1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 10-06676
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Robert Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the alcohol consumption security concerns, but failed to
mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On February 9, 2012, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA)
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under
Guidelines F, financial considerations, and G, alcohol consumption. 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.
 DOHA received Applicant’s answer on March 9, 2012. Applicant admitted all of
the allegations except subparagraphs 1.d, 1.e, 1.I, 1.n, 1.p, and 1.q. He requested a
hearing. The case was assigned to me on April 18, 2012. A notice of hearing was
2
issued on April 20, 2012, scheduling the case for May 9, 2012. I held the hearing as
scheduled and received four Government exhibits (GE 1-4) and 15 Applicant exhibits.
(AE A-O) Also, I considered Applicant’s testimony. At the close of the hearing, I left the
record open at Applicant’s request for him to submit additional exhibits. Applicant
submitted ten timely, additional exhibits. (AE P-Y) DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on
May 17, 2012.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 45-year-old married man with two children, ages 11 and 8. He has
been previously married three times. His first marriage was from 1991 to 1993, his
second marriage was from 1997 to 2006, and his third marriage was from January 2009
to December 2009. All of his prior marriages ended in divorce. He married his current
wife in March 2012. Both of his children are from his second marriage.
Applicant served in the U.S. Air Force from 1991 to 1994. (AE D) He was
honorably discharged. He has two years of college education. Since April 2010,
Applicant has worked for a defense contractor as a computer programmer. (Tr. 56) His
duties include systems installation, integration, and modification. (Tr. 23) According to
the company’s chief executive officer, Applicant is “a crucial asset” who handles himself
with professionalism and enthusiasm. (AE A) According to Applicant’s division director,
the company consistently receives positive feedback about Applicant from their client
agency.  (AE B)
From 2000 to 2009, Applicant was the sole proprietor of an information
technology company. (Tr. 23) The company was a defense subcontractor, and its entire
operation centered on a contract with one company. (GE 2 at 4)
When Applicant was managing his own business, his finances were stable. (Tr.
57) His net profit averaged approximately $84,000. (Tr. 23) In October 2009, his
contract was cancelled, leading to the failure of his business. (GE 2 at 4)
Although Applicant never experienced a significant period of unemployment after
the failure of his business, his income from two part-time jobs that he held between
October 2009 and April 2010, until he began his current job, was approximately half of
his previous income. (GE 2 at 4) 
The failure of Applicant’s business coincided with the failure of his third marriage.
His third wife was a spendthrift who overextended his credit and exhausted his savings.
(Tr. 60-61) 
The combination of Applicant’s business failure and his failed third marriage
caused him to accrue delinquent debt in excess of $150,000. Three debts comprise
nearly 75 percent of Applicant’s delinquent total. They are set forth in the following
subparagraphs:
3
1.b. a credit line Applicant used for his defunct business, totaling
approximately $50,000;
1.f.   a  home equity credit line totaling approximately $61,000; and
1.k.  a miscellaneous debt totaling approximately $13,000. 
Applicant has not begun to make payments on subparagraph 1.b. Instead, he has been
focusing on first satisfying smaller delinquencies with higher interest rates. As he
gradually satisfies the smaller debts, he will then begin satisfying the larger ones.
Subparagraph 1.f became delinquent after Applicant relocated to begin working
at his current job in April 2010. The home from where he moved was located in a state
that was acutely affected by the 2008 collapse of the real estate market. Consequently,
when he prepared to sell it, he discovered that it was worth $150,000, half of its
purchase price. Unable to sell the home, Applicant rented it. His property management
endeavor was unsuccessful, as the tenant’s rent failed to cover the combined cost of
both mortgages. Ultimately, Applicant’s effort at renting the property exacerbated his
financial problems as the tenant seldom paid rent, and did not pay a $355 utility bill that
now appears on Applicant’s credit report. (subparagraph 1.c) 
Currently, Applicant is four months behind on the primary mortgage, as listed in
subparagraph 1.l. The balance is approximately $2,100 and the total mortgage equals
$229,000. (GE 2 at 17) For the past four months, Applicant has been working with the
lender to negotiate a short sale. It is inconclusive from the record whether the
mortgagee has approved a short sale. (Tr. 64)
Subparagraph 1.k is owed to a collection agent. He last made a payment on this
account in July 2008. (GE 4 at 4) Applicant does not know who was the original creditor.
On May 23, 2012, two weeks after the hearing, Applicant made a $50 payment. (AE X)
He contends that he will continue to make monthly payments until the delinquency is
satisfied.
Of the remaining delinquencies, Applicant has settled and satisfied
subparagraphs 1.c through 1.e. (AE J, K) These debts totaled approximately $1,300.
Applicant has implemented payment plans for subparagraphs 1.a, 1.h, 1.j, 1.j, and 1.o.
(AE F, T, V, and E) The initial payments for these debts were made between April and
May of 2012. 
Applicant has not made payment arrangements with the creditor for the debt
listed in subparagraph 1.n. The delinquency totals approximately $2,400. (GE 2 at 6)
Applicant has been unable to identify the original creditors of the debts listed in
subparagraphs 1.g and 1.m. These unresolved debts total approximately $13,500. 
Applicant has paid two bills that were not listed in the SOR. They total
approximately $520. (AE L, M)
Applicant’s budget lists his discretionary income as $2,564, but does not include the outgoing payments under1
the payment plans he recently organized. 
4
Applicant currently earns approximately the same amount of annual income that
he did when he was in business. He maintains a budget, and has approximately $2,280
of monthly discretionary income.  (AE O)1
In 2000, Applicant was arrested and charged with driving under the influence of
alcohol (DUI) He pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of reckless driving. (Tr. 49), In
2005, Applicant was arrested and charged with DUI. He pleaded guilty and was ordered
to attend a state-sponsored alcohol counseling program. (Tr. 50) He completed the
program as ordered.
In January 2008, Applicant was again arrested and charged with DUI. He
pleaded guilty and was again ordered to complete a counseling program. After
Applicant’s third DUI, he quit drinking alcohol. He has abstained from alcohol since then.
(Tr. 50)
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. 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.” 
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 for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts,
and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
5
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”
(AG ¶ 18). Applicant’s delinquent mortgages trigger the application of AG ¶ 19(a),
“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting
financial obligations.
 
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 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; and
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
Before Applicant’s business failed in 2009, his finances were stable. Ironically,
his finances initially worsened after he gained his current job, because he was unable to
sell his home after he relocated. Applicant is working to short sell his home, and has
made payment arrangements with several of his creditors. Moreover, he has satisfied
delinquencies that were not listed on the SOR. AG ¶¶  20(b) and 20(d) apply.
Conversely, I conclude AG ¶ 20(c) does not apply. I remain concerned about the
outstanding mortgages and the amount of delinquent unsecured debt still outstanding.
Applicant’s testimony about his home’s drastic depreciation in value was particularly
persuasive given the state where he owned it. However, he provided little supporting
evidence of the status of the short sale efforts. Also, the amount of unsecured debt that
Applicant has satisfied is minimal compared to the amount overdue, and he just started
making payments toward the majority of them in the past three months. Under these
circumstances Applicant has not demonstrated a sufficient track record of reform to
conclude he has mitigated the financial considerations security concern.   
Guideline G, Alcohol Consumption
Under this guideline, “excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise
of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness” (AG ¶ 21). Applicant’s history of
alcohol consumption and alcohol-related charges trigger the application of AG ¶¶ 22(a),
“alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence,
fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol abuser or alcohol
dependent,” and 22(c), “habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of
6
impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed as an alcohol
abuser or alcohol dependent.”
Applicant quit drinking alcohol  in 2008, and has not been charged with DUI since
then. It is particularly impressive that he has maintained abstinence despite undergoing
the failure of his business and the related financial crisis. Under these circumstances, I
am persuaded that Applicant has mitigated the alcohol consumption security concern.
AG Mitigating Condition (MC) ¶ 23(a), “so much time has passed, or the behavior was
so infrequent, or it happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment,” applies.
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 the applicant’s
conduct and all the 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. 
Applicant is an industrious employee who is well-respected by his supervisors
and colleagues. His debts were largely caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Although he has begun satisfying them, his progress has been minimal in comparison to
the amount outstanding. Also, he has just started implementing the majority of his
payment plans even though he has been working at his current job for more than two
years and earning approximately the same annual income he made before the business
failed. Upon considering this case in the context of the whole-person concept, I
conclude that Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.b: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.c-1.e: For Applicant
7
Subparagraphs 1.f-1.q: Against Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline G: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a-2.c: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge