1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 11-05241
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Statement of the Case
Applicant signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP) on January 26, 2011. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on August 9, 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. 
 
2
Applicant received the SOR on August 12, 2011. He answered the SOR on
September 1, 2011 and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. DOHA
received the request, and Department Counsel was prepared to proceed on October 26,
2011. I received the case assignment on November 1, 2011. DOHA issued a Notice of
Hearing on November 17, 2011, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on
December 6, 2011. The Government offered exhibits marked as GE 1 through GE 5,
which were received and admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified.
He submitted exhibits marked as AE A through AE J, which were received and admitted
into evidence without objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on
December 13, 2011. I held the record open until January 15, 2012, for Applicant to
submit additional matters. Applicant timely submitted AE K - AE Q, which were marked
and admitted without objection. The record closed on January 15, 2012.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Notice
Applicant received the hearing notice on November 28, 2011, less than 15 days
before the hearing. (Tr. 7.) 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.) 
Evidence
Subsequent to the close of the record, Applicant submitted two additional
documents for inclusion in the record. Applicant’s submission is treated as a Motion to
Reopen the Record. Department Counsel objected to the admission of the additional
evidence on the grounds that the evidence is untimely. Department Counsel’s objection
is treated as a response to Applicant’s motion.
Applicant’s latest submissions supplement and clarify information previously
submitted by Applicant and issues discussed at the hearing. This evidence does not
raise new issues. Although Applicant’s latest evidence is untimely, Department
Counsel’s objections are overruled as Department Counsel has not shown that the
Government would be prejudiced by the submission of this evidence. Applicant’s motion
is granted, and the record is reopened for the admission of AE R and AE S into the
record.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶ 1.c of
the SOR. His admission is incorporated herein as a finding of fact. He denied the factual
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).
Applicant asserted that these allegations were the same debt. He admitted the debt, which is discussed infra.2
GE 1; AE A; AE D; AE E.3
GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 19.4
Tr. 20-21.5
3
allegations in ¶¶ 1.a and 1.d of the SOR.  He neither admitted nor denied the1
allegations in ¶¶ 1.b and 1.e of the SOR.  He also provided additional information to2
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 40 years old, works as a test engineer for a Department of
Defense contractor. He began his current employment in December 2010. He has
worked in computer test engineering for 15 years. Three co-workers, who worked with
him in the past and now work with him at his current job, wrote letters of
recommendation. All describe him as hard-working, reliable, dependable, and
trustworthy. They view him as a man of character and integrity. One co-worker knows
about his financial problems and briefly discussed the reasons for Applicant’s financial
problems and his handling of these problems.3
Applicant married his first wife in 1990 at the age of 19. They separated in 2006,
and their divorce finalized in 2007. He married his second wife in December 2009. He
has three children. His two sons are 18 and 14 years old, and his daughter is 17 years
old. He also has three stepchildren, who 19, 15, and 12 years old. The oldest stepchild
graduated from high school and is now in the United States military. Applicant attends
college, and is working toward a bachelor’s degree in religion.4
In late 2006 or early 2007, Applicant sustained an injury to his shoulder, which
required surgery. He did not work for three months. During this time, Applicant received
disability income, which was less than his regular income. His reduced income impacted
his ability to fully pay his living expenses.5
When Applicant and his first wife decided to separate in 2006, they agreed that
she would live in the marital home and that she would pay the mortgage. He moved out
of the house, and shortly thereafter, he signed a contract to buy a house for himself. He
Response to SOR; GE 3; Tr. 24. There is some confusion in the record on the principal amount of Applicant’s6
primary mortgage loan on his house. After a review of the information in the record, I find that the primary
mortgage loan was $300,000.
Tr. 47.7
AE N; Tr.  43-44.8
GE 3 - GE 5; AE H; AE I; AE L; AE N; Tr. 20-21, 26-27, 41-42, 47.9
4
purchased his house for $375,000 in August 2006. He paid for his house with a
$300,000 primary mortgage and a $75,000 second mortgage.6
Less than two weeks prior to the settlement on his new house, Applicant’s first
wife informed him that she had purchased a house and did not want to live in the marital
home. Applicant and his first wife agreed to sell the marital home, and she transferred
her interest in the home to him in August 2006. He agreed to perform repairs on the
marital home and to pay the mortgage ($1,480 a month) until he sold it, which he
believed would occur within three months of August 2006. He also decided to proceed
with the settlement on his new house because he could manage two mortgages for
three months. He timely completed the necessary repairs.  Throughout the year 2007,7
Applicant made regular payments on both primary mortgages and his second mortgage.
His evidence does not clearly reflect that he made his mortgage payments every month,
but it shows that he made most of his monthly payments in 2007.8
Applicant placed the marital home for sale, but it did not sell quickly. In October
2007, Applicant received a short-sale offer on this property. The mortgage lender
agreed to the $150,000 offer on the marital home. The sale of the property finalized in
December 2007. Applicant signed a warranty deed for this property on December 5,
2007. The mortgage company released the Deed of Trust on December 18, 2007. The
release indicated that the Deed of Trust had been paid pursuant to a settlement
agreement. The February 4, 2011 and May 19, 2011 credit reports show that Applicant
owed $108,000 (SOR ¶ 1.c) on this mortgage account, which is incorrect as shown by
the release of the Deed of Trust. Applicant submitted a challenge to the credit reporting
agencies after the hearing. On January 24, 2012, he received notice that one credit
reporting agency had corrected the account information to show a zero balance and
current account.9
In early 2008, Applicant applied to the lender holding the mortgages on his house
for a loan modification. On February 20, 2008, the mortgage lender mailed Applicant
two letters outlining a modification plan for his first and second mortgages. The
mortgage lender requested two payments from Applicant, one in the amount of
$2,513.43 and the other in the amount of $187.42. Applicant obtained two cashier’s
checks in these amounts on March 19, 2008 and mailed the checks to the mortgage
lender. On March 27, 2008, the mortgage lender denied his request for modification on
the grounds it did not receive the requested funds. By letter dated April 22, 2008, the
mortgage lender acknowledged receipt of documentation from him, but again stated that
The record does not contain any information as to what happened with these funds.10
AE K. The lender also denied a 2007 request by Applicant for a loan refinance because the value of the11
house was not sufficient. Response to SOR; AE M.
AE K; AE S; Tr. 21-23.12
The SOR identified this debt twice (SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.e) It is not unusual for credit reports to show some13
accounts as transferred, reassigned, or sold to other creditors or collection agents. Other accounts are
referenced repeatedly in all 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. In this case, the
collection agency assigned the account a different account number.
GE 4; GE 5; AE J;  AE S; Tr. 24-26, 34-36.14
5
it did not receive his funds  and denied his request for modification. The mortgage10
lender proceeded with foreclosure.11
In March 2008, Applicant hired a real estate agent to sell the house he
purchased in August 2006. The real estate agent listed Applicant’s house for $365,000.
He received an offer of $360,000 on his house, and the real estate agent forwarded the
offer to the mortgage lender. The mortgage lender denied receiving the offer and never
acted on Applicant’s request to approve this offer. The buyer withdrew the offer when
the mortgage lender took no action. Applicant received a second offer in the amount of
$300,000, which was forwarded to the lender. Again, the lender took no action on the
offer. Instead the lender foreclosed on his property in July 2008. The record contains
evidence showing an offer was forwarded to the mortgage lender on May 20, 2008, but
it is not clear which offer was forwarded on this date. The February 4, 2011 credit report
indicates that the $300,000 primary mortgage has a zero balance because the
mortgage lender reclaimed the collateral to settle the defaulted debt. The May 19, 2011
credit report shows a zero balance and mortgage default on the primary mortgage.
(SOR ¶ 1.d) Applicant submitted a challenge to the credit reporting agencies after the
hearing. On January 24, 2012, he received notice from one credit reporting agency
which contained a notation that this was a foreclosure and that the collateral had been
sold. This report also showed a zero balance and current account.12
The second mortgage continues to be listed on all credit reports with a balance
due of $74,747. The February 4, 2011 credit report and the January 24, 2012 notice
from one credit reporting agency reflect that the mortgage lender sold the second
mortgage to another lender. The May 19, 2011 credit report lists this debt twice, with the
mortgage lender and with the collection agency.  Applicant admitted owning his second13
mortgage, but denied two second mortgage loan debts. Based on the information in the
record, I find that SOR allegation 1.e is a duplicate of SOR allegation 1.b. Applicant
contacted the collection agency for the second mortgage on two occasions. He could
not and has not reached an agreement to settle this debt because the creditor seeks a
monthly payment of $1,100, which Applicant cannot afford to pay.14
Response to SOR; AE G; AE O; AE S; Tr. 28.15
Response to SOR; AE O; Tr. 21, 33.16
AE P; AE Q; Tr. 29-32.17
AE B; AE C; AE F.18
6
SOR ¶ 1.a identifies a small debt of $128 for a cable bill. Applicant denies the
debt as he pays his cable bill every month. He submitted copies of recent payments on
his cable bill as well as copies of his cable bills in 2008. The documents show a different
monthly amount for his bill than the amount shown on the credit report as past-due.
After the hearing, Applicant submitted a challenge to the credit reporting agencies on
this debt. On January 24, 2012, he received notice that one credit reporting agency had
deleted this debt and one other challenged debt from his credit report. Applicant has
resolved this debt.15
Applicant incurred other debts during 2006 and 2007 when he attempted to pay
the mortgages on two houses. His debts included unpaid utility bills and condo fees. He
paid these debts between 2006 and 2010. Applicant has resolved all the non-mortgage
debts from this time period. He also paid over $4,000 in Attorney fees in 2008 when his
first wife sought to change their custody agreement.16
Applicant’s net monthly income totals $5,641. His $765 monthly child support
payment is deducted from his pay. His monthly expenses total $4,932. He did not list his
$200 a month church contribution in his expenses. With this amount added to his
expenses, he has a monthly remainder of $509. He owns three cars: a 1999 jeep, a
1996 Honda, and a 1993 Mazda Miata, which does not work. His wife does not work.
He has not received financial counseling.17
Applicant performs volunteer work with his church, particularly with teenagers.
Applicant submitted three letters of recommendation from friends. Each individual
described him as reliable and trustworthy. He is also described in these letters as hard-
working and honorable, a man of integrity. One individual stated that he never knew
Applicant to be lavish in his spending. All three individuals recommend him for a security
clearance.18
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
7
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, 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
8
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: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Appellant developed significant financial problems when he and his first wife
separated and divorced. He was unable to pay all his living expenses because he
owned two houses with mortgages. As a result, he incurred unpaid debts. The SOR lists
only five debts, one of which is a duplication. 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:
(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;
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.
In assessing whether an Applicant has established mitigation under Guideline F,
the Appeal Board 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
9
(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 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.
Applicant’s financial problems began in 2006, when he and his first wife decided
to separate and divorce after many years of marriage. She initially agreed to live in the
marital home and pay the mortgage. Because of this agreement, Applicant signed a
sales contract to purchase another home for himself. His first wife decided not to live in
the marital home. The divorce and his wife’s decision are factors beyond his control. His
decision to proceed with the purchase of his house, in hindsight, was ill-advised. His
belief that he could repair and sell the marital home in three months was impacted by
the start of the decline in housing the market in the area in which he lived, another
factor beyond his control. These two events resulted in three SOR debts, including
defaulted mortgage loans. He paid and resolved the smaller debts on his own. He tried
on two occasions to refinance or modify his mortgage loans on his house without
success. He sold the marital home through a short-sale, and he no longer owes any
money on the mortgage for this house. He listed his house for sale and obtained two
offers on the house. His mortgage company did not act on either offer, a factor he
cannot control. The mortgage company foreclosed on his house, then took possession
of the house in payment of the primary mortgage. Overall, the evidence of record
reflects that he acted reasonably under the circumstances in which he found himself.
AG ¶ 20 (b) applies.
Applicant has resolved all but one SOR debt. While he has not received financial
counseling, he lives within his financial means. He has sufficient monthly income to pay
his usual and customary living expenses and to pay for unexpected expenses, such as
car repairs. He owns three old cars. There is no evidence he has high levels of other
debt. Rather, he has a track record for paying and resolving his debts. AG ¶ 20(c)
applies.
AG ¶ 20(d) has some applicability because Applicant spoke on two occasions
with the creditor for the one remaining unpaid debt in an effort to resolve his outstanding
10
second mortgage debt. He and the creditor have been unable to reach a settlement
agreement on this debt.
After the hearing, Applicant filed challenges with the credit reporting agencies
about several debts listed in the SOR. Because he pays his cable bill every month and
because he does not have any indication that he has a past-due balance on this
account, he had a legitimate basis for disputing this $128 account. He also disputed the
credit reports information concerning a debt owed on the marital home. He provided
proof that the mortgage lender accepted a settlement on this debt; thus, he properly
disputed this debt as being improperly listed on his credit report. AG ¶ 20(e) applies to
SOR allegations 1.a and 1.c.
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. Applicant
paid his bills and supported his family for many years. When he and his first wife
decided to divorce, financial problems ensued simply because he now paid for his own
housing expenses and incurred attorney fees for his divorce. He relied upon the
11
agreement he and his wife reached on managing the cost of the marital home when he
entered into a purchase contract on a house. When his wife reneged on their
agreement, he agreed to take responsibility for repairing the marital home and selling it.
She transferred her interest in the marital property to him, and he paid the mortgage. He
knew when he made the decision to proceed with the purchase of his house that he
could be creating financial problems for himself. He struggled for one year to pay both
mortgages. During this year, property values decreased. He sold the marital home
through a short-sale and at a loss. Although his real estate agent obtained two short-
sale offers on his house, one for $360,000 and one for $300,000, the mortgage lender
failed to take any action on the offers and instead, foreclosed on his property. This
decision by the mortgage lender left Applicant with an unpaid second mortgage of
$74,000. If the first short-sale offer had been accepted, he would owe at most $15,000
on his second mortgage. Throughout the foreclosure process on his house, he and his
real estate agent attempted to work with the mortgage lender without any success. The
mortgage lender ignored him.
Applicant recognizes that his decision to pay two mortgages created a financial
crisis for him. He acted responsibly in resolving the problems he created. His one
remaining debt is not resolved because he continues to encounter problems with the
creditor over how to pay the debt. Applicant is a fiscally responsible individual. He pays
his bills and supports his family. He is not financially irresponsible because of his
decision in 2006. In 2006, he believed he made the right decision as he had sufficient
funds to pay his mortgages for a few months. He did not anticipate the decline in the
real estate market, which created his financial problems. He managed his bills to the
best of his ability, particularly since his income was reduced for three months, when he
collected disability income during his recuperation from shoulder surgery.
Applicant is recognized for his dedication, reliability, dependability, integrity, and
trustworthiness by his colleagues. He is married and supports five children. He provides
a stable domestic environment for his family. Most significantly, he has taken affirmative
action to pay or resolve most of the delinquent debts raising security concerns. (See AG
& 2(a)(6).) He has not been able to resolve the second mortgage; however, this debt
cannot be a source of improper pressure or duress since Applicant acknowledged it. 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 this
debt remains unpaid and unresolved, it is insufficient to raise a security concern. (See
AG & 2(a)(1).) In weighing all the positive and negative evidence of record, I find that
the evidence record supports granting Applicant a security clearance. Applicant has a
track record for paying his debts and his living expenses. He is not required to be debt
free or to pay all the debts identified in the SOR to hold a security clearance. See ISCR
Case No. 07-06482 at 3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008).
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.
12
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
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
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