1
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
In the matter of:  )
) 
) ISCR Case No. 10-09489
)
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Richard Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________
Decision 
______________
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge:
Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibi ts, and testimony, eligibility for access
to classified information is granted.
Statement of the Case 
On February 18, 2008, Applicant subm itted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to update his security clearance for a position with a
defense contractor. After an investigation conducted by the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DO HA) issued
interrogatories to Applicant to explain potentially disqualifying information in his
background. After reviewing the results of the background investigation and Applicant's
responses to the interrogatories, DOHA c ould not make the pre liminary affirmative
findings required to is sue a security clear ance. DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons
(SOR), dated September 20, 2011, detai ling security concerns for financial
considerations. These actions were 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).
2
Applicant answered the SOR on December 23, 2011. He admitted all of the 13
allegations, except one (SOR 1.a) under Guideline F. Department Counsel was ready to
proceed on March 27, 2012, and the case was a ssigned to me on April 2, 2012. DOHA
issued a Notice of Hearing on April 3, 2012, scheduling a hearing for April 16, 2012. I
convened the hearing as scheduled. The Government offered six exhibits that I marked
and admitted into the record wit hout objection as Government Exhibits (Gov. Ex.) 1
through 6. Applic ant testified, and submi tted four documents that were marked and
admitted into the record without objection as Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) A through D. I
left the record open for Applicant to submit documents. Applicant timely submitted eight
documents, which were marked and admitt ed into the record without objection a s
Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) E through L. DOHA received the tran script of the hearing
(Tr.) on May 1, 2012.
Findings of Fact 
After a thorough review of the pleadings , transcript, and exhibits, I make the
following essential findings of fact.
Applicant is 50 years old, and has been an aircraft weapons sy stems mechanic
for a defense contractor since June 2002. He prev iously served on active duty in the
U.S. Air Force from Februar y 1980 until September 2002. He deployed for over a year
to the Middle East in suppor t of the Operation Desert Storm. He retired with an
honorable discharge as a master sergeant (E-7). After retiri ng from active duty, he
worked for defense contractors on aircraft weapons systems. His jobs were both
overseas and in the United States. He firs t worked overseas for the defense contractor
as a weapons engineer in support of a foreign country’s air force for approximately three
years from June 2002 until t he contract was complet ed in October 2004. His cost of
living in the foreign country was high. At t he time, he received $1,300 monthly in retired
pay and $3,000 in direct pay. He paid all of his own relocation expenses. He was
unemployed from October 2004 until February 2005. He then worked for a defense
contractor in the United States as an aircraft weapons engineer from February 2005
until July 2006. Again, the contract he worked on wa s completed, and he was
unemployed from July 2006 until November 2006. He returned overseas in November
2006 on his present position wi th a defense contractor as a weapons systems engineer
in support of a foreign air force. His pay is still about the same, and he has about $1,000
to $1,200 in monthly discretionary funds. He has held a security clearance since 1980.
He married in 1985 but is now separated. His wife lives in the United States and he lives
overseas. He has a grown child from a pr ior relationship for who he pays $350 a month
in child support. (Tr. 10-12, 30- 37; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated July 29, 2010; Gov. Ex. 2,
Response to Interrogator; DD 214,at 9,)
In his last years of active duty, Applicant and his wife used credit cards since the
cost of living was high where he was assi gned. They basically lived paycheck to
paycheck. When he retired, he had significant credit card debt. While the c redit reports
show over $42,000 of delinquent debt, Applicant believes that his use of the credit cards
was only between $15,000 and $20,000. His rema ining delinquent debt is for interest
and penalties. He thought by working overs eas he could make sufficient income to start
paying his delinquent debts. Ho wever, he incurred additional expenses living in high
3
cost areas overseas while hi s wife lived in the United States. His financial and liv ing
situations affected his ability to pay delin quent debts. Because he was living overseas,
Applicant encountered difficulty contacting his creditors and the collection agencies to
make arrangements to settle and pay his delinquent debts. (Tr. 36-42, 49-51).
Credit reports (Gov. Ex. 4, dated March 21, 2008; Gov. Ex. 5, dated Septem ber
2, 2010; and Gov. Ex. 6, da ted August 29, 2011), Applicant’s ans wers to an
interrogatory (Gov. Ex. 2, dated July 2, 2011 ), and Applicant’s testimony to a security
investigator, (Gov. Ex. 3, Personal Subject Interview, dated September 28, 2010) show
the following delinquent debts for Applic ant: telephone bills in c ollection for $452 (SOR
1.a), $174 (SOR 1.e), and $351 (SOR 1.k); cr edit card debts in collection for $2,583
(SOR 1.b), $1,527 (SOR 1.c), $3,469 (SOR 1.d), $1,108 (SOR 1.f), $732 (SOR 1.g),
$1,339 (SOR 1.h), $13,687 (SOR 1.i), $8, 112 (SOR 1.j), $5,461 (SOR 1.l); and $4,000
on a car loan (SOR 1.m). The total debt is approximately $42,000.
Applicant disputed the telephone debt at SOR 1.a s ince he never had phone
service with the telephone com pany listed on the credit reports. The debt has been
deleted from credit reports by the collection agency. (Tr. 18 , 22-23; App. Ex. B, Letter,
dated January 15, 2012)
The credit card debt at SOR 1.e has been paid. (Tr. 23-26, 28; App. Ex. L, Letter,
dated April 16, 2012) The credi t card debt at SOR 1.g has been settled and paid as of
February 5, 2008. (Tr. 27-28; App. Ex. K, Letter, dated Ma y 2, 2012) Applicant notes
that the credit card debt to the same collection agency at SOR 1.h has also been settled
and paid but he has not received a paid letter from the cr edit agency. (App. Ex. K, e-
mail, dated May 14, 2012) The c ar loan at SOR 1.m has been paid. Now that the car is
paid, he will sell it a nd used the proceeds of the sale to pay other delinquent debts. (Tr.
26-27, 42-43, 54-55; App. Ex. C, Note, undated; App. Ex. F, credit report, undated; App.
Ex. I, Letter, dated April 10, 20 12) Applicant has also rece ived a tax Cancellation of
Debt Notice. He is not sure what debts they cancelled since the amounts do not match
any debts on the SOR. (Tr. 27-28; App. Ex. D, Cancellation of Debt Notic e dated June
1, 2011 and August 10, 2011)
Applicant hired a law firm in January 2011 and pays $60 monthly to assist him to
understand the status of his credit and finances. They are work ing on, but have not
located, any information on the debts at SOR 1.b, 1.k, and 1.l. (T r. 51-54) Applicant
presented a letter from a departm ent store noting that they were unable to locate a
credit card debt for him. A debt owed to t his department store is not included on the
SOR. (Tr. 28-30; App. Ex. A, Letter, dated February 14, 2012; App. Ex. H, Notice, dated
April 5, 2012)
Applicant employed a debt c onsolidation company to a ssist him in paying his
delinquent debts in appr oximately 2004. However, this arrangement did not work since
he paid ov er $200 a month fo r ten months and saw no payment on his debts. He
recently employed a new debt consolidation company to assist him to resolve and pay
the credit card debts at SOR 1.c, 1.d, 1.f, 1 .i, and 1.j He pays the company
approximately $662 a month for use in paying debts. The co mpany estimates that his
delinquent debts will be pai d in 62 months. He is current with payment of his present
4
debts and taxes. He does not use credit cards. (Tr. 43-48; App. Ex. J, Letter, dated April
26, 2012)
 
Policies 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitabi lity for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must cons ider the adjudicative guidelines . In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and m itigating conditions, which must be considered in
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines ar e not inflexible ru les of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these gui delines are applied in conjunction with the
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 administrat ive 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 sec urity is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning pe rsonnel being cons idered for access to
classified information will be re solved in f avor of national secu rity.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only t hose conclusions that are re asonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record.
Under Directive ¶ E3. 1.14, the Government must present evidence to es tablish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Direc tive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant i s
responsible for presenting “wit nesses 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 in seeking a favorable security decision.
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predi cated 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 indi viduals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk that the applicant may deliber ately or inadvertently fail to safeguard
classified information. Such decisions ent ail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified
information.
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations 
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
5
rules and regulations, all of whic h can raise questions about an indiv idual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, and ability to protect cl assified information. An individual who is
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in ill egal acts to generate funds.
(AG ¶ 18) Similarly, an indiv idual who is financially irresponsible may also b e
irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his or her obligations to protect classified
information. Behaving responsibly or irresp onsibly in one aspec t of life provides an
indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.
A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter unti l evidence is
uncovered demonstrating an in ability or unwillingnes s to repay debts under agreed
terms. Absent evidence of st rong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant
with a history of serious or recurri ng financial difficulties exhibits a risk incons istent with
the holding of a security clearance. An applic ant is not required to be debt f ree, but is
required to manage his financ es in s uch a wa y as to meet his financial obligations.
Applicant's delinquent debts establis hed by credit reports and Applicant’s admissions
raise Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or
unwillingness to satis fy debts); and AG ¶ 19( c) (a history of not meeting financ ial
obligations). The evidence indicates an inability and not an unwillingness to satisfy debt.
Applicant incurred financial pr oblems when he lived in a high cost area while on active
duty and used credit cards to meet living expenses.
I considered Financ ial Considerations Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20(a) (the
behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under s uch
circumstances that it is unlikely to recu r and does not cast doubt on the individu al’s
current reliability, trustwor thiness, or good judgment) and AG ¶ 20(b) (the condition s
that resulted in the financial problems were largely bey ond the person’s control (e.g.,
loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death,
divorce, or separation), and t he individual acted responsibly under the circumstances).
These mitigating conditions have some application to Applicant’s financial situation. The
debts were incurred over ten years ago when Applicant was on active duty living in a
high cost area. He and his wife v oluntarily used credit cards to make purchases. These
circumstances could recur and the use of credit cards was under his control.
However, Applicant has now acted res ponsibly towards his finances. He took
employment with defense c ontractors to have good and steady employment. He
employed a law firm t o get a clear understanding of the status of his financ es. He paid
some of his debts, and has employed a debt consolidation company to assist him to pay
his remaining debts. His remaining debts are ei ther under review or being paid. He has
sufficient income to live within his means and pay the debt conso lidation company. He
is current with his present debts, has not incurred additional delinquent debts, and does
not use credit cards. He is current with payment of his taxes. He has steady and good
employment, and is not likely to incur additi onal debts. His financ es are under cont rol.
Applicant established that he acted responsibly to wards his debts under the
circumstances.
I considered AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay
the overdue creditors or other wise resolve debts). For AG ¶ 20(d) to apply, there must
be an “ability” to repay the debt s, the “desire” to repay, and “evidence” of a good-faith
6
effort to repay. Good faith means acting in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence,
honesty, and adherence to duty and obligation. A systematic method of handling debts
is needed. Applicant must es tablish a "meaningful track record" of debt payment. A
"meaningful track record" of debt payment can be established by evidence of actual
debt payments or periodic pay ment to reduce debts. Applicant is not required t o
establish that she paid each and every debt list ed. All that is requir ed is that Applicant
has an est ablished plan to resolve his financial problems, and show he has taken
significant actions to implement that plan.
Applicant is resolving his delinquent debts. He established that he paid four of
the debts, and he is paying another five through a debt consolidation company. He
disputed one debt and it has been deleted from his credit report. He does not hav e
adequate information on the four remaining debts but he employed a law firm to assist
him in learning about these debts. His effort s to learn about, settle, and pay his debt s
are significant and credible information to show a desire to resolve debt. His payment of
debts establishes a meaningful track record of debt payment. These efforts show a
reasonable and prudent adherence to financial obligations, and es tablish a good-faith
effort to resolve and pay debts. His past delinquent debts do not reflect adversely on his
trustworthiness, honesty, and good judgment. Based on all of the financial information
provided by Applic ant, he has mitigat ed security concerns based on financial
considerations.
 
Whole-Person Analysis 
Under the whole-person concept, the adm inistrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all
relevant circumstances. An administrative j udge should consider the nine a djudicative
process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousnes s of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and re cency 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 behavio ral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pr essure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security clearance
must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the
guidelines and the whole-person concept.
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this ca se. I considered Applicant’s 22 years of
honorable active duty service in the U.S. Air Force. I considered that Applicant deployed
in support of combat operations. I consi dered that he succes sfully held a security
clearance for over 30 years. I also consider ed that Applicant has only recently resolved
some of his delinquent debts even though the debts were incurred over ten years ago. I
7
also considered that he has been working overseas which created difficulties in learning
about his debts, contacting cr editors and c ollection agencies, and hav ing a payment
plan in place. However, Applicant settled and paid four of his delinquent debts, and has
a credible plan to pay the remaining debts. Applicant established a good-faith effort to
pay or resolve his delinquent de bts. His actions to res olve his past financia l obligations
indicate that he will be c oncerned, responsible, and care ful regarding classified
information. Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions and d oubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated security concerns arising from financial considerations. He
is granted access to classified information.
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.m: For Applicant
 
Conclusion 
In light of all of the circ umstances presented by the re cord in this case, it is
clearly consistent wit h the natio nal interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a securit y
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
_________________
THOMAS M. CREAN
Administrative Judge