1 
 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE    
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 11-05997 
 ) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: David F. Hayes, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant owes around $18,568 in past-due debt that was incurred by her spouse 
using her credit without her knowledge. Recent changes to ensure that he no longer abuses 
her credit are significant steps in reform, and she is making payment on her known 
consumer credit card debt. Clearance granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On March 30, 2012, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a 
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the security concerns under Guideline 
F, Financial Considerations, and explaining why it was unable to find it clearly consistent 
with the national interest to grant or continue her security clearance eligibility. DOHA took 
the action 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 
 
 
 2 
amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department 
of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant submitted an undated Answer to the SOR allegations, in which she did not 
indicate whether she wanted a hearing. On May 11, 2012, Applicant filed a new Answer to 
the SOR, and she requested a hearing. On June 6, 2012, the case was assigned to me to 
conduct a hearing to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to 
grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. On June 7, 2012, I scheduled a 
hearing for June 26, 2012. 
 
I convened the hearing as scheduled. Six Government exhibits (GEs 1-6) and two 
Applicant exhibits (AEs A-B) were admitted in evidence. Applicant and her sister also 
testified, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on July 5, 2012. The record was held 
open until July 17, 2012, for Applicant to submit additional documents. On July 11, 2012, 
Applicant forwarded ten exhibits, which were marked as AEs C through L. On July 19, 
2012, I provided copies to the Government for review and possible objection. The 
Government filed no response by the July 30, 2012 due-date, and I accepted the exhibits 
in the record. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 The SOR alleges under Guideline F that as of March 30, 2012, Applicant owed three 
delinquent debts totaling $45,041:  $26,168 (SOR 1.a), $577 (SOR 1.b), and $18,296 
(SOR 1.c). In her response of May 11, 2012, Applicant denied the debts in SOR 1.a and 
1.c, indicating that her spouse was responsible and she knew nothing about them. She 
admitted the debt in SOR 1.b, and indicated that the debt should have been settled when 
she refinanced a few years ago. After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I 
make the following findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is a 52-year-old inspector, who has worked for the same defense 
contractor for the past 33 years. (GE 1; Tr. 63.) Applicant holds a confidential security 
clearance, which was granted in April 1996. She held a secret clearance in the past at 
another facility. (Tr. 14.) Since September 2004, she has also held part-time employment 
as a certified nurse assistant. (GE 1.) Applicant works her second job every other weekend 
and as needed. (Tr. 62, 64.) 
 
Applicant married her spouse in September 1986. They have a daughter age 25 and 
son age 22. Their son is still living at home. (Tr. 64.) Her spouse had three children from a 
previous relationship, who are now in their 40s. (GE 1.) Applicant has been the primary 
wage earner for the household since they married. (Tr. 45.) Her spouse worked as a 
mechanic until shortly after their marriage. He then worked in building maintenance, but his 
income was insufficient to cover the household expenses. (Tr. 44-45.) Around September 
1987, Applicant and her spouse bought their present residence. To pay for roof repairs and 
credit card debt, they refinanced their mortgage a few times and took out a home equity 
loan. In February 2003, they took out a $150,000 mortgage loan that was late 30 days five 
times before they refinanced with a fixed rate loan from their present lender in April 2006. 
 
 3 
(Tr. 97.) Their $160,000 mortgage loan has been 30 days past due six or more times as of 
July 2010. (GE 4.) 
 
Since 1997, Applicant’s spouse has been treated by a licensed psychologist for 
diagnosed bipolar disorder, manic type. (AEs B, E; Tr. 72.) He collected a social security 
disability benefit for around four years. (Tr. 90.) During acute flare-ups of his mental illness, 
Applicant’s spouse overspent, gambled excessively, and ran up debt on some of her credit 
card accounts without her knowledge when she was at work. He also wiped out their 
checking account. At some point, Applicant went to the bank about it (“the people knew 
him at the bank.”) (GEs 2, 5; AE D; Tr. 35-36, 62.) Applicant had consumer credit debt of 
her own, although she made her payments on time for the most part. Of the more than 30 
consumer credit card accounts that have been opened in her name (GE 4), Applicant 
believes her spouse stole a credit card from her purse, and that he could have forged her 
name to open another account. (Tr. 92.)  
 
Around 2010, Applicant was refused a loan by the local bank where she and her 
spouse had a checking account. (Tr. 76.) Applicant presumed it was because her spouse 
had ruined her credit. She had been advised by her sister, starting about 15 years ago (Tr. 
35-36), to monitor her credit reports; to open a post office box to keep her spouse from 
opening new credit card accounts in her name; and to obtain her own checking account so 
that her spouse would no longer have access to her money. (Tr. 48.) Applicant relied on 
her spouse’s promises that he would no longer fraudulently sign her name on charge 
cards. (Tr. 42, 77-78.) 
 
Several of Applicant’s credit card accounts had been paid off and closed by January 
2011. (GE 4.) On an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) dated 
January 20, 2011, Applicant responded affirmatively to question 26.g, “Have you had bills 
or debts turned over to a collection agency?” She listed only one debt, of $45 to a 
telecommunications company, which had been paid in full. Applicant added the following 
comments: 
 
In April 2007 I was informed that someone used my credit card account 
number [xxxx-xxxx-xxxx-3108]. [T]his was a [bank credit] card that was 
fraudulently used in my name. [T]housands of dollars were charged on this 
card. People keep calling my house about these charges that I did not make. 
I have told them many times that these were not my charges and I have 
refused to pay it.
1
 (GE 1.) 
                                                 
1
Before the hearing, Applicant’s spouse provided her with statements from January 2007 through April 2007 
for the account ending in #3108. She indicated that her spouse had used her account without her knowledge. 
The account statements reflect that the credit card account, issued in Applicant’s name, was used for cash 
advances, baseball tickets, a veterinary bill, and for purchases at local retailers, including grocery stores, gas 
stations, a pharmacy, auto parts stores, and a liquor store. As of April 2007, the outstanding balance on the 
account was $7,361.46. (AE A.) At her hearing, Applicant admitted that the “someone” referenced on her e-
QIP was her spouse. (Tr. 116.)  The account number does not match that of the account held by the assignee 
in SOR 1.c. Yet, it is administratively noticed that the original credit card issuer for account #2309 covered in 
SOR 1.c was bought out in January 2006 by the bank that issued the account ending in #3108. The bank may 
have issued a new credit card when it took over the previous lender’s account, although Applicant had three 
 
 4 
 
 As of late January 2011, the credit bureaus were reporting the credit card account 
ending in #3108 as a lost or stolen credit card with a zero balance as of April 2007. The 
same lender reportedly had placed a $12,200 balance on another account for collection 
around July 2006. Also, an assignee was claiming a $26,168 collection balance on an 
account originally placed for $14,646 in February 2009 (SOR 1.a). A credit card account on 
which Applicant was an authorized user (SOR 1.b) was in collection as of April 2008 with a 
$577 balance. Applicant’s other credit cards were rated as current. She reportedly owed 
$7,860 on ten accounts that were being repaid according to terms, including a $2,161 
disputed debt balance that was incurred on her account by her spouse. (Tr. 67.) Student 
loan debt totaling $65,584 for her daughter’s education was in deferment. (GE 4.) Applicant 
deferred repayment for a year because of insufficient income. No overtime was available in 
her defense contractor job. (Tr. 65.) 
 
 On March 7, 2011, Applicant was interviewed by an investigator for the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) about the debt on her credit record. Applicant indicated 
that she did not incur the debt. (Tr. 106.) 
 
 Around December 2011, Applicant incurred about $500 on a credit card account for 
holiday gifts. In February 2012, she consolidated the $3,171 debt on that account with the 
$1,911 balance incurred by her spouse on her account so that she could make one 
payment on a total balance around $5,000. (GE 5; Tr. 67-68.) As of February 3, 2012, 
Applicant owed current credit card debt of $8,791, including $5,403 on the consolidated 
credit card account. She was making timely monthly payments on two new automobile 
loans taken out in August 2011 for $24,302 and $21,627. Her 1991 Jeep, which she paid 
for with a loan from her 401(k), was costing too much for fuel. She commutes 62 miles 
each way to her job with the defense contractor.
2
 She bought a 2010 Impala for herself, 
and is repaying the loan at $407.32 per month. (Tr. 87.) She co-signed on the other vehicle 
loan for her son, and he is making his $382 monthly payments from his $29,000 annual 
income. (Tr. 87, 107.) Applicant’s student loan obligations had increased to $68,728 while 
in deferment. Applicant was paying her mortgage on time, although she had been late in 
her $1,363.86 monthly payment as recently as June 2011. Only one collection account was 
on her record, and it had an $18,296 balance (SOR 1.c). (GE 5.) 
 
 In response to DOHA inquiries about the status of the collection debts on her credit 
record ($26,168 and $577 as of late January 2011, and $18,296 as of early February 
2012), Applicant indicated on February 21, 2012, that she had no knowledge about the 
$26,168 debt (SOR 1.a). She speculated that the $577 debt may be from an earlier 
mortgage refinancing (SOR 1.b). Also, Applicant indicated that she owed $6,383.34 on the 
$18,296 collection debt (SOR 1.c) for a “stolen + misused” card. The creditor agreed to 
settle the debt for $6,383.34 on payment in a lump sum by January 31, 2012. Applicant did 
not make the payment (Tr. 79), although she provided DOHA with documentation of 
                                                                                                                                                             
separate accounts with the same bank. Applicant’s spouse admits that he ran up credit charges in her name 
that went delinquent. 
 
2
Applicant has been looking for a position at a facility closer to her home. (Tr. 111-112.)  
 
 5 
payments on her car at $407.32 per month, of the mortgage, of several credit card 
accounts, of $555.26 per month on the student loans for her daughter’s education, and of 
$10.97 and $84.55 per paycheck on two loans taken from her 401(k) at work. Applicant 
completed a Personal Financial Statement (PFS) on which she reported owing $12,278.71 
on seven consumer credit accounts on which she was making payments, including $35 per 
month toward a $1,050 balance owed a furniture retailer. (GE 2.) 
 
 As of May 29, 2012, Equifax Information Services reported $9,153 in outstanding 
revolving charge debt on Applicant’s credit record, although one debt was listed twice, with 
balances of $977 and $962. (GE 6.) Equifax reported an updated collection balance of 
$18,568 (SOR 1.c). (GE 6.) Applicant and her spouse believe that this is one of the debts 
he incurred without her knowledge. He made payments for about a year or so until his 
disability income was reduced by $300 per month, and he could no longer afford the 
payments. (AE D.) 
 
 As of June 2012, Applicant had made no payments on the debt in SOR 1.c, despite 
being aggressively pursued for collection. (AE I.) She does not have the funds to pay the 
lump sum required to settle the debt, and she did not want to make promises she could not 
fulfill. (Tr. 85.) She had not contacted the creditor identified in SOR 1.a or 1.b because she 
had no success in convincing collection agents that she had not incurred the debts. (Tr. 62, 
69, 95.) 
 
 Applicant has opened a new checking account in her name only, although she 
cannot now remember when she opened the account. Her checks are inaccessible to her 
spouse. (Tr. 61.) She no longer trusts him to keep from abusing her credit or wiping out her 
checking account. (Tr. 78, 99.) Applicant keeps a few credit cards for clothing purchases 
and emergencies. (GE 6; Tr. 78.) Applicant’s spouse, who drives a consumer auto parts 
truck part time (Tr. 90), gives her about $500 from his pay and social security income that 
Applicant puts toward the cable and electric bills. (Tr. 62, 112-113.) The earnings from 
Applicant’s second job as a certified nurse assistant go to pay the student loans for her 
daughter’s education. (Tr. 113.) Applicant has about $100 per month in discretionary 
income. (Tr. 111.) 
 
 At her hearing, Applicant expressed a willingness to file for bankruptcy to resolve the 
debt if necessary to keep her job with her longtime employer. (Tr. 85-86.) Applicant also 
indicated that she would obtain a post office box to guard against her spouse intercepting 
credit card solicitations received in the mail. She planned to contact the creditors identified 
in the SOR for information about the debts. She wants to clean up her credit record. (Tr. 
108.) 
 
 As of July 11, 2012, Applicant had contacted the creditors. Regarding the $26,168 
debt that appears only on her January 2011 credit report (GE 4), Applicant was given two 
account numbers from its archives. One number does not match any of the accounts on 
her credit record. The other is the same number as the account covered by SOR 1.c.
3
 The 
                                                 
3
Recent credit reports reflect that in February 2009, the assignee identified in SOR 1.a took over a debt that 
had a high credit of $14,646. Applicant’s spouse believes that due to interest (AE D), the balance on the 
 
 6 
assignee had sold the debt. Concerning the debt in SOR 1.c, Applicant was unable to 
reach an acceptable settlement with the collection agent, who wanted $8,000. (AEs C, I.) 
Around July 2, 2012, Applicant filed a dispute with the assignee over the balance of SOR 
1.c. She requested proof that she is contractually obligated to pay the debt, although she 
also expressed a willingness to settle for a reasonable amount. (AE I.) As for the debt in 
SOR 1.b, Applicant was told by its collection agent that someone charged the purchase of 
four tires. Applicant denies that she bought the tires, and her spouse “will not own up to this 
one.” She disputes the debt and intends to file a dispute with the collection agency. 
Applicant plans to take out a loan from her 401(k) or refinance her mortgage to pay any 
debts that are verified once she has affordable repayment terms in place. Applicant also 
plans to place credit alerts on her credit record so that she is notified of any new consumer 
credit accounts in her name. (AE C.) 
 
 As of June 2012, Applicant’s spouse has been seeing his psychologist once a 
month. Applicant has talked with the psychologist, and joint counseling is being considered. 
(Tr. 102-103.) 
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  emphasizing 
that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 
U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 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 are required to 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 overall 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 
                                                                                                                                                             
account accrued to a reported $26,168 as of January 2011. (GE 4.) However, when Applicant recently 
contacted the assignee, she was given two account numbers from the archives, one of which matches the 
account number of the collection debt reportedly held by the assignee in SOR 1.c. The account in SOR 1.c is 
the only collection debt on her credit record with Equifax as of 2012.  
 
 7 
mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant 
has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision. 
 
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. Section 7 of Executive 
Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in 
no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 
12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive 
information). 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concerns for Financial Considerations are set out 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. 
 
 The Government alleged three unpaid delinquent debts totaling $45,041. Applicant 
disputes the debts on the basis that she did not incur them.
4 
The Government has the 
burden of establishing controverted debt by substantial evidence, which is “such relevant 
evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light 
of all contrary evidence in the record.” ISCR Case No. 04-11463 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 
2006) (citing Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1). 
 
The evidence falls short of proving that Applicant owes the $26,168 debt alleged in 
SOR 1.a. As of January 2011, the assignee in SOR 1.a was reporting a $26,168 balance 
on an account with high credit of $14,646. In late June or early July 2012, Applicant was 
informed by the assignee identified in SOR 1.a that it no longer held the debt. She was 
given two credit card account numbers from its archives: one that does not appear on any 
of her credit reports in the record and the account covered by SOR 1.c (#2309). Applicant’s 
                                                 
4
Before her hearing, Applicant admitted the debt in SOR 1.b because she assumed it was from a loan 
refinancing. (GE 3.) On being informed from the creditor that the debt was incurred for tires, which she denies 
purchasing, Applicant is now contesting the debt. (AE C.) 
 
 
 8 
spouse admits that he incurred debt in Applicant’s name without her authorization, which 
due to interest “became $26,000 or so.” (AE D.) As of 2012, Equifax was reporting only one 
collection debt on Applicant’s credit record (SOR 1.c). The account had a high credit of 
$26,599 and balance of $18,568 as of May 2012. The account information gleaned by 
Applicant after her hearing suggests that the creditor in SOR 1.a was a previous assignee 
of the debt in SOR 1.c. Recent credit reports from 2012 do not substantiate that Applicant 
owes a second collection debt, which if added to the balance of SOR 1.c, would have 
totaled around $26,128 as of January 2011.
5
 
 
Concerning the $577 debt alleged in SOR 1.b, Applicant initially thought the debt 
was from an earlier mortgage refinancing. The latest information about SOR 1.b is that the 
debt was for tires. Neither Applicant nor her spouse admits to the purchase. Even if her 
spouse incurred the debt, Applicant was only an authorized user on the account. Her legal 
liability for the debt was also not established. 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 of 
actions to resolve the issue,” apply to SOR 1.a and 1.b. 
 
The outstanding collection balance in SOR 1.c, $18,569 as of May 2012, raises two 
security concerns under Guideline F: AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy 
debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations.” Applicant is 
financially liable for the charges incurred in her name absent a successful legal challenge, 
which has not been shown. Moreover, she bears some responsibility for the debt. Applicant 
may not have known that her spouse had used the credit card account in SOR 1.c, but she 
knew that her spouse had a history of wiping out her checking account and running up 
credit charges in the past. They took out a home equity loan to repay credit card debt. She 
relied on his promises that he would not again abuse her credit and failed to take action to 
protect herself from his unauthorized access to her accounts. 
 
Concerning potential mitigation of the debt in SOR 1.c, 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,” cannot reasonably apply. Concerns about Applicant’s 
financial judgment arise, even though her spouse incurred the debt. She had a 
responsibility to monitor her personal credit, and to keep her credit cards safe from 
potentially unauthorized use. Applicant’s spouse apparently kept from her that he was 
abusing the credit card account in SOR 1.c. Since she was working full time and had a 
lengthy commute, she may not have known about accounts opened fraudulently. Yet, he 
apparently “stole” one credit card (#3108) from her purse. Applicant should have noticed 
that it was missing, whether or not the debt she personally incurred on the account had 
been satisfied. 
 
                                                 
5
Applicant’s credit reports show that the bank that had issued the Visa account listed on her e-QIP (#3108) 
had charged off and transferred a debt in June 2007. The account number for the transferred debt is not 
listed, and it reportedly has a zero balance. There is no clear link between that account and the creditor in 
SOR 1.a.  
 
 9 
AG ¶ 20(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,” is implicated in part. I accept that Applicant’s spouse incurred 
the credit charges at issue without her authorization. However, AG ¶ 20(b) does not 
mitigate Applicant’s poor judgment in failing to take timely steps to preclude her spouse 
from abusing her credit. Applicant and her spouse refinanced their mortgage and also took 
out a home equity loan for the funds to pay off the debt incurred by him. Some 15 years 
ago, after Applicant’s spouse had wiped out their checking account and had begun forging 
her signature to open new credit card accounts in her name, Applicant’s sister advised her 
to check her credit, obtain her own post office box, and open a separate checking account. 
While such steps might not have guaranteed against Applicant’s spouse spending 
excessively or abusing her credit, it would have made opening new accounts more difficult 
for him. Instead, Applicant relied on her spouse’s promise that he would change his 
behavior. Some trust is reasonable and necessary in a spousal relationship, but Applicant 
had reason to question her spouse’s ability to abide by his promise, given his diagnosed 
bipolar disorder and history of serious overspending, gambling, and credit abuse. 
Especially given her lengthy commute and long work hours, it was incumbent on Applicant 
to make the changes necessary to protect her credit, and she failed to do so with negative 
consequences to her credit. As recently as December 2011, Applicant’s spouse incurred 
about $2,000 in charges on one of her credit card accounts without her knowledge. (Tr. 
67.) 
 
As of her hearing, Applicant had made no payments on the debt in SOR 1.c, despite 
her spouse’s admission that he had incurred the charges. She did not respond to a 
settlement offer of January 2012, because she could not afford the lump sum payment. In 
early July 2012, after the collection agency rejected her counteroffer, Applicant drafted a 
dispute letter in which she objected to the $8,000 settlement as too high. These steps to 
address the debt are insufficient to fully establish 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,” although Applicant’s post-hearing acquisition of a 
post office box is a significant step in preventing a recurrence of her spouse opening new 
credit card accounts in her name without her knowledge. 
 
Concerning mitigating condition AG ¶ 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith 
effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” the DOHA Appeal Board has 
previously explained what constitutes a “good faith” effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts: 
 
In order to qualify for application of [the “good faith” mitigating condition], an 
applicant must present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay 
overdue creditors or some other good-faith action aimed at resolving the 
applicant’s debts. The Directive does not define the term ‘good-faith.’ 
However, the Board has indicated that the concept of good-faith ‘requires a 
showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, 
honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.’ 
 
 10 
  
(internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 
2004) (quoting ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)). Applicant has not 
made any payments on the collection debt, and she has no payment plan currently in 
place. She acted very belatedly in asking for proof of her contractual obligation, given that 
her spouse has not always been forthcoming with her about the extent of his financial 
irresponsibility. Applicant intends to take out a loan from her 401(k) or use her remaining 
equity in her home to settle the debts she is legally obligated to repay. Applicant is now 
aware, if she was not before, that her security clearance is at risk because of outstanding 
collection debt. Applicant is likely to continue working on resolving the debt, but it would be 
premature to give full mitigating weight to AG ¶ 20(c) or AG ¶ 20(d). 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the totality 
of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative 
process factors in AG ¶ 2(a).
6
 Applicant has had over 30 consumer credit accounts opened 
in her name over the years. It is unclear how many of those accounts were opened or used 
by Applicant’s spouse without her knowledge or authorization. Her latest credit report 
shows outstanding revolving credit card debt under $10,000, which is being paid on time. 
Around $2,000 of that debt was incurred by her spouse without her authorization in 
December 2011. Under AG ¶ 2(a)(2), “the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to 
include knowledgeable participation,” it is significant to note that Applicant did not incur the 
delinquent debt herself, or authorize her spouse to incur the debt in her name. At the same 
time, Applicant contributed to the credit abuse (AG ¶ 2(a)(5), “the extent to which 
participation is voluntary”). She was emotionally unable or unwilling to hold her spouse 
responsible because of his diagnosed mental illness. She relied on promises from her 
spouse that he would stop his behavior, and she chose to deal with the consequences of 
his credit card abuse rather than take proactive measures to prevent it from reoccurring. 
Their mortgage was late 30 days several times, as she and her spouse took on more debt 
in refinancing their loan for the funds needed to pay credit card balances. 
 
Regarding evidence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes (AG ¶ 
2(a)(6)), Applicant’s spouse has a diagnosed mental illness that is being treated, and not 
always successfully, by counseling alone. Applicant’s frustration at dealing with her spouse 
is evident (“My husband is telling me he has nothing to do with it and that –I just, because 
of his sickness; I can’t keep anything in the house, so I have changed. I don’t keep credit 
cards in the house. I don’t keep checks in the house, I can’t trust him, I’m sorry to say, so, 
                                                 
6 
The factors under AG ¶ 2(a) are as follows: 
 
(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. 
 
 11 
like I said, I just need help.”). (See Tr. 99.) She appears to have little faith in her spouse’s 
ability to control his spending, and there is no prognosis from her spouse’s psychologist 
which could alleviate concerns in that regard. The risk of recurrence of her spouse’s 
financial irresponsibility (AG ¶ 2(a)(9), “the likelihood of continuation or recurrence”) cannot 
be ruled out. 
 
Yet, albeit prompted by the potential loss of her clearance eligibility, Applicant has 
made changes that should deter, if not stop, her spouse from abusing her credit in the 
future, such as having her mail sent to a post office box. She does not keep her checks or 
credit cards at home where her spouse can gain access to them. She intends to have the 
credit bureaus monitor her accounts for any unauthorized activity. 
 
Also, Applicant is willing to make payments on the collection debt incurred by her 
spouse in her name, if she can arrange affordable terms. Her financial situation causes 
some concern. While she has worked a second job since September 2004, she relies on 
the income from her part-time job to make her $555 monthly payments on around $68,799 
in student loan debt for her daughter’s college education. About two years ago, she was 
rejected for a loan by her bank. While she suspects it was because her spouse ruined her 
credit, she had a number of open credit accounts with balances that could have influenced 
the decision. She was able to open a new auto loan in August 2011, and to cosign on a 
separate auto loan for her son. She has made her $407 monthly car payments on time. 
However, with only $100 in monthly discretionary income, she is not likely to resolve the 
delinquent debt on her record in the near future unless the creditor is willing to accept a 
small fraction of the balance, or if she borrows the money. 
 
Under the Directive, Applicant is not required to satisfy all her debts before she can 
be granted a security clearance. She has 33 years of service with the defense contractor. 
There is no evidence that she has violated security regulations, to include during the 15 or 
so years that she has been dealing with her spouse’s abuse of her credit. Provided she has 
a stable income, I am persuaded she can be counted on to resolve the delinquent debt in a 
lawful manner, as she has done with other accounts in the past when she learned about 
them. She obtained a home equity loan to repay debt incurred by her spouse several years 
ago. That loan has been satisfied. When she discovered that her spouse had charged 
around $2,000 on her account without her authorization in December 2011, she 
consolidated the debt so that she could make one affordable payment. Applicant now 
understands, if she did not before her hearing, that her failure to resolve the past-due debt 
in her name could cost her the job that she needs to support her family and pay her bills. 
Upon considering the case in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has 
mitigated 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:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
 12 
 
Subparagraph 1.a:   For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.b:  For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.c:  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. 
 
 
___________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge