1 
 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 10-03747 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Richard Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
 Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access 
to classified information is granted.  
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On December 22, 2009, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance required for a position 
with a defense contractor. After an investigation conducted by the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM), the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued 
interrogatories to Applicant to clarify or augment potentially disqualifying information in 
her background. After reviewing the results of the background investigation and 
Applicant's responses to the interrogatories, DOHA could not make the preliminary 
affirmative findings required to issue a security clearance. DOHA issued a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR), dated February 11, 2011, to Applicant detailing security concerns for 
financial considerations under Guideline F. These actions were taken under Executive 
Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), 
as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel 
 
2 
 
 
Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and 
the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on 
September 1, 2006. Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on February 17, 2011. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on March 28, 2011. She admitted seven allegations 
(1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.i, 1.j, and 1.k), and denied five allegations (1.e, 1.f, 1.g, 1.h, and 
1.l). She provided explanations for her answers. Department Counsel was prepared to 
proceed on June 13, 2011, and the case was assigned to me on July 25, 2011. DOHA 
issued a Notice of Hearing on August 3, 2011, scheduling a hearing for August 22, 
2011. I convened the hearing as scheduled. The Government offered five exhibits that I 
marked and admitted into the record without objection as Government Exhibits (Gov. 
Ex.) 1 through 5. Applicant testified on her behalf and offered four exhibits that I marked 
and admitted into the record without objection as Applicant Exhibit (App. Ex.) A through 
D. I left the record open for Applicant to submit additional documents. Applicant timely 
submitted ten additional documents which I marked and admitted to the record as App. 
Ex. E through N. Department Counsel had no objection to the admission of the 
documents. (Gov. Ex. 6, Memorandum, dated September 8, 2011) DOHA received the 
transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on September 7, 2011. 
 
Procedural Issues 
 
 Applicant received the Notice of Hearing on August 8, 2011. She discussed the 
hearing date with Department Counsel on August 3, 2011. Applicant is entitled to 15 
days advance notice of a hearing. (Directive E3.1.8.). Applicant was ready to proceed at 
the hearing on August 22, 2011, and she had sufficient time to prepare. She waived the 
15-day notice requirement. (Tr. 5-6) 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is a 49-year-old college graduate employed as a technical writer for a 
defense contractor since October 2009. She married in 1982 and divorced in 1989. She 
married again in 1992 and divorced in 1995. She has two children who are grown. She 
has continued to go to school and is taking courses for her master’s degree. Applicant’s 
annual salary is $52,000. Her personal financial statement shows monthly income of 
$3,494.50, with monthly expenses of $3,302.59, leaving her $191.91 monthly in 
discretionary funds. (Tr. 11-14; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated December 22, 2009; Gov. Ex. 
2, Response to Interrogatory, dated July 23, 2010; Gov. Ex. 3, Response to 
Interrogatory, dated July 23, 2010)  
 
Credit reports (Gov. Ex. 4, dated January 1, 2010, and Gov. Ex. 5, dated October 
5, 2010), and Applicant's response to an interrogatory (Gov. Ex.32, dated July 23, 2010) 
show the following delinquent debts for Applicant: a medical debt for $83 (SOR 1.a); a 
cable debt in collection for $79 (SOR 1.b); a telephone debt in collection for $195 (SOR 
 
3 
 
 
1.c); an apartment rental debt in collection for $1,995 (SOR 1.d); a collection account for 
$40 (SOR 1.e); a state tax lien for $1,323 (SOR 1.f); a telephone debt in collection for 
$742 (SOR 1.g); a car repossession debt for $11,149 (SOR 1.h); a credit card debt in 
collection for $1,031 (SOR 1.i); a utility debt charged off for $199 (SOR 1.j); a credit 
card debt charged off for $650 (SOR 1.k); and a credit card debt in collection for $195 
(SOR 1.l). The total amount of the debt listed on the SOR is approximately $17,000. 
The debts are for medical bills, utility bills, cell phone bills, and credit cards. The largest 
debt is for car repossession. Applicant also mentioned other debts not on the SOR to 
include a federal tax debt and student loans. 
 
Applicant was financially stable until she was laid off from her position with a 
trucking company in March 2009. She received a $7,000 settlement and used some of 
the funds for living expenses and some to pay bills. She was unemployed until October 
2009 when she was hired by her present employer. (Tr. 11-13) Applicant is the sole heir 
for her mother’s estate. Her mother’s house has been sold and will be closed shortly. 
She expects to realize approximately $40,000 from the sale. This will enable her to pay 
all debts and buy a house. (Tr. 38-39)  
 
Applicant paid in full the medical debt at SOR 1.a. (Tr. 27-28; App. Ex. G, 
Applicant’s Statement, dated September 8, 2011; App. Ex. N, Payment, dated August 
22, 2011)  
 
Applicant indicated she paid the $79 cable bill at SOR 1.b in full. She was unable 
to provide a receipt but did provide a receipt confirmation number. (Tr. 28-29; App. Ex. 
G, Applicant’s Statement, dated September 8, 2011) 
 
Applicant paid in full the cable debt at SOR 1.c. (Tr. 29; App. Ex. G, Applicant’s 
Statement, dated September 8, 2011; App. Ex. K, Account Statement, dated August 30, 
2011)  
 
The debt at SOR 1.d is for the early termination of a lease. Applicant disputes the 
amount of the debt. She contacted the apartment complex but they were unable to 
locate her file. They cannot set up a payment plan for her or accept her payments. (Tr. 
29-30; App. Ex. G, Applicant’s Statement, dated September 8, 2011)  
 
Applicant paid the $40 credit account at SOR 1.e in full. (Tr. 30-31; App. Ex. C, 
Statement dated February 22, 2011) 
 
Applicant has state tax liens for tax years 2006 and 2007 at SOR 1.f. She has 
been making payments on the lien and it is now paid in full. (Tr. 31-32; App. Ex. E, 
Statement dated March 22, 2011; App. Ex. G, Applicant’s Statement, dated September 
8, 2011; App. Ex. I, Receipt, dated September 7, 2011) 
 
Applicant paid her Verizon collection account at SOR 1.g. She has been paying 
$75 every two weeks on the account. She was not able to provide a copy of the paid in 
 
4 
 
 
full statement but she did provide a receipt number for her final payment. (Tr. 31-32; 
App. Ex. G, Applicant’s Statement, dated September 8, 2011)  
 
The debt at SOR 1.h is for a car repossession. Applicant purchased a car for her 
children when they were living at home. She made payments until she was laid off in 
March 2009. When she could no longer make the payments, she voluntarily turned in 
the car for repossession. She has a settlement agreement to pay $3,436.12 on the debt. 
She made a $1,700 payment and has the final payment of $1,736.12 due on September 
30, 2012. (Tr. 32-33; App. Ex. G, Applicant’s Statement dated September 8, 2012) 
 
Applicant settled the $1,031 debt at SOR 1.i for $775.24. She made the first 
payment of $389.72 on September 7, 2011. She has a final payment of $389.74 due on 
September 25, 2011. (Tr. 33-34; App. Ex. G, Applicant’s statement, dated September 8, 
2011; App. Ex. L, Receipt and Statement, dated September 7, 2011) 
 
Applicant paid in full the utility debt of $199 at SOR 1.j. She was unable to 
provide a receipt but did provide a receipt number. (Tr. 34-35; App. Ex. G, Applicant’s 
Statement, dated September 8, 2011) 
 
The bank debt at SOR 1.k is for an overdrawn account. Applicant paid half of the 
account and has another payment remaining to bring the debt into balance. She still 
maintains an account with the bank. (Tr. 35-36; App. Ex. G, Applicant’s Statement, 
dated September 8, 2011; App. Ex. H Statement, dated September 8, 2011) 
 
Applicant paid the collection account for a bank at SOR 1.l in full. (Tr. 37-38; App. 
Ex. D, Statement, dated December 2, 2010) 
 
Applicant has paid other debts not listed on the SOR. She paid a past due cable 
bill. She paid another apartment rental debt. She has not received a receipt back from 
the landlord. (Gov. Ex. 2, Response to Interrogatory, dated July 23, 2010 at 3; App. Ex. 
G, Applicant’s Statement, dated September 8, 20110) Applicant has continued to pay a 
debt to the Internal Revenue Service for taxes due from tax years 2006 and 2007. Her 
debt is now less than $2,000. (App. Ex. M, $750 Postal Receipt, dated August 29, 2011) 
Her student loans are in forbearance since she is attending school. (App. Ex. J, letter, 
dated August 25, 2011) 
 
Applicant’s supervisor wrote that he has known Applicant for approximately two 
years. She is dependable, trustworthy, and hard working. She demonstrates the utmost 
in integrity. He has no reservations recommending her for access to classified 
information. (App. Ex. A, letter, dated August 8, 2011) Applicant received a Certificate of 
Appreciation from a Marine Corps command for her work for them on a special project. 
(App. Ex. B, Certificate, dated July 31, 2011) 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
 
 
Policies 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered in 
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as 
the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available, 
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in 
making a decision. 
 
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) 
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to 
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based 
on the evidence contained in the record.  
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is 
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, 
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . . .” The 
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion in seeking a favorable security decision. 
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This 
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The 
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it 
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations: 
 
 Failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial 
obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by 
rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, 
 
6 
 
 
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. An individual who is 
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
(AG ¶ 18) Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his or her obligations to protect classified 
information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an 
indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
 A person’s relationship with her creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage her finances in such a way as to meet her financial 
obligations. Applicant's delinquent debts established by credit reports raise Financial 
Considerations Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy 
debts); and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations). The evidence 
indicates an inability and not an unwillingness to satisfy debt. Applicant's testimony 
concerning her finances was candid and forthright. She provided financial information of 
her attempts to resolve her financial obligations. 
 
 I considered Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20(a) (the 
behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such 
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s 
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment) and FC MC AG ¶ 20(b) (the 
conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely beyond the person’s 
control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical 
emergency, or a death, divorce, or separation), and the individual acted responsibly 
under the circumstances). These mitigating conditions apply. Applicant incurred 
delinquent debt when she was laid off from her job and was unemployed for over six 
months. These were conditions beyond her control. She is not likely to incur additional 
debts since she is employed and living within her means. 
  
 Applicant acted responsibly towards her debt. She contacted her creditors and 
arranged settlement agreements with some and payment arrangements with others. 
She has paid or is paying most of her financial obligations. She is current with her 
present bills. She has a plan to pay the remaining debts. Applicant acted responsibly 
under the circumstances by paying or making arrangements to pay her debts.  
 
 I considered FC MC ¶ 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). Applicant has not presented any information to substantiate that she 
sought or received debt counseling, But she acted responsibly and presented 
information that her debt problems are being resolved.  
 
I considered FC MC AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to 
repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts). For FC MC AG ¶ 20(d) to 
 
7 
 
 
apply, there must be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” to repay, and “evidence” 
of a good-faith effort to repay. Good faith means acting in a way that shows 
reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty and obligation. A 
systematic method of handling debts is needed. Applicant must establish a "meaningful 
track record" of debt payment. A "meaningful track record" of debt payment can be 
established by evidence of actual debt payments or reduction of debt through payment 
of debts. An applicant is not required to establish that she paid each and every debt 
listed. All that is required is that Applicant demonstrates an established plan to resolve 
her financial problems and show she has taken significant actions to implement that 
plan.  
 
Applicant paid eight of the SOR debts in full. She is making payments on a three 
other SOR debts and will have them paid in the next few months. She is unable to pay 
one other debt because the creditor’s records do not show adequate information to 
accept her payments. She also presented information to show she has paid or is paying 
other debts not listed on the SOR. Applicant's payment of most of her debts provides 
significant and credible information to establish a meaningful track record of debt 
payment. Her actions are reasonable and prudent under her financial circumstances 
and show honesty and an adherence to her financial duties and obligations. She 
established her good-faith efforts to repay her creditors and resolve debt. Her 
reasonable and responsible efforts indicate that her past delinquent debts do not now 
reflect adversely on her trustworthiness, honesty, and good judgment. She has 
mitigated security concerns based on financial considerations. 
 
Whole-Person Analysis  
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
relevant circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative 
process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):  
 
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the 
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable 
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to 
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of 
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the 
motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, 
exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or 
recurrence. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance 
must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
guidelines and the whole-person concept.  
 
 
8 
 
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered Applicant's duty 
performance, her training, and that she has been commended for her work 
performance.  
 
I considered that Applicant's present financial problems arose from conditions 
beyond her control. All of her SOR debts were incurred because she was laid off and 
unemployed for over six months. She established a "meaningful track record" of 
payment of her delinquent debts. She paid eight SOR debts in full and has payment 
plans for three others. She is also paying or has paid other debts not listed on the SOR. 
Applicant's actions to pay her past financial obligations and resolve her debts while 
maintaining a good current financial status indicates she will be concerned, responsible, 
and careful regarding classified information. Overall, the record evidence leaves me 
without questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security 
clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant mitigated security concerns 
arising from financial considerations. She is granted access to classified information.  
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.l:  For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge