1
                                                           
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 11-02726
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
In January 2002, Applicant filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, and in June
2002, she was discharged from $70,000 in liability. Since then, she has collected 2
judgments and 23 delinquent accounts, but has provided no credible documentary
evidence demonstrating resolution of any of those accounts. Eligibility for access to
classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP, Item 5) on November 24, 2010. She was interviewed by an
investigator from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on January 4, 2011. In
her interrogatory answers dated August 19, 2011, Applicant agreed with the
investigator’s summary of her January 2011 interview, and acknowledged the interview
summary could be used in a security clearance hearing to determine her security
suitability. (Item 7) 
2
On March 5, 2012, 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 furnished her answer (Item 3) to the SOR on April 6, 2012. She
requested a decision be made on the record in lieu of a hearing. A copy of the
Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), the Government’s evidence in support
of the allegations of the SOR, was sent to Applicant on May 24, 2012. She received the
FORM on May 29, 2012. In an attachment to the FORM, she was advised she could
respond to the information in the FORM by submitting additional information in rebuttal,
explanation, mitigation, or extenuation. Her response was due by June 29, 2012. No
response was received. The case file was assigned to me on July 17, 2012. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR, dated March 5, 2012, consists of 26 allegations under the financial
considerations guideline. There is 1 bankruptcy allegation, 2 judgment allegations, and
23 delinquent account allegations. In her answer, Applicant admitted SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b,
1.e, 1.f, 1.h, 1.m, 1.p, 1.q, 1.r, 1.s, 1.t, 1.u, 1.v, and 1.x. She denied SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.d,
1.g, 1.i, 1.j, 1.l, 1.n, 1.o, 1.w, 1.y, and 1.z. She explained her admissions by claiming her
law firm was trying to have the delinquent accounts removed from her credit report. The
documentation that she provided from her law firm does not explain how the firm is
seeking to have valid accounts removed from her credit report. She explained her
denials by claiming the accounts were either not her responsibility or the accounts
belonged to her former husband. She contended her home was sold at a sheriff’s
auction, but she did not address the past-due foreclosure amount of $19,886. She was
unsure of SOR ¶ 1.k. The validity of SOR ¶ 1.k is confirmed in the credit reports. (Item
6, 8, 9), and Applicant’s answers to interrogatories. (Item 7) The 25 accounts listed in
the SOR, which total $47,839, became delinquent between December 2006 and
December 2010 as confirmed in the credit reports. (Items 6, 8, 9) The delinquent
accounts range in amounts from $7 (SOR ¶ 1.m, unknown account type) to $19,886
(SOR ¶ 1.y, foreclosure past-due amount). 
Applicant is 48 years old. She was married in June 1986. She had three
daughters from that marriage which ended in April 2004. The daughters, who are 25,
22, and 21 years of age, live in other locations of the United States. Since November
2010, Applicant has been employed as a police dispatcher for a defense contractor.
She has a second job as a para-professional tutor at an elementary school.
Applicant’s employment background includes employment as a police dispatcher
from 1991 to 1997. Between July 1994 and May 2010, Applicant held positions in the
food service business. From July 1994 to September 2006, she was an area supervisor
3
of a restaurant. She lost her job when the restaurant was sold. From September 2006 to
May 2010, she was a general manager of a restaurant. She left this job to assist a
family member during his military deployment and to care for her terminally ill father. 
In her January 2011 interview and August 2011 answers to interrogatories,
Applicant attributed her financial problems to her former husband. During their marriage
that ended in 2004, she was the only one employed. Her husband was either attending
school or unemployed. He was responsible for paying the bills of the household. At
some time in 2000 or 2001, Applicant discovered he had not paid the bills for about six
months, resulting in excessive debt, and leading to Applicant filing a Chapter 7
bankruptcy petition in January 2002. In June 2002, she discharged $70,000 in debt.
Applicant indicated her divorce in 2004 saddled her with a large amount of debt that she
could not service. 
The credit reports show that Applicant’s current past-due debt began falling
delinquent in December 2006. She noted that she began experiencing serious health
problems in January 2008, and recalled using credit cards to pay living expenses. She
attempted to borrow money from her parents, but was unable to stanch her deteriorating
financial troubles. In January 2009, she lost her home to foreclosure. 
In her answers to interrogatories, Applicant submitted her November 10, 2011,
biweekly earnings statement from her current employer. The statement indicates that
she was earning $1,156 every two weeks. In her personal financial statement (PFS),
she indicated her monthly net income was $2,314 a month, with $1,415 in expenses,
$99 in monthly payments to a law firm, leaving her with an $800 monthly remainder.
According to her PFS, Applicant was not making any payments on the delinquent debts
or judgments listed in the SOR. 
In her answers to interrogatories, Applicant also submitted 12 pages of
information from her law firm, presumably to demonstrate she was taking action to
address her overdue debts. The documentation itemizes the delinquent accounts listed
in the SOR and provides each debt’s current status, including explanations of available
creditor options to obtain payment. The documentation does not show any action taken
by Applicant to pay the listed accounts. 
Applicant stated in her January 2011 interview that she intends to contact all the
listed creditors and repay the debts because she wants to establish a good financial
record. She has never had financial counseling or utilized a debt-consolidation service.
She indicated she was capable of meeting her current financial obligations. She stated
that she currently lives in military housing, she has no vehicle, and receives financial
support from her sister and mother as needed. 
Character Evidence
On December 1, 2011, Applicant’s supervisor provided a character reference
extolling Applicant’s dedication to the overall performance of the police dispatch team.
4
The supervisor noted Applicant’s valuable dispatch experience was demonstrated
recently by her efficient handling of an emergency call that enabled department officers
to restore order to a potentially volatile situation. Applicant’s one-year performance
evaluation was satisfactory, with high marks for her team player attitude and dedication.
A member of the team considered her an integral part of the police platoon objectives of
safety and security.
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
are deemed necessary 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 significant period of a person’s life with 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 of 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 
Paragraph 18 of the AG sets forth the security concern related to 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. Compulsive
gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including
5
espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of
income is also a security concern. It may indicate proceeds from
financially profitable criminal acts.
The two relevant disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 are: 
AG ¶ 19(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
AG ¶ 19(c) a history of failing to meet financial obligations.
The credit reports and Applicant’s admissions confirm that she filed a Chapter 7
bankruptcy petition in January 2002, and in June 2002, was discharged from $70,000 in
debt. The credit reports also show that Applicant began falling behind her financial
obligations in December 2006. By March 2012 (date of SOR), she had 2 judgments and
23 delinquent accounts totaling $47,839. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) apply to Applicant’s
inability to satisfy overdue financial obligations.  
Four conditions under AG ¶ 20 could potentially mitigate Appellant’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 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
AG ¶ 20(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts.
AG ¶ 20(a) is inapplicable to Applicant’s financial difficulties because of her
Chapter 7 discharge in June 2002 and continuing financial problems. The absence of a
plan to attack the delinquent debts raises a reasonable inference that her current
indebtedness is likely to continue in the future. The absence of a plan also casts doubt
on her reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. 
Security concerns can be mitigated under AG ¶ 20(b) when “the conditions that
resulted  in the financial problems were largely beyond the individual’s control,” and “the
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.” to received mitigation credit
under the condition, both quoted parts of the condition must be satisfied. Applicant was
6
the only bread winner during her marriage, and her husband, who was responsible for
paying the bills, did not pay the bills for a period of about six months in 2000 or 2001.
She encountered serious medical problems that began in January 2008. Finally, she left
her job in September 2010 to assist her relative on military deployment and her
terminally ill father. While recognizing the foregoing events were largely beyond her
control, she has provided no documentary evidence that demonstrates she “acted
responsibly under the circumstances.” The documentation from the law firm does not
show any action on her part to pay the delinquent debts. AG ¶ 20(b) does not apply.
Applicant has never had financial counseling. She has supplied no
documentation showing she has paid any of the listed debts. While the law firm
documentation may be the first step to negotiate settlements with the listed creditors,
there is no proof any settlements have been negotiated or that Applicant has eliminated
any of the debts. AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) do not apply.
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of
the financial considerations 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.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be a commonsense judgment based on careful consideration of
the guidelines and the whole-person concept.
Applicant is 48 years old and divorced with three grown daughters. She was
employed for 16 years in the food service business. It does not appear she received the
financial support from husband during their marriage. Her first December 2011
performance evaluation as a police dispatcher shows consistently good ratings from her
supervisors. She is considered to be an essential part of ensuring that the platoon
meets its overall safety and security objectives.  
Because the Directive requires that the entire record must be evaluated as a
whole, Applicant’s work record and satisfactory performance review from her current
employer must be weighed against her history of financial problems. The record
7
indicates that in June 2002, Applicant received a Chapter 7 discharge of $70,000 in
debt. The record also reflects that since the discharge she has incurred additional debt
totaling $47,839. Applicant’s financial problems related to her former husband has little
probative weight because she divorced him in 2004. Her medical problems that began
January 2008, have not been adequately documented. Based on Applicant’s claim that
she is able to meet her current financial obligations and has an $800 monthly remainder
according to her PFS, I am unable to understand why it is necessary for her to seek
financial help from her sister and mother on an as needed basis. In addition, if she is so
anxious to eliminate the delinquent debts, Applicant has provided no credible reason for
not using a portion of her sizable monthly remainder to pay off some of the smaller
debts of the SOR. 
After weighing and balancing the disqualifying conditions with mitigating
conditions under the financial considerations guideline, and considering all the evidence
under the whole-person concept, Applicant has not mitigated her history of not meeting
her financial obligations. 
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
Subparagraph 1.a through 1.z : Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                      
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge