1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 11-03277
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Fahryn Hoffman, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I grant Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information.
Statement of the Case
Applicant signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on December 17, 2009. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on April 19, 2011, detailing security
concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations, that provided the basis for its
preliminary decision to deny him a security clearance. 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 For Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Information (AG) implemented on September 1, 2006. 
 
W hen  SOR allegations are controverted, the Government bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient1
to prove controverted allegations. Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. “That burden has two components. First, the
Government must establish by substantial evidence that the facts and events alleged in the SOR indeed took
place. Second, the Government must establish a nexus between the existence of the established facts and
events and a legitimate security concern.” See ISCR Case No. 07-18525 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 18, 2009),
(concurring and dissenting, in part) (citations omitted). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection
between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See
ISCR Case No. 08-06605 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 4, 2010); ISCR Case No. 08-07290 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 17,
2009).
2
Applicant received the SOR on April 28, 2011. He answered the SOR on May 9,
2011 and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. DOHA received the
request, and Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on June 20, 2011. I
received the case assignment on June 27, 2011. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on
July 11, 2011, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on July 28, 2011. The
Government offered exhibits marked as GE 1 through GE 6, which were received and
admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified. He submitted exhibits
marked as AE A through AE D, which were received and admitted into evidence without
objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on August 11, 2011. I held the
record open until August 29, 2011, for Applicant to submit additional matters. On August
29, 2011, I issued an order granting Applicant’s request for an additional 14 days to
submit the requested information. Applicant timely submitted AE E through AE K, which
were admitted without objection. The record closed on September 12, 2011.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Notice
Applicant received the hearing notice on July 18, 2011, less than 15 days before
the hearing. (Tr. 8.) I advised Applicant of his right under ¶ E3.1.8 of the Directive to
receive the notice 15 days before the hearing. Applicant affirmatively waived his right to
the 15-day notice. (Id.) 
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a,
1.b, and 1.d - 1.h of the SOR. His admissions are incorporated herein as findings of
fact. He denied the factual allegation in ¶ 1.c of the SOR  He also provided additional1
information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance. After a complete
and thorough review of the evidence of record, I make the following additional findings
of fact.  
Applicant, who is 50 years old, works as a commercial truck driver for a
Department of Defense contractor. He began this employment in November 2009. He
does not work 40 hours each and every week. His work hours vary and are dependent
upon availability of work. He begins a new position, as an orientation instructor, for his
GE 1; AE E; Tr. 54.2
GE 1; AE A; Tr. 18-21, 45, 51-52.3
GE 1; AE G; Tr. 18, 35-36, 42.4
Tr. 40-41.5
AE C; Tr. 22-24, 40-41.6
3
employer in August 2011. He anticipates steadier work hours and more regular pay with
this position.   2
Applicant enlisted in the United States Army in 1978 at age 17. He received an
honorable discharge from the Army in January 1992. In 2000, he reenlisted in the Army.
He sustained a serious back injury, and the Veteran’s Administration (VA) awarded him
a 70% service-connected disability in 2005. During his years in the Army, Applicant held
a security clearance without any mishandling of classified information or allegations of
security violations. The Army awarded him three Army Commendation Medals, four
Army Achievement Medals, four Good Conduct Medals, a National Defense Service
Medal with a bronze star, and several ribbons.3
Applicant and his wife married in 1979. They have two adult children, a daughter,
age 30, and a son, age 29. When his wife’s sister died in the early 1990s, they assumed
responsibility for raising her three year old daughter. He has four grandchildren. His
oldest daughter is married and lives independently. His son is looking for work, and his
younger daughter sometimes lives at home with her child. He and his wife provide some
financial help to their children each month.4
Applicant left the Army in 1992 so that his wife could attend dental school. She
completed dental school in 1996 and went on active duty with the United States Public
Health Service (USPHS) in January 1997. She continues to work for USPHS as a
dentist. Applicant worked and cared for their children while his wife attended school.  5
Applicant’s financial problems began in 1997, just after his wife graduated from
dental school. USPHS stationed his wife in an area where his work opportunities were
limited, and the educational opportunities were not very good. He and his wife decided
to send their children to private school This education was expensive and strained their
budget. He traveled long distances to work. By 2000, they had unpaid bills. They paid
these bills in 2005. Applicant and his wife lived in separate housing at different locations
when he was in the military, and she worked for USPHS. In 2003, he received a $4,550
military star loan to pay for moving the two households into one house in one location.
He anticipated that the Army would reimburse him for the costs of moving, but it did
not.6
 After he left the Army in 2003, he experienced problems with unemployment. He
decided to get a commercial driver’s license, which increased his employment
Tr. 23-24, 54, 62-64.7
The personal financial statement previously provided by Applicant contained confusing information about his8
monthly income and expenses. Thus, updated information was requested. GE 4; Tr. 66-84.
Applicant testified to a substantial yearly bonus given to his wife, which has not been verified. Tr. 79.9
AE E - AE H; Tr. 47-48.10
GE 4- GE 6; AE B, AE H - AE K; Tr. 30-31, 59-60. 11
4
opportunities. His work in the trucking industry has not been steady. He attributed his
current financial problems to his sporadic employment and managing two households
the past. He and his wife combined their income to pay their bills.7
After the hearing, Applicant provided an updated financial statement, which his
wife prepared.  Applicant verified that he earned a total of $921 income for June and8
July 2011 as a truck driver. He also received $830 a month in VA disability benefits. His
wife earned $7,180 in basic pay in June 2011. Her basic pay increased in July 2011 to
$7,580 a month. She also received $1,620 a month in basic housing allowance, $224 a
month in basic allowance subsistence, and $750 a month in variable special pay. Her
net monthly income increased from $7,463 a month to $7,736 a month with her pay
increase.  Their monthly expenses total $6,998 a month and include $400 to family9
members, $804 to the debt in SOR ¶ 1.f, a $721 car payment, $900 in credit card
payments, $1,081 for school loans, $275 for a personal loan, $986 for housing costs,
$350 for food, $670 for gasoline and insurance, $350 for entertainment, and a $400
donation. His monthly car payment is $470 a month and vacation resort is $334 a
month, leaving a net remainder of $764 a month without the income from his new job.
Applicant anticipates he will earn $3,000 a month in gross income from his new job.      10
The SOR identified eight purportedly continuing delinquencies as reflected by
credit reports from 2009 and 2011, totaling approximately $21,512.  Some accounts
have been transferred, reassigned, or sold to other creditors or collection agents. Other
accounts are referenced repeatedly in both credit reports, in many instances duplicating
other accounts listed, either under the same creditor or collection agency name or under
a different creditor or collection agency name. Some accounts are identified by
complete account numbers, while others are identified by partial account numbers, in
some instances eliminating the last four digits and in others eliminating other digits.
Concerning the debts listed in the SOR, Applicant verified that two past-due
debts listed in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b are current. He verified that he has reduced the
balance owed on the $15,085 debt in SOR ¶ 1.f to $7,150 and is paying $800 a month
on this debt. He contacted this creditor in 2010, developed a payment plan, and
complied with the terms of his plan. He also verified that the $169 debt in SOR ¶ 1.h is
paid. His credit reports also reflect that many of his debts are paid regularly.11
Tr. 26-29, 31-32, 66-67.12
AE C, AE D.13
Tr. 81-82.14
5
The debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.c ($117), 1.d ($3,062), and 1.e ($92) relate to medical
treatment Applicant received for a concussion he suffered in 2004. His wife’s insurance
provides the primary health coverage for him, as he is listed as her dependent. Initially,
the hospital submitted the medical bill for payment under his name, which the carrier
rejected. The hospital resubmitted the bill under her name. The insurance carrier asked
him for more information, which he provided, and told him his bill would be paid. The
insurance carrier sent a new letter, telling him a different entity was now his carrier, then
advised a second time that another entity was his carrier. He thought the bill had been
paid until he met with the security clearance investigator. After this meeting, he
contacted the medical insurance carrier, which referred him to the creditor now holding
the debt. He has made numerous calls to his insurance carrier, which has told him that
it will pay the bill. He has also contacted the liaison at his wife’s base, who is working
with him on resolving the problems with payment of these bills, which total $3,271.
Applicant believes that he owes $334 on the $882 debt in SOR ¶ 1.g, which relates to a
timeshare he purchased in 2005 and is trying to sell. He did not verify the status of this
debt.   12
Applicant’s supervisor provided a letter, recommending Applicant for a security
clearance. His supervisor advised that he properly handled the secure loads and never
compromised the safety of the loads. His wife described him as loyal and dependable,
a man of integrity.13
Applicant expressed a desire to meet with a financial counselor at the hearing.
He had not done so as of the hearing. His wife manages the family income and
expenses.14
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 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, 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,
6
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, an applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining 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 an 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. 
AG ¶ 19 describes the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially applicable: 
7
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Appellant’s financial problems first developed in the late 1990s when he and his
wife moved to her first assignment with the USPHS. After he left the Army in 2003, he
could not find work, which created new financial problems for he and his wife. Some of
the debts have not been resolved. These two disqualifying conditions apply.
The Financial Considerations guideline also includes examples of conditions that
can mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 20(a) through
20(f), and the following are potentially applicable:
(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;
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem 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;
(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; and
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
Applicant’s wife’s work with USPHS created financial problems in the later 1990s.
By 2005, they had paid these debts. Since this time, he experienced unemployment and
underemployment. He and his wife supported two households for a period of time,
which created additional expenses and strained their budget. He obtained his
commercial driver’s license to improve his ability to work because the job opportunities
where he lived were limited. His wife’s income steadily increased over the last 14 years,
and he recently started a job with a steady paycheck. The mitigating conditions in AG ¶¶
20(a) and 20(b) are applicable.
Applicant contacted his largest creditor and developed a payment plan in 2010.
He has complied with his payment plan. He also caught up his past-due balances on his
car accounts and continues to pay his monthly payments. He paid one other debt and
has been in contact with the medical bill creditor and his health insurance carrier to
resolve his unpaid medical bills from his concussion. He has sufficient income each
month to pay his monthly expenses and to pay his debts.  Mitigating condition AG ¶
In assessing whether an Applicant has established mitigation under Guideline F, the Appeal Board15
provided the following guidance in ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008):
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the concept of
“‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of actual debt reduction through
payment of debts.” See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 200). However,
an applicant is not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and
every debt listed in the SOR. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-25499 at 2 (App. Bd. Jun. 5,
2006). All that is required is that an applicant demonstrate that he has “. . . established a plan
to resolve his financial problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.” See,
e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 6, 2006). The Judge can reasonably
consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and his actions in evaluating the
extent to which that applicant’s plan for the reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is
credible and realistic. See Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (“Available, reliable information about the
8
20(c) is partially applicable because not all his debts are resolved, and he has not
received financial counseling. AG ¶20 (d) applies only to the debt in SOR ¶ 1.f.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct,
but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a
nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
The evidence in support of granting a security clearance to Applicant under the
whole-person concept is more substantial than the evidence in support of denial. In
reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case.  When his15
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a
determination.”) There is no requirement that a plan provide for payments on all outstanding
debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for
the payment of such debts one at a time. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-25584 at 4 (App. Bd.
Apr. 4, 2008). Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually paid in
furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the SOR.
9
wife first began working as a dentist for the USPHS, they incurred debts because they
needed to send their children to private school, and Applicant had to travel to work. By
2005, he paid these debts. Since 2005, Applicant’s work opportunities have vacillated,
creating some problems with payment of a few bills. His wife manages the household
finances. With her current income, they have more than sufficient income each month to
pay their bills. With the level of her income, there is some concern about how they fell
behind in their car payments. However, these payments are current. Applicant’s
steadier income from his new job will help stabilize his monthly income and provide a
cushion for unexpected expenses.
Applicant contacted his largest creditor in 2010 and agreed to a substantial
monthly payment of $800. This is a substantial monthly payment, which he pays. He
and his wife pay their other creditors on a monthly basis and are not behind in these
bills. His credit reports show that he pays many of his bills in a timely manner and has.
He did not pay the listed medical bills because he thought his insurance carrier had paid
the bills. Since he learned that he was wrong, he has contacted the medical insurance
carrier and the creditor about the bills. He also sought assistance through his wife’s
base with working with the medical insurance carrier to resolve this debt. He has taken
responsibility for his debts and worked to resolve them for the last year. Most
significantly, he has taken affirmative action to pay or resolve most of the delinquent
debts raising security concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(6).) His efforts reflect that he is not a
security concern. His unpaid medical bills of $3,200 are not a security concern as he is
working to resolve these bills, and thus, this debt cannot be a source of improper
pressure or duress. Of course, the issue is not simply whether all his debts are paid: it is
whether his financial circumstances raise concerns about his fitness to hold a security
clearance. While some debts remain unpaid, they are insufficient to raise security
concerns as Applicant’s income is now more stable than it has been for the last few
years. (See AG & 2(a)(1).)
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his finances under
Guideline F.
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
10
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: 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.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge