1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-04277
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie E. Mendez, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Joseph W. Kastl, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns generated by
his delinquent debt. Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On May 23, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant 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) implemented by the Department of Defense on December
1, 2006.
Applicant answered the SOR on June 24, 2011, admitting all of the allegations
and requesting a hearing. The case was assigned to me on October 24, 2011. A notice
of hearing was issued on November 8, 2011, scheduling the case for November 14,
2
2011. I held the hearing as scheduled, receiving four Government exhibits, marked as
Government Exhibits (GE) 1-4, two Applicant exhibits (Applicant Exhibits (AE) A - B),
and considering the testimony of Applicant and two witnesses. 
At the close of the hearing, I left the record open, at Applicant’s request, for him
to submit additional documents. Within the time allotted, Applicant submitted five
additional exhibits marked as AE C through G. Department Counsel did not object to the
admissibility of AE D through G, and I admitted them. Department Counsel objected to
AE C, an e-mail compilation of post-hearing questions and answers. I sustained
Department Counsel’s objection to AE C, and did not consider it. DOHA received the
transcript (Tr.) on November 22, 2011.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 33-year-old single man with two children, age five, from previous
relationships. Both children live with their mothers. Applicant has a high school
education, and is working toward an associate’s degree. (Tr. 14)
Applicant is a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, where he served from 1996 to 2002.
He was honorably discharged. (Tr. 15) While in the Marines, Applicant worked primarily
as a security guard. After his discharge, he has remained in this line of work with
various civilian employers. (Tr. 62) Since approximately October 2009, Applicant has
been working in a combat zone as a biometrics security officer. (Tr. 22) His duties
include screening foreign nationals who work  at the U.S. base where he is assigned.
Among other tasks, Applicant takes fingerprints, and collects geographic data and
family histories of various base workers. (Tr. 33) Applicant works approximately 85
hours per week. (Tr. 30)
Applicant’s job is dangerous. Recently, seven coworkers were killed when a
suicide bomber drove a truck armed with explosives into their armored bus. (Tr. 30)
In 2006, Applicant purchased a home for $120,000. He financed all of the
purchase price with a mortgage, as listed in subparagraph 1.b. (Tr. 44) Later that year,
Applicant obtained a second mortgage. (GE 2 at 1)
Increased criminal activity in the neighborhood compelled Applicant to move
about two or three months after purchasing the home. (Answer at 3; Tr. 45) He
purchased another home and kept the home from where he moved with the intention of
renting it. 
Applicant’s efforts at finding responsible renters were unsuccessful. Tenants did
not properly maintain the property and seldom paid rent consistently. Consequently,
turnover was high, and Applicant incurred costly maintenance expenses. (Tr. 70) 
Applicant gradually fell behind on both his first and second mortgages. In
September 2008, the primary mortgagee (subparagraph 1.b) contacted Applicant and
It is unknown from the record why Applicant terminated the services of the attorney with whom he worked1
originally.
The attorney helping Applicant with the delinquency is not the attorney representing him in this matter.2
3
offered to modify the loan if Applicant agreed to make three consecutive payments
followed by a lump-sum payment. (AE 4 at 6) Applicant made the three monthly
payments, but was unable to afford the lump-sum payment. The mortgagee extended
the trial modification offer into 2009, again promising that if Applicant could make three
consecutive mortgage payments followed by a lump-sum payment, it would modify the
loan. 
Applicant lost his job in April 2009, and was subsequently unemployed for six
months. (Tr. 73) Consequently, his effort at complying with the terms of the loan
modification agreement failed. At or about this time, Applicant retained legal counsel.
They advised him to focus on making the mortgage payments on his residence and stop
trying to make mortgage payments on his rental property. (Tr. 80-81)
Applicant followed the attorney’s advice. Subsequently, the mortgagee initiated
foreclosure proceedings. (Tr. 81) By October 2009, the account with the primary
mortgagee was in foreclosure status with a balance of approximately $82,100, and the
account with the secondary mortgagee was delinquent in the amount of $19,000. (GE 2
at 1; Tr. 56)
In June 2011, Applicant retained another law firm to assist him in resolving these
delinquencies (Tr. 49).  With their assistance, Applicant settled the secondary mortgage1
account for $12,000, satisfying it with one lump-sum payment. (AE D at 18)
The primary mortgage remains outstanding. Applicant’s attorney, who is helping
him resolve this delinquency, testified that he is attempting to negotiate either a short
sale or a deed in lieu of foreclosure.  (Tr. 79) He is “having a little bit of trouble” with the2
lender that is an assignee of the original mortgagee. Its records initially indicated that
Applicant owed no debt. (Tr. 79) Applicant is working diligently through his attorney to
resolve the problem. (Tr. 82)
A realtor, qualified as an expert in the real estate market where Applicant owns
the rental property, testified. (Tr. 95-106) She noted that as the neighborhood continued
to deteriorate and the real estate market continued to be depressed as a result of the
2008 market collapse, Applicant’s rental property has continued to lose value. Homes in
that neighborhood have depreciated nearly 75 percent since 2008. (Tr. 97)
Applicant earns approximately $110,000 per year. (AE D at 4) Approximately 85
percent of his income is tax-free. (Tr. 50) He has been earning this salary since starting
his job in October 2010. Applicant did not move more promptly to resolve the mortgage
delinquency because he mistakenly thought the property was foreclosed, and that a
borrower’s responsibility to pay a mortgage ends with a property’s foreclosure. (Tr. 54)
4
Applicant has $3,000 in savings and $2,400 in monthly after-expense income.
(Tr. 54; AE D at 8-9) He is current on his child support payments. Since beginning his
current job, Applicant has satisfied a credit card debt, unlisted on the SOR, in the
amount of approximately $8,700. (Tr.54)
In the mid 2000s, Applicant allowed his teenage brother and his brother’s best
friend, “who had no one to turn to,” to move in with him. (Tr. 26) Through Applicant’s
mentoring, Applicant’s younger brother earned an associate’s degree and now serves in
the U.S. Air Force, and the other young man graduated from high school. (Tr. 27; AE F-
G)
 
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. 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.” 
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 for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “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 (AG
¶ 18). Applicant’s mortgage delinquencies trigger the application of AG ¶¶ 19(a),
“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations.” 
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:
5
(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 difficulties paying the mortgage coincided with troubles maintaining
paying tenants in the property. His subsequent efforts at complying with a loan
modification plan failed after he lost his job in April 2009. In June 2011, Applicant
retained an attorney to help him resolve the mortgage delinquencies. With the attorney’s
help, he settled and satisfied subparagraph 1.b, and is working on settling the mortgage
delinquency listed in subparagraph 1.a.
Department Counsel asserts that it was irresponsible for Applicant to wait 18
months after he began his current job to begin attempting to settle the outstanding
mortgage delinquencies. Applicant’s delay was not caused by irresponsibility or
procrastination. Rather, it was caused by a good-faith, mistaken belief that the property
had been foreclosed rendering him no longer responsible for payment. In gauging
Applicant’s credibility, I considered his satisfaction of a fairly substantial unlisted debt
during his first 18 months on his current job, and his diligent efforts to resolve the
mortgage delinquency since retaining an attorney six months ago.
Applicant maintains a budget and has ample disposable income to satisfy the
delinquent mortgage. I conclude that all of the mitigating conditions listed above apply.
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 the applicant’s
conduct and all the 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.   
6
Applicant served honorably as a member of the Marines for six years. For the
past two years, he has been serving the country working as a civilian contractor in a
combat zone. He is a role model in his family who has mentored and helped raise both
his younger brother and his younger brother’s friend. Evaluating these factors together
with mitigating conditions, in the context of the whole-person concept, I conclude
Applicant has carried the burden.
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.b: 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.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge