1 
 
 
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of:   ) 
      ) 
    ) ISCR Case No. 10-10377 
     ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Based on a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access 
to classified information is granted.  
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On July 29, 2010, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance required 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 (DOHA) issued an 
interrogatory to Applicant to clarify or augment potentially disqualifying information in 
her background. After reviewing the results of the background investigation and 
Applicant's response to the interrogatory, DOHA could not make the preliminary 
affirmative findings required to issue a security clearance. DOHA issued a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR), dated October 3, 2011, detailing 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). Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR on October 24, 2011. 
2 
 
Applicant answered the SOR on November 1, 2011. He admitted all but four of 
the 16 allegations under Adjudicative Guideline F. She denied the four allegations 
stating that they were paid. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on December 
22, 2011, and the case was assigned to me on February 21, 2012. DOHA issued a 
Notice of Hearing on February 27, 2012, scheduling a hearing for March 20, 2012. I 
convened the hearing as scheduled. The Government offered four exhibits that I 
marked and admitted into the record without objection as Government Exhibits (Gov. 
Ex.) 1 through 4. Applicant testified. I left the record open for Applicant to submit 
documents. Applicant timely submitted six documents, which I marked and admitted into 
the record as Applicant Exhibits (App. Ex.) A through F. Department Counsel had no 
objection to the admission of the documents. (Gov. Ex. 5, Memorandum, dated April 3, 
2012; Gov. Ex. 6, Memorandum, dated April 9, 2012) DOHA received the transcript of 
the hearing (Tr.) on March 28, 2012. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
After a thorough review of the pleadings, transcript, and exhibits, I make the 
following essential findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is 42 years old, and has been a help desk administrator for a defense 
contractor since July 2010. She served on active duty in the Marine Corps from March 
1988 until March 1993. She received an honorable discharge. She married in November 
1993, and divorced in November 1997. She has two grown children not at home. Her 
monthly net pay is approximately $1,700, with approximately $1,400 in monthly 
expenses, leaving $300 monthly in discretionary funds. Most of these funds are used to 
pay delinquent debts. (Tr. 10-12, 31-36; Gov. Ex. 1, e-QIP, dated July 29, 2010) 
 
A credit report (Gov. Ex. 3, dated May 18, 2011), Applicant’s answer to the 
interrogatory (Gov. Ex. 2, dated September 12, 2011), and Applicant’s testimony to a 
security investigator, (Gov. Ex. 4, Personal Subject Interview, dated September 7, 2010) 
show the following delinquent debts for Applicant: a debt for apartment rent in collection 
for $3,396 (SOR 1.a); medical accounts in collection for $175 (SOR 1.b), $195 (SOR 
1.c), $137 (SOR 1.d), $137 (SOR 1.e), and $387 (SOR 1.f); a utility bill in collection for 
$41 (SOR 1.g); apartment rent in collection for $270 (SOR 1.h); a cable bill in collection 
for $235 (SOR 1.i); a judgment of $2,034 for apartment rent (SOR 1.j); a judgment of 
$3,042 for apartment rent (SOR 1.k); a car repossession debt for $4,140 (SOR 1.l); a 
credit card debt charged off for $300 (SOR 1.m); a state tax lien for $799 (SOR 1.n); a 
judgment of $2,034 for a state university (SOR 1.o); a bank debt in collection for $898 
(SOR 1.p); a bank debt in collection for $243 (SOR 1.q); and a cable debt in collection 
for $91 (SOR 1.r). The total debt is approximately $18,500, with $8,700 for apartment 
rent, $4,140 for a car repossession, and $1,000 in medical bills. The remaining debts 
are for student loans, utilities, and cable service.  
 
Applicant’s financial problems started with her divorce in 1997, the need to 
support two children on one income, and inconsistent child support. Applicant started 
employment with a police department in 2001, but had to resign for health reasons 
when she was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes in 2008. Because of her health, 
Applicant determined that it was in her best interest to find employment in the 
3 
 
information technology field. Until she was employed by the defense contractor in July 
2010, she did not have steady employment. She moved from area to area, many times 
to different states, to find good, well-paying work. When she found work, she would rent 
an apartment for her family. When she lost employment, she had to break the leases 
and move. The moves resulted in judgments against her by the apartment owners for 
breaking leases. She did not have health insurance. Her Type 2 diabetes deteriorated to 
Type 1 and she required extensive medication. She also experienced significant dental 
problems because of the diabetes. She incurred medical debts from her treatment until 
she could qualify for health care under the Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) health 
care system. She no longer incurs medical debts. She is current with her taxes, car 
payment, and student loans for courses she took that she could not complete. Applicant 
does not have a credit card. With her children no longer at home, Applicant is only 
responsible for maintaining her own life style. Applicant is living within her means. 
Applicant’s plan is to pay the smaller debts first. As funds are freed from paid accounts, 
she will make arrangements to pay the next higher amount debts. (Tr. 13-16, 21-23, 34-
38; Gov. Ex. 4, Testimonies, dated September 7, 2010)  
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.g has been paid. (Tr. 25, Response to SOR and 
App. Ex. B, Receipt, dated September 13, 2011) The cable debt at SOR 1.i has been 
paid. (Tr. 25, App. Ex. C, Receipts, dated October 2, 2011, and November 9, 2011; 
App. Ex. F, Bank Statement, dated April 2, 2012) The apartment lease debt at SOR 1.k 
has been paid through a settlement paid by wage garnishment. (Tr. 26; App. Ex. E, 
Judgment. dated February 9, 2006; App. Ex. G, Paid-in-full Letter, dated March 30, 
2012) The cable debt at SOR 1.r. was paid on October 6, 2011. (Tr. 25; App. Ex. F, 
Bank Statement, dated April 2, 2012) 
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.a, for $3,396, is for breaking an apartment lease. 
Applicant has not paid this debt since it is one of her larger debts. The delinquent debts 
at SOR 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.f, are debts for Applicant’s medical treatment. The debts 
were the result of recurring laboratory tests and insulin treatment for her diabetes. 
Applicant has not started to pay these debts. (Tr. 21-25, 36-37)  
 
The delinquent debt at SOR 1.h is for another broken apartment lease. This debt 
has not been paid. (Tr. 25) Applicant also has not paid the debt for the apartment lease 
at SOR 1.j. Applicant does not believe she owes the full amount of the debt. When she 
rented the apartment, she also worked as the apartment complex courtesy officer 
receiving credit for half of the rent. She was led to believe that if she left the apartment, 
she would not owe the remaining lease amount. However, the judgment was filed. She 
intends to contact the creditor to determine the amount owed and hopes to settle the 
account when she has funds available after paying other smaller debts. (Tr. 25-26) 
 
Applicant voluntarily returned her car to the dealer when she lost employment 
and could not make the loan payments. She owed approximately $7,000 on the loan, 
and the car was sold for $3,000, resulting in the $4,140 debt at SOR 1.l. She will pay 
the debt according to her plan after paying smaller debts. (Tr. 26-27) 
 
Applicant has not paid the credit card debt at SOR 1.m. She applied for a credit 
card and was provided a $300 credit on the card. She did not use or make any 
4 
 
purchases with the card. The debt is for the initial credit fee. She plans to settle and pay 
the debt as soon as some funds are available. (Tr. 27) 
 
Applicant’s position with a company was moved from one state to another. 
Applicant was going to move to keep the position, but the position was eliminated 
before she could move. She continued to work for the company in the original state for 
three months, but her income was taxed by the new state since her company reported 
she was employed in that state. She did not learn of the tax lien until she discussed her 
finances with the security investigator. She plans to question the tax and pay it, if 
required, when funds are available. (Tr. 27-28) 
 
The debt at SOR 1.o is for tuition and books at a state university. She started to 
take courses but discovered she could not work full-time, raise two children, and go to 
school. She dropped the courses and then relocated to a new state. She has not started 
paying this debt. (Tr. 28) The bank debts at SOR 1.p and 1.q are for fees from accounts 
she closed when she moved. She admits these debts and plans to pay them when 
funds are available. (Tr. 28-29) 
 
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 must be considered 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 
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, 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 in seeking a favorable security decision. 
 
5 
 
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 that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to 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. 
 
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 
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. 
(AG ¶ 18) Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his or her obligations to protect classified 
information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an 
indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
A person’s relationship with her creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk 
inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be 
debt free, but is required to manage his finances in such a way as to meet his financial 
obligations. Applicant's delinquent debts established by a credit report and Applicant’s 
admissions raise Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) (inability 
or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial 
obligations). The evidence indicates an inability and not an unwillingness to satisfy debt. 
Applicant incurred financial problems from being a single mother raising two children, 
medical expenses not covered by health insurance, and frequent moves to find 
employment.  
 
I considered Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions 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) and AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions 
that resulted in the financial problems 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). 
These mitigating conditions apply. Applicant divorced and had to raise two children 
without receiving regular child support funds. She was employed, but developed 
diabetes and had to find employment that was consistent with her medical condition.  
6 
 
Applicant’s debts were incurred by conditions beyond her control. She divorced 
and did not receive consistent child support. She was employed but had to find another 
job because her medical condition prohibited her from working in that field. She moved 
many times to find what she believed to be good and steady employment. She has a 
significant medical problem, and incurred medical debts because of her changing 
employment and lack of health insurance. She has a clear understanding of the status 
of her finances. Her plan is to pay her smaller debts first and then move to the larger 
debts. She has sufficient income to live within her means, and pay delinquent debts as 
funds become available. She implemented her plan by paying four debts, and is in the 
process of paying the next debt. She is current with her present debts, has not incurred 
additional delinquent debts, and does not use credit cards. She is current with her 
taxes, car payments, and student loans. She has steady and good employment, and is 
not likely to incur additional debts. Her finances are under control. Applicant established 
that she acted responsibly towards her debts under the circumstances. 
 
I considered AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay 
the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts). For AG ¶ 20(d) to apply, there must 
be an “ability” to repay the debts, the “desire” to repay, and “evidence” of a good-faith 
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 establish a "meaningful track record" of debt payment. A 
"meaningful track record" of debt payment can be established by evidence of actual 
debt payments or reduction of debt through payment of debts. Applicant is not required 
to establish that she paid each and every debt listed. All that is required is that Applicant 
has an established plan to resolve her financial problems, and show she has taken 
significant actions to implement that plan. 
 
Applicant is resolving her delinquent debts. She settled and paid four of her 
debts. She has a plan to pay the smallest debts first, and as funds become available, to 
pay her next larger debt. She is current with her present debts. Her effort to settle and 
pay her debts is significant and credible information to show a desire to resolve debt. 
Her payment of debts establishes a meaningful track record of debt payment. These 
efforts show a reasonable and prudent adherence to financial obligations, and establish 
a good-faith effort to resolve and pay debts. Her past delinquent debts do not reflect 
adversely on her trustworthiness, honesty, and good judgment. Based on all of the 
financial information provided by Applicant, she has mitigated security concerns based 
on financial considerations. 
 
Whole-Person Analysis 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all 
relevant circumstances. An 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 
7 
 
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 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 case. I considered Applicant’s five years of 
honorable active duty service with the Marines. I considered that Applicant’s financial 
problems were caused by circumstances beyond her control. She settled and paid four 
of her delinquent debts, and has a credible plan to pay the remaining debts. Applicant 
established a good-faith effort to pay or resolve her delinquent debts. Her actions to 
resolve her past financial obligations indicate that she will be concerned, responsible, 
and careful regarding classified information. Overall, the record evidence leaves me 
without questions and doubts 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. She 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.r:  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. 
 
 
 
_________________ 
THOMAS M. CREAN 
Administrative Judge