. The Government 
compiled its File of Relevant Material (FORM) on April 19, 2011. The FORM contained 
documents identified as Items 1 through 7. By letter dated April 19, 2011, DOHA 
forwarded a copy of the FORM to Applicant, with instructions to submit any additional 
information and/or objections within 30 days of receipt. Applicant received the file on 
May 4, 2011. Her response was due on June 3, 2011. She did not file additional 
information within the required time period. On July 27, 2011, the case was assigned to 
me for a decision.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 The SOR contains nine allegations of financial delinquency under Guideline F, 
Financial Considerations (SOR ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.i.). In her Answer to the SOR,     
Applicant admitted eight of the allegations (SOR ¶¶ 1.b. through 1.i.). She denied the 
debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.a. Applicant’s admissions are admitted as findings of fact.  
(Item 1; Item 3.) 
 
 The facts in this case are established by the record provided by the Government. 
The record evidence includes Applicant’s Answer to the SOR; her April 13, 2010 e-QIP; 
her adoption of the summary of a personal subject interview, dated June 16, 2010; her 
responses to DOHA interrogatories;1 and her credit reports of June 3, 2010 and 
February 8, 2011. (See Items 3 through 7.) 
 
 Applicant is 42 years old, married, and the mother of six children, ages 14 
through 21. In 1993, she earned a bachelor’s degree. Since June 2006, she has worked 
for her present employer, a government contractor, as a business manager. She seeks 
a security clearance for the first time. (Item 4.) 
 
 The nine delinquent debts on the SOR total approximately $80,452. In her 
answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted eight of the delinquent debts, which totaled 
$78,722. She denied a $1,730 delinquent debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.a. and stated: “I am 
currently having this collection investigated. I have never been contacted by the creditor 
or collection company. I have no knowledge of what this debt is for.” 2 
 
 
1Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management 
(OPM) on June 16, 2010. On December 22, 2010, in response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant signed 
a notarized statement affirming that she had read the investigator’s summary of the interview and, after 
making a minor non-substantive correction, she adopted the investigator’s summary as accurately 
reflecting her interview. (Item 5.) 
 
2 In her June 2010 interview with the authorized investigator, Applicant admitted the debt alleged at SOR 
¶ 1.a. She identified the debt as medical, and she agreed with the stated amount of the debt. The debt 
appears on her credit report of June 3, 2010. (Item 5 at 9; Item 6.)  
 
 
 
3 
 
 
 In October 2006, Applicant was a plaintiff in lawsuit resulting from injuries her 
husband and children sustained in an automobile accident. The case was settled in 
Applicant’s favor. Applicant did not recall the amount of the settlement. (Item 5.) 
 
 Applicant attributes some of her current delinquent debt to expenses incurred 
when she, her husband, and their six children traveled to a distant state to attend her 
mother’s funeral in 2007. Additionally, in December 2007, Applicant’s husband became 
ill with breathing problems. Despite treatment, his condition has grown worse, and he is 
unable to work. In her interview with the OPM investigator, Applicant stated that she is 
her family’s only income earner. It is not clear from the record whether Applicant’s 
husband receives disability compensation.  (Item 3; Item 5.)    
 
 In 2006, Applicant and her husband purchased a home in a remote rural area of 
a large state. They moved to the rural home with their children. Prior to moving, they 
lived in a small city in the same state, and they owned a home there. Applicant told the 
OPM investigator that, since 2006, she had been unable to sell their home in the small 
city. In 2009, Applicant entered into a loan modification plan with the lender holding the 
mortgage on the city home. However, in October 2010, the home went into foreclosure. 
A past-due mortgage account of approximately $27,111 on a loan balance of $182,000 
is alleged at SOR ¶ 1.h. In her answer to the SOR, Applicant reported that she is 
seeking another loan modification from the lender. (Item 3; Item 5.) 
 
 In her December 2010 response to DOHA interrogatories, Applicant stated that 
she had no payment plans in place for her delinquent debts. She stated that until she 
knew how much she owed each month on her mortgage loan modification plan, she 
would not begin to arrange payment of her other delinquent debts. (Item 5.) 
 
 In her answer to the SOR, Applicant again reported that the delinquent debts 
alleged at SOR ¶¶ 1.b., 1.c., 1.d., 1.e., 1.f., 1.g., and 1.i. remained unsatisfied because 
she wanted to be certain she knew the monthly amount of her loan modification 
payment before undertaking plans to pay or satisfy her other delinquent debts. (Item 3.) 
 
 Applicant did not provide a personal financial statement listing her family monthly 
net income, her fixed monthly living expenses, her monthly debt payments, and assets 
such as savings accounts and retirement savings plans. She provided a pay stub from 
her employer showing net pay of $1,920 for a two-week period in November 2010. The 
pay stub also showed year-to-date net income of $42,000. (Item 5 at 18.) 
 
 The record does not reflect that Applicant has had financial credit counseling. In 
her interview with the OPM investigator, Applicant stated that her mother’s estate was 
settled in early 2010, and she expected to receive an inheritance. She did not specify 
the amount of her inheritance, but she informed the investigator that she planned to 
begin paying her delinquent debts with proceeds from her inheritance in the late 
summer of 2010. The record does not establish that she has done so. (Item 5 at 7.)   
 
       
 
4 
 
 
                                                    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 
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 (AG). 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 
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 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 
 
5 
 
 
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 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. Applicant accumulated substantial delinquent debt, and the record 
reflects that she has not satisfied any of the debts alleged on the SOR. This evidence is 
sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions. 
 
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 
under control” (AG ¶ 20(c)); that “the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay 
 
6 
 
 
                                           
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts” (AG ¶ 20 (d)); or that “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)). 3 
 
Applicant’s financial delinquencies are recent, on-going, and occurred under 
circumstances that are likely to recur. She has been steadily employed by her current 
employer since June 2006. She incurred debt when she and her family traveled to her 
mother’s funeral in 2007. Additionally, her husband’s illness and inability to work 
resulted in diminished family resources. However, Applicant does not document how 
these events specifically affected her ability to meet her ongoing financial obligations. 
There is insufficient record evidence for me to conclude that Applicant acted responsibly 
to circumstances that may have been beyond her control. 
 
Applicant has not paid, settled, or otherwise resolved any of the debts alleged on 
the SOR. She has not provided a personal financial statement showing her net family 
income, fixed monthly expenses, ongoing debt payment, and financial resources 
available for paying her debts. The record does not support a conclusion that Applicant 
has had financial credit counseling. 
 
Applicant told the OPM investigator that she could not recall the amount she had 
received in a legal settlement in 2006, and there is no evidence that it was used to pay 
her debts. She also told the investigator that she expected to receive an inheritance 
from her mother’s estate that would enable her to pay or settle her delinquent debts at a 
future time. 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). 
 
While Applicant denied the medical debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.a., the debt was 
listed on her June 2010 credit bureau report. In her answer to the SOR, she claimed 
she had disputed the debt, but she failed to provide documentation to corroborate the 
dispute. I conclude that AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), 20(c), 20(d), and 20(e) do not apply in 
mitigation to the security concerns raised by the facts in 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 
 
3A sixth possible mitigating circumstance applies when “the affluence resulted from a legal source 
of income.” (AG ¶ 20(f)). This mitigating circumstance is not relevant in this case. 
 
7 
 
 
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 with a 
large family and a sick husband, who is unable to work. She is responsible for over 
$80,000 in unsatisfied delinquent debt. She failed to provide documentation that she 
has a viable plan to address her financial delinquencies, and this raises concerns about 
her judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information.  
 
Applicant requested a decision on the written record. She did not file objections 
or provide additional information in response to the FORM. The written record in this 
case is sparse. Moreover, without an opportunity to question Applicant and to assess 
her credibility at a hearing, I am unable to conclude that she met her burden of 
persuasion in mitigating the Government’s allegations under the financial considerations 
adjudicative guideline. 
 
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. For these 
reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from her 
financial delinquencies. If her employer concurs, Applicant can reapply for a security 
clearance one year after the date that this decision becomes final. If she wishes, she 
can produce new evidence that addresses the Government’s current security concerns.  
See Directive, Enclosure 3, Additional Procedural Guidance, ¶¶ E3.1.37 and E3.1.38.   
 
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. through 1.i.: Against Applicant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
 
 
                           Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
                                                     
__________________________________ 
Joan Caton Anthony 
Administrative Judge