1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 10-05070
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns
generated by her delinquent debt. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On June 21, 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 July 6, 2011, admitting all of the allegations and
requesting a hearing. The case was assigned to me on October 3, 2011. A notice of
hearing was issued on October 19, 2011, scheduling the case for November 8, 2011. I
2
held the hearing as scheduled, receiving seven Government exhibits, marked as
Government Exhibits (GE) 1-7, three Applicant exhibits (Applicant Exhibit (AE) 1-3), and
considering Applicant’s testimony. I also received a chart from Department Counsel
linking Applicant’s debts with the corresponding record evidence. I marked this as
Hearing Exhibit I. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on November 17, 2011.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 37-year-old woman who has been married for 12 years. She has
no children.
Applicant has a high school education. She and her husband own and operate a
commercial truck.  (Tr. 16)
The SOR lists four delinquent debts totalling approximately $12,000. Applicant
accrued these debts approximately ten years ago. She attributes these debts to a
combination of overspending, bad business decisions, and her husband’s
hospitalization. (Tr. 36) In approximately 2002, Applicant retained a debt management
company to help her satisfy the debts. (Tr. 35) With the help of this company, Applicant
developed a payment plan. She testified that she adhered to this plan for approximately
three to five years, and satisfied several debts that are not listed in the SOR. She does
not remember how much money she paid into the plan or exactly how long she adhered
to the plan. (Tr. 36) After a while, Applicant “got a bit lazy,” and did not finish the
payment plan. (Tr. 37)
 
Applicant owes the IRS approximately $12,000 in income taxes for tax years
2005 through 2007. (Tr. 29) These delinquencies are not alleged on the SOR. She
accrued these debts because she did not set aside enough of her business income into
an escrow account for income tax payments. (Tr. 30) She has been paying the IRS
approximately $175 monthly for the past two years, and has satisfied the debt owed for
tax year 2005. (Tr. 30)
Since 2007, Applicant has not accrued any additional delinquent debt. In 2011,
she consulted an attorney about her delinquencies. (Tr. 39) She was advised that she
should not pay them because, as debts more than six years old, she was no longer
legally responsible for them. (Tr. 39) 
Applicant has approximately $435 in monthly after-expense income, and $2,000
in savings. (Tr. 36) She intends to pay the SOR delinquencies after she gets her tax
delinquencies “straightened out.”  (Tr. 45)
 
 
3
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 financial struggles 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:
(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;
4
(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.
Upon considering these mitigating conditions, I conclude none apply. Although
Applicant’s husband’s hospitalization and some business struggles contributed to
Applicant’s financial problems, she failed to finish a payment plan. She acknowledged
this failure occurred as a result, not of circumstances beyond her control, but because
of laziness.
Applicant’s SOR debts remain outstanding, and she has no plan to begin
satisfying them until she satisfies $12,000 in delinquent federal income taxes that were
not alleged in the SOR. There is no requirement that an applicant with both listed and
unlisted delinquencies must pay the listed delinquencies first. Financial consideration
security concerns can be mitigated so long as there is a concrete payment plan in
addition to evidence that the applicant has been executing the plan for a long enough
period of time to infer that the problem is being resolved or is under control.
Applicant, however, provided no payment plan or proof that she is satisfying any
of her debts. Her reassurances that she will satisfy her delinquencies, absent concrete
evidence of when she will begin satisfying them, are merely speculative. 
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.   
 
Applicant’s SOR delinquencies remain outstanding, and she is currently not
making any payments toward their satisfaction. These debts have been delinquent for
nearly ten years. Considering this case in the context of the whole-person concept, I
conclude Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations security concern. 
5
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 - 1.d: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge