1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 11-05100
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gina L. Marine, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
During an interview on January 19, 2011, Applicant acknowledged individual
responsibility for several of the accounts listed in the SOR. He did not recognize the
other accounts. Next, he stated that since he has a better paying job, he would contact
the creditors and make arrangements to repay the delinquent debts. Applicant has not
provided any evidence to substantiate his stated intention to contact the creditors and
repay the debt. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant signed and certified his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP, Item 4) on November 7, 2010. Inside Item 5 dated June 20, 2011, is
an interview summary Applicant provided to an investigator from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) on January 19, 2011. The primary topic discussed was Applicant’s
delinquent debts. He provided interrogatory responses (Item 6) to adjudicators from
 The SOR is undated or the date is unreadable. The cover letter from DOHA to Applicant’s employer is dated1
September 29, 2011, and next to Applicant’s signature is the date October 18, 2011, which is interpreted as
the date he received the SOR.
2
DOHA on June 19, 2011. On September 29, 2011,  DOHA issued a Statement of1
Reasons (SOR, Item 1) detailing security concerns under financial considerations
(Guideline F). 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). 
Applicant’s answer (Item 3) is undated and there is no date-stamp to indicate
when DOHA received his answer to the SOR. However, the SOR mailed to Applicant
match the SOR that Applicant entered his answers. Applicant’s answer was notarized,
but the notary did not place a date next to his stamp. A copy of the Government’s File of
Relevant Material (FORM, the Government’s evidence in support of the allegations of
the SOR) was sent to Applicant on November 19, 2011. He received the FORM on
November 25, 2011. In an attachment to the FORM, Applicant was advised he could
object to the information in the FORM or submit additional information in explanation or
extenuation. His response was due by December 25, 2011. No response was received
by DOHA. The case was assigned to me on January 23, 2012. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR contains 19 allegations under the financial considerations guideline.
The first two allegations refer to two petitions Applicant filed under the bankruptcy laws.
He admitted both allegations. Concerning the 17 delinquent debt allegations, Applicant
admitted SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 1.g, 1.k, 1.o, 1.p, 1.r, and 1.s. He denied SOR ¶¶ 1.f, 1.h,
1.i, 1.j, 1.l, 1.m, 1.n, and 1.q. He provided no explanations for his denials. 
As set forth in SOR ¶ 1.a, Applicant filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in November
1997. Applicant was discharged from bankruptcy in February 1998. (Item 9) Applicant
filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition in August 1999. (SOR ¶ 1.b) The petition was
dismissed in November 2003 when Applicant failed to make payments under the
petition. 
The 17 creditors identified in the SOR include medical providers (one of the
medical providers has a judgment filed November 2006 for $15,456 (SOR ¶ 1.i)), a
mortgage lender of a second mortgage (SOR ¶ 1.f), a physical fitness facility, a student
loan, and a credit card. The total amount of delinquent debt in the SOR is $43,170. The
debts became delinquent between June 2005 and November 2010. (Item 7, Item 8)
Applicant is 42 years old. He has been married since January 1995. He has a 9-
year-old son and a 20-year-old stepdaughter. He has been employed as a technician by
3
a defense contractor. Before his current employment, he was unemployed for two
months. He was also unemployed between May and August 2009. (Item 4, e-QIP)
During his interview in January 2011, Applicant recalled the delinquent second
mortgage debt identified in SOR ¶ 1.f. He explained to the investigator that he paid the
mortgage for 12 to 18 months. However, when hours of employment were reduced, and
his overtime was eliminated altogether, he was unable to maintain mortgage payments.
(Item 5) Applicant indicated that he had taken no action on the delinquent debts
because his wife lost her job. He claimed he would begin to repay the debt when his
wife returned to work in the fall of 2011. (Item 6) No additional information was provided.
Applicant also mentioned that SOR ¶ 1.i could be related to an injury that he suffered
while at work. Applicant provided no additional information about the injury or when it
occurred. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the guidelines in the AG. Each guideline lists
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions that are useful in evaluating
an applicant's eligibility for access to classified information.
The administrative judge's ultimate goal is to reach a fair and impartial decision
that is based on sound and prudent judgment. The decision should also include a
careful, thorough evaluation of a number of variables known as the "whole-person
concept" that brings together all available, reliable information about the person, past
and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. Decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of 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 the potential, rather than actual,
risk of compromise of classified information.
Under Directive ¶ E3.l.14., the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.l.l5., 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 bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in demonstrating that he warrants a
favorable security clearance decision. 
Analysis
Financial Considerations 
The security concern for financial considerations is set forth 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
4
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. Compulsive
gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including
espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of
income is also a security concern. It may indicate proceeds from
financially profitable criminal acts.
There are two disqualifying conditions that are applicable: AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts); and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial
obligations) apply.
Applicant began incurring delinquent debt in June 2005. As of September 29,
2011, the date of the SOR, Applicant owed $43,173 in delinquent debt. Applicant has
given no indication that he is able to pay the debt. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) apply. 
Four mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable. No mitigation
is available under 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 reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment). Applicant still owes
the accounts. His declarations to repay the accounts have little weight when he has
made no effort to contact any of the 17 creditors to negotiate settlements. Applicant’s
inaction in responsibly resolving his delinquent debts makes it likely his current financial
problems will continue in the future, inspiring little confidence in his current reliability,
trustworthiness, and good judgment. 
There are two components to AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the
financial problem were largely beyond the person's control and the individual acted
responsibly under the circumstances). The first is an unforeseen event that causes
financial problems was beyond the individual’s control. Applicant’s unemployment since
May 2009 on two occasions for a total of five months, satisfies the first component of
the condition. However, an applicant must also show that he acted responsibly under
the circumstances. Applicant has been continually employed at his current job since
October 2010. Yet, he has not contacted any creditors. Even though his wife is not
working, he could still demonstrate financial responsibility by informing the creditors of
his financial difficulties. He has taken no action. AG ¶ 20(b) does not apply. 
AG ¶ 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)
does not apply. There is no evidence of financial counseling or that the debts are being
resolved or under control. AG ¶ 20(c) does not apply.
Applicant receives no mitigation under AG ¶ 20(d) (a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) because he has made no effort to even
contact the creditors. There is no information that Applicant is contemplating or actively
5
seeking debt consolidation, or a Chapter 7, or Chapter 13 bankruptcy to eliminate the
delinquent debt. Judging by the totality of the circumstances, Applicant has offered
insufficient evidence to prevail under the financial considerations guideline. 
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in
my ultimate finding against Applicant under the financial considerations guideline. I have
also weighed the circumstances within the context of nine variables known as the
whole-person concept. In evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the
administrative judge should consider the following factors listed in 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 the participation was 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.
Given Applicant’s Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in February 1998, his
dismissed Chapter 13 bankruptcy in November 2003, followed by mounting delinquent
debt that totaled $43,170 in September 2011, Applicant should have provided
substantial evidence in mitigation demonstrating the financial problems were being
resolved or under control. Because he presented no evidence indicating he contacted
the creditors or settled any debts, his financial problems are likely to continue. Applicant
has failed to meet his ultimate burden of persuasion under the financial considerations
guideline. See AG ¶ 2(a)(1) through AG ¶ 2(a)(9).
6
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
Subparagraph 1.a through 1.s: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                      
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge