1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 10-09331
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Phillip J. Katauskas, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant had adequate notice since March 2010 that the Government was
concerned about her delinquent accounts. The record demonstrates she is credibly trying
to obtain a loan modification agreement. The record also shows she paid the department
store debt because her claim is supported by documents from the creditor verifying that she
settled the account. That kind of documented evidence does not exist for the other nine
accounts because: (1) she did not have the documents to support her claims; (2) she
supplied documents that did not prove the debt was paid; or (3) she furnished different
accounts of having documentary proof. Eligibility for access to classified information is
denied. 
2
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified her Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP)(GE 1) on January 8, 2010. On March 17, 2010, she was interviewed
about her delinquent debts by an investigator from the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM). That interview appears in Applicant’s interrogatory answers dated March 19, 2011.
(GE 2) Applicant indicated that the interview summary was not correct and provided
corrections. Those corrections shall be addressed in the Findings of Fact.
On September 15, 2011, DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) 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) implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1,
2006. 
Applicant submitted her answer to the SOR on November 10, 2011. DOHA issued
a notice of hearing on January 7, 2012, for a hearing on February 7, 2012. The hearing was
held as scheduled. At the hearing, six exhibits (GE 1 through 6) were admitted in evidence
without objection in support of the Government’s case. Applicant and two witnesses
testified. In the time allowed for Applicant to submit post-hearing exhibits, she submitted
eight exhibits (AE A through AE H). The Government had no objection to the exhibits and
they were admitted into evidence. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on February 14, 2012.
The record closed on February 28, 2012. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR alleges security concerns emanating from the financial considerations
guideline. There are 11 delinquent debt allegations totaling $57,397. The largest delinquent
accounts are  a delinquent mortgage of $39,940 (SOR ¶ 1.c) and an auto installment loan
balance of $13,119 (SOR ¶ 1.d). After subtracting the past due mortgage account from
Applicant’s total debt, the remaining delinquent debt is $17,457. According to the credit
bureau reports, the accounts became delinquent between May 2006 (SOR ¶ 1.e) and
November 2009. (GE 4, 5, 6) Applicant admitted all the allegations except for SOR ¶ 1.i.
Applicant is 53 years old and widowed. She married her husband in November 2002.
Her husband died in April 2007 while trying to extinguish a fire in his parked truck. The truck
was hit by a speeding automobile, causing her husband’s death. (Tr. 64) Applicant has two
sons from a previous relationship. Her daughter from a previous relationship was murdered
in April 2009. Applicant has been employed as an administrative assistant by a defense
contractor since August 2008. Before her current job, she was employed as a security
3
guard and an emergency management technician. In December 2008, Applicant received
a certificate of completion of a state fire and rescue training course. 
Before her husband’s death in April 2007, he was earning approximately $60,000
a year, and Applicant was earning about $30,000. After his death, she encountered
financial problems because she could not pay all the bills on her $30,000 a year earnings.
(Tr. 58) She became very depressed for a significant period of time. She developed
problems completing tasks. (Tr. 68) She did not open her mail for a significant period. (GE
1 at 46) Her depression was aggravated by her daughter’s death in April 2009 and
subsequent murder trial in March 2010. (GE 2, interview summary)
Applicant was advised early in the hearing that documentation was essential to
establishing that she satisfied the delinquent accounts listed in the SOR. (Tr. 16)
Throughout the security investigation, she provided inconsistent positions about having the
necessary documentation to verify her payment of most of the listed and unlisted accounts.
Considering her demeanor and conduct during the hearing, and though she did not mention
grief counseling until her post hearing statement (AE H), it is clear she is suffering from
some level of depression that may be negatively affecting her memory. However, without
any independent evidence from a mental health professional or some other source, I am
unable to find that her depression is the sole cause of her contradictory documentary
claims of proof. Those different positions undermine the believability of Applicant’s debt
payment claims. The debts listed in the SOR will be examined in chronological order.
SOR ¶ 1.a. In an attached statement to her March 2011 interrogatory answers
modifying her March 2010 interview summary, Applicant indicated she was not familiar with
the account and had “sent a dispute.” (GE 2) In her answer to the SOR dated November
10, 2011, she admitted the debt and claimed she paid it and had verification coming in the
mail. At the hearing on February 7, 2012, she testified that she had the documentation to
prove she paid the debt. (Tr. 46) However, in the position statement she provided after the
hearing (AE D), she stated she could not verify payment of the debt with documentation.
GE 6, a credit report dated June 2, 2011, shows she still owes the account.
SOR ¶ 1.b. Applicant provided documentation from the collection agency proving
she paid this debt in March 2011. (AE A)
SOR ¶ 1.c. In an attached statement to her March 2011 interrogatory answers
modifying her March 2010 interview summary, Applicant indicated she had been trying to
receive a loan modification agreement concerning her mortgage since 2007. (GE 2) At the
hearing, she maintained she had the documentation to support her assertion that she had
made frequent attempts to obtain the loan modification. (Tr. 49) She submitted a package
of documents showing that she submitted one request on February 2, 2012. (AE B, D) The
account still appears delinquent in her June 2011 credit report. (GE 6)
4
SOR ¶ 1.d. In an attached statement to her March 2011 interrogatory answers
modifying her March 2010 interview summary, Applicant stated she intended to start
making payments on the vehicle installment loan when she received her tax return. (GE 2)
In her March 2010 interview summary, Applicant explained that her son assumed the truck
payments for a period until he lost his job, and her mother-in-law intended to purchase the
vehicle, but passed away in 2010. (GE 2, interview summary) At the hearing, Applicant
testified her husband purchased the truck in 2003 and she was a cosigner on the
installment loan contract. (Tr. 50) She tried unsuccessfully to reach the collection company
who was handling the delinquent account. She stated she was just holding the vehicle
because she did not want a repossession on her record. (Tr. 52) In her post-hearing
position statement, she stated she could not reach the collection company. (AE D) The
account appears in her June 2011 credit report. (GE 6)
SOR ¶ 1.e. In an attached statement to her March 2011 interrogatory answers
modifying her March 2010 interview summary, Applicant believed that the account
represented attorneys fees for services provided when her mother died in 2000. In her
answer to the SOR, Applicant averred that she paid the account in July 2011. She testified
she had proof to verify she paid the account. (Tr. 52-53) When asked by the Government
whether the SOR ¶ 1.e account was related to the SOR ¶ 1.d truck installment loan
account, Applicant testified “yes.” (Tr. 58) In her post-hearing position statement, she
reiterated she had paid the account and claimed she provided a letter as proof of payment.
(AE D) After examining her post-hearing documents, I found no letter attached. 
SOR ¶¶ 1.f, 1.j, and 1.k. In her attached statement to her March 2011 interview
answers modifying her 2010 interview summary, Applicant claimed she paid the parking
tickets. In her answer to the SOR, she reiterated her claim that she paid the tickets and
provided proof. (AE C) The first page of the exhibit shows a motion to vacate the judgment
for two traffic violations. The second page of the exhibit provides details of the violations.
In the right-hand corner of the second page, there is a column with the words “Total Due”
at the top of the column. The exhibit does not indicate the tickets were paid. (Id.)
SOR ¶ 1.g. Applicant did not address this debt in her attachment to her March 2011
interrogatory answers. In her answer to the SOR, Applicant indicated she paid the account
in full. Applicant testified she paid the debt and had documentation. (Tr. 54) In her post-
hearing position statement, she indicated she paid the account, but could not provide
verifying documentation. (AE D) The delinquent account is listed in the credit bureau report
dated September 28, 2010. (GE 4)
SOR ¶ 1.h. In an attached statement to Applicant’s March 2011 interrogatory
answers modifying her March 2010 interview summary, she contended she paid the
telephone bill. (GE 2) In her answer to the SOR, she reiterated her claim of paying the bill
and having a letter attached to her answer. No letter is attached to her answer. She
5
testified she had documentation to show she had paid the bill. (Tr. 54) In her post-hearing
position statement, she averred that the letter from the creditor was to be mailed to her on
February 15, 2012. No letter could be found in Applicant’s post-hearing documentation. The
account appears in GE 3 and GE 4 as charged off. 
SOR ¶ 1.i. In an attached statement to Applicant’s March 2011 interrogatory
answers modifying her March 2010 interview summary, she did not address this debt. She
denied she owed the debt at the hearing (Tr. 55-56), and could not find the identity of the
creditor in her post-hearing position statement. (AE D)
Although not listed in the SOR, Applicant indicated in her post-hearing exhibits that
she had two other delinquent accounts with the state collection department. The amount
of the first account is $561 and the second is $1,170. In her post hearing documentation,
she indicated that both accounts were paid and a letter was included to show proof of
payment. (AE D) Her credit report dated February 23, 2012, confirms the delinquent debts.
(Id.) However, there are no letters of payment in her post-hearing documentation proving
that she paid the two unlisted delinquent accounts. (AE A through AE H) 
Since October 2011, Applicant has been attending a financial counseling class.
When that class ended, she enrolled in another financial counseling course sponsored by
a church. The church-sponsored course teaches how to manage bills and pay debts on
time. (Tr. 60) The course also teaches Applicant to complete financial projects that she
starts. (Tr. 68) During a recent class in January 2012, she learned that before she
purchases anything, she should ask herself whether she is purchasing the item because
of necessity or desire. (Tr. 70-71) In the future, the financial counseling classes will help
her establish a budget and pay bills on time. (Tr. 72) 
In AE H, Applicant explained the adverse impact of the deaths of her mother and
father in 2000 and other family members between 2007 and 2010. She reiterated the
challenges she has had in trying to regain control over her financial responsibilities and
other issues in her life. The grief counseling is helping her overcome her depression and
the financial counseling is helping her manage her bills and establish a budget. (Id.)
Applicant’s monthly list of expenses totals $3580. (Id. at 2)
Character Evidence
Witness A testified that she has known Applicant since their childhood, about 40
years. They currently live in the same neighborhood. (Tr. 31) Witness A believes Applicant
is very trustworthy and dependable. (Tr. 32-33) Applicant told Witness A about trying to
obtain a loan modification agreement for her house. (Tr. 34) She indicated she wanted to
pay her bills. (Tr. 36) Witness A is aware that Applicant enrolled in a financial counseling
class. (Tr. 37)
6
Witness B has known Applicant for 30 years and currently lives in the same
neighborhood. In Witness B’s opinion, Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and honesty
are based on the fact she is always willing to assist Witness B in getting whatever she
wants. (Tr. 40-42)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the administrative
judge must consider the AG. Each guideline lists potentially disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions, which are required to be used to the extent they apply 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 common sense. 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 safeguard classified
information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation
about the potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14., the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.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
has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security 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 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.
7
There are two disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 that may apply:
AG ¶ 19(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
AG ¶ 19(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
The SOR lists 11 debts totaling $57,397. The debts became delinquent between
May 2006 and November 2009. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) apply.
Five conditions under AG ¶ 20 could potentially mitigate Applicant’s delinquent
indebtedness: 
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 current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment; 
AG ¶ 20(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person’s control, and the person acted responsibly under the
circumstances; 
AG ¶ 20(c) the persona has received counseling for the problem and/or there
are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
AG ¶ 20(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and
AG ¶ 20(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 to resolve the issue.
AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply. The delinquent accounts were not incurred a long time
ago, but between May 2006 and November 2009. Though the debts emerged during a
traumatic period in Applicant’s life, the lack of documentary evidence to support her claims
of paying most of the listed accounts continues to have a negative impact on her reliability,
trustworthiness and judgment. 
AG ¶ 20(b) is partially applicable. The death of Applicant’s husband in April 2007
caused her to descend into serious depression, and she found herself not opening her mail
for a period of time. Her daughter’s murder in April 2009 and the subsequent murder trial
in March 2010, prolonged her depression. However, to receive full application under the
8
AG ¶ 20(b), an applicant should also demonstrate she acted responsibly under the
circumstances. Except for her loan modification documentation (SOR ¶ 1.c) and her
documentation verifying settlement with the department store (SOR ¶ 1.b), Applicant has
not provided the necessary documentation proving she paid the other listed debts and two
unlisted debts. 
The record shows that Applicant has had some financial counseling. She has
learned to ask questions before purchasing anything. However, without documentary
support of her claims addressing 9 of the 11 listed accounts, and two accounts not listed
in SOR, it is premature to conclude that her delinquent debts are being resolved or under
control. 
Based on her documented settlement of the SOR ¶ 1.b department store account,
AG ¶ 20(d) applies in part. I reach the same conclusion regarding the loan modification
agreement. (SOR ¶ 1.c) As far the other delinquent debts are concerned, Applicant has
provided either no documents to support her payoff claims, or she has provided documents
that do not show the debt was paid. 
Though Applicant initially disputed SOR ¶ 1.a and denied she owed SOR ¶ 1.I, she
has provided sufficient evidence to receive credit under the mitigating condition. The
condition requires a reasonable basis to dispute the debt and documented evidence to
substantiate the dispute. Applicant’s favorable job performance evidence, and her evidence
in mitigation under AG ¶¶ 20(b) and 20(d) do not overcome the adverse evidence under
AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c).
Whole-Person Concept 
In evaluating Applicant’s security clearance worthiness, I have examined the
evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of the financial 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:
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.
9
The ultimate decision of whether the granting or continuing eligibility for a security
clearance is clearly consistent with the interests of national security must be a judgment
based on common sense after a careful review of the guidelines, which are to be evaluated
in the context of the whole-person concept. (AG ¶ 2(c))
Applicant is 53 years old and has been employed by a defense contractor since
August 2008. Witnesses A and B have known her for 30 to 40 years, and praise her
honesty and dependability. In December 2008, Applicant received a certificate for
successfully completing the state fire and rescue course. 
The evidence against granting Applicant’s security clearance application is based
on a lack of documentary evidence to support her satisfaction of the accounts listed in SOR
¶¶ 1.a, 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, 1.h, 1.i, 1.j, and 1k. In January 2010, she provided information
about her delinquent debts in her e-QiP. In March 2010, she discussed her delinquent
debts with an OPM investigator. In her answer to the SOR and at the hearing, Applicant
made claims that were different from her earlier claims during the security investigation.
Following the hearing, Applicant expressed different claims about the listed accounts. In
addition, she claimed that she had included documentary proof about listed and unlisted
accounts in her post-hearing documentation that did not exist. These inconsistent claims
have been identified in the Findings of Fact. In sum, the incompatible positions taken by
Applicant undercut her credibility and compel a formal finding against her under the
financial considerations guideline.  
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a, 1.d through 1.k: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.b, 1.c: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant access to classified information.
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge