1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 12-00852
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Christopher N. Morin, Esq., Department Counsel
Richard A. Stephens, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s financial delinquencies were caused by a number of external factors,
including, among other things, employment instability and medical expenses. As
Applicant’s career prospects began improving in 2006, her salary increased, enabling
her to address her delinquencies. Currently, she has contacted nearly all of her
creditors, either satisfying them entirely, arranging payment plans, or  disputing them.
Although the amount outstanding remains significant, I am confident that she will
continue to satisfy her delinquencies, given her efforts thus far. Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On May 4, 2012, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a
Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline
F, financial considerations. 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
2
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 answered the SOR on June 14, 2012. She admitted subparagraphs 1.b
through 1.f, 1.i, 1.q, 1.u through 1.nn, and 1.pp through 1.uu. She denied
subparagraphs 1.a, 1.g, 1.h, 1.j, 1.k, 1.n, 1.o, 1.p, 1.r through 1.t, and 1.oo. She neither
admitted nor denied subparagraphs 1.l and 1.m. 
The case was assigned to me on August 1, 2012. A notice of hearing was issued
on September 24, 2012, scheduling the case for October 22, 2012. I held the hearing as
scheduled and received five Government exhibits, marked as Government Exhibits
(GE) 1 through 5, and 31 Applicant exhibits (AE) marked as AE A through EE. Also, I
considered the testimony of Applicant and seven witnesses. After the hearing, I left the
record open, at Applicant’s request, for her to submit additional exhibits. Within the time
allotted, she submitted six additional exhibits that I incorporated into the record. (AE FF-
KK)  DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on November 1, 2012.
Procedural Rulings
At the hearing, Department Counsel moved to withdraw SOR subparagraphs 1.a,
1.h, 1.n, and 1.tt. (Tr. 8) I granted the motion. Also, Department Counsel moved to
amend SOR subparagraph 1.w, “You are indebted to Creditor X for a debt that is in
collection in the approximate amount of 1205,” by striking “1205" and replacing it with
“$105.” I granted the motion.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 43-year-old single woman with one child, age 12.  Applicant has a
bachelor’s degree in applied mathematics, earned in 1991, and a master’s degree in
curriculum and instruction, earned in 1998. Applicant has been enrolled in school
intermittently since 2007, working toward a doctorate. (GE 4 at 6) Applicant anticipates
finishing the program by 2013. Her field of study is unknown from the record.
After graduating from college, Applicant worked as a secondary school teacher in
various school districts through approximately 2006. Since then, she has worked in the
field of adult education and curriculum development. (Tr. 30) Since 2010, she has
worked for an agency that provides business system organization services to federal
government agencies. (Tr. 29) Specifically, her employer is helping agencies
synchronize their network systems. Because of the scope and complexity of this
endeavor, employees such as Applicant assist in developing training programs for
agency employees to facilitate the process. (Tr. 25)
Applicant is highly respected by her employer, her clients, and her peers.
According to a federal government project manager, Applicant “was one of the best
people [they] had,” who went “above and beyond” to accomplish her tasks. (Tr. 25)
Neuropathy is a chronic condition. Its symptoms include arm and leg weakness. (AE X at 9)1
3
According to another client, Applicant is one of the top 10 to 20 percent of the
contractors working on the project. (Tr. 32)  
In 2000, Applicant’s daughter was born. (Tr. 68) Applicant has always been a
single mother, and the child’s father has paid child support inconsistently over the years.
(GE 4 at 14) In 2001, Applicant failed a teacher’s licensing examination. (Tr. 69)
Consequently, she had to resign from her position and accept a teaching position in
another county that paid $12,000 less in annual income. (GE I) 
Applicant gradually became disillusioned with teaching. In June 2003, she left her
teaching position to explore other career options. Her efforts were unsuccessful. In
February 2004, after approximately six months of working in menial part-time jobs,
Applicant returned to teaching. (GE 4 at 8) She took a position focusing on troubled
youth. In November 2004, Applicant quit her job after being physically assaulted by a
student. (GE 4 at 6) She was unemployed for the next nine months.
During the period Applicant was unemployed, her daughter was sexually
assaulted. Applicant then began accruing counseling bills that she could not afford to
pay. (GE 4 at 14)
The multiple episodes of misfortune that befell Applicant between 2003 and 2005
compelled her, by August 2005, to relocate to another state. (GE I at 2) The cost of
living in the state where Applicant moved was much higher than the state from where
she relocated. Her finances, already strained by the nine-month period of
unemployment in 2005, began to completely deteriorate. 
Applicant’s financial problems worsened shortly after moving when she injured
her back. Overwhelmed by the higher cost of living and the maintenance costs of a
decrepit used car that she had purchased before moving, Applicant was unable to make
the medical insurance co-payments. (Tr. 68)
By January 2006, Applicant had exhausted her savings and could not afford to
pay her rent. One month later, she was evicted from her apartment. (Tr. 108)
Subsequently, she and her daughter spent the next 18 months living in either her car or
a homeless shelter. (GE 4 at 14) She supported herself with credit cards.
In June 2006, Applicant began working for an information technology company,
earning an annual salary of $50,000, approximately $8,000 higher than her previous
job’s salary. (GE 4 at 14) Applicant was still unable, however, to leave the homeless
shelter. Moreover, while living in the homeless shelter, her daughter became ill and
was subsequently diagnosed with an inflamed colon and neuropathy.  (Tr. 73)1
Consequently, Applicant had to earmark some of her income she had been saving to
move into an apartment toward her daughter’s medical expenses. (Tr. 70-74)
4
In 2007, Applicant took a job as an instructional designer. (GE 1 at 3) Her annual
salary increased by approximately $15,000. This increase enabled her to move out of
the homeless shelter by June 2007. (GE 4 at 14)
By 2010, Applicant was earning approximately $30,000 more per year than she
was earning when she first relocated. This enabled her to make a concerted effort to
address her financial delinquencies, which had by then accrued to approximately
$57,000. Applicant retained a credit counseling company to help her organize her
finances. (AE S)
Approximately $35,500 of Applicant’s delinquencies consists of a student loan
debt, as listed in SOR subparagraph 1.i. In September 2012, Applicant contacted the
creditor and applied for a forbearance. The application was accepted, and the account
will be in forbearance until April 2013. (AE M)
Nineteen of Applicant’s debts, as listed in SOR subparagraphs 1.u to 1.mm,
constitute parking and vehicle registration infractions. Applicant accrued them when she
was living in the homeless shelter. During this time, she could not afford to register her
automobile which would have enabled her to park it legally. Consequently, she accrued
multiple tickets, totalling $2,815. In June 2012, Applicant borrowed money from her
401(k) and used it to satisfy this debt in its entirety. (AE P) 
The status of Applicant’s remaining debts is as follows:
Debt Amount Description and Status Evidence
1.b.
$10,697 Car repossessed in 2005. Agreement
reached in October 2010 to satisfy
with $250 monthly increments.
Current on payments.
AE A, GE 2 at 2;
GE 3 at1.
1.c. $575 Utility. Not yet satisfied. Tr. 83.
1.d. $235 Medical bill. Not yet satisfied. Tr. 84.
1.e. $1,039 Credit card. $125 monthly payments
since May 2012.
Tr. 84; AE K.
1.f. $738 Credit card. $125 payments since
June 2012.
Tr. 84; AE L.
5
1.g. $1,097 Unknown. Applicant denies, stating
she had not yet moved to the area
where the bill was allegedly accrued.
Filed fraud report  with local police
office. Creditor investigated the
account, then closed it, resolving in
Applicant’s favor.
Answer at 18; AE
HH.
1.j. $316 Phone account. Applicant successfully
disputed.
AE N.
1.k. $261 Credit card. Paid as of October 2012. AE O.
1.l. $352 Credit card. Applicant has paid down
this debt to $223.
Tr. 104.
1.m. $223 Duplicate of subparagraph 1.l. Tr. 104.
1.o. $1,436 Delinquent rent. Applicant
successfully disputed this bill. (She
had satisfied the debt in September
2008.)
Answer at 41.
1.p. $3,164 Delinquent rent. Provided evidence
that she settled and satisfied it. 
Answer at 43.
1.q. $193 Grocery store club membership. 
Paid.
Tr. 108.
1.r. $147 Music service. Paid. Answer at 44.
1.s. $415 Fee related to 2006 eviction. Not yet
satisfied.
Tr. 110.
1.t. $743 Credit card.  Not yet satisfied. Tr. 110.
1.nn. $165 Not yet satisfied. Tr. 112.
1.oo. $448 Phone bill. Disputed. Verified by
creditor. Applicant will make payment
arrangements.
Tr. 114.
1.pp. $1,370 Medical bill. Not yet satisfied. Tr. 115.
1.qq. $980 This bill predates relocation. Does not
know identity of original creditor.
Collection agency does not know
either, and refused to accept
payment.
Tr. 116.
1.rr $300 Duplicate of SOR subparagraph 1.k. Tr. 117.
6
1.ss. $265 Payday loan. Satisfied October 20,
2010. 
AE Q.
1.uu. $288 Cable television. Paid. Tr. 120.
Since August 2010, Applicant has also satisfied debts owed to three creditors,
which were not listed on the SOR, collectively in the amount of approximately $1,200.
(AE U) Applicant has a debt repayment plan that she uses to track her debt reduction
progress. According to her plan, all of her delinquent debt will be eliminated by
December 2014. (AE AA at 2-3) 
Currently, Applicant earns $86,000 per year. (Tr. 123) She maintains a budget,
and has approximately $300 of monthly discretionary income. (AE AA at 2; Tr. 163) She
has $8,922 invested in her retirement account. (AE GG)
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
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 history of financial delinquencies and her longstanding struggles
7
to make ends meet trigger the application of AG ¶¶ 19(a) “inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts,” 19(c) “a history of not meeting financial obligations.”
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:
(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;
(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; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
(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.
Applicant first began to struggle financially in 2001 after she had to take a job
that paid $12,000 less than her previous job. However, she did not leave the better-
paying job because of circumstances beyond her control. Instead, she left it because
she could not pass a competency test that was required to maintain it.
Similarly, Applicant voluntarily left the teaching profession in 2003. Therefore, her
subsequent inability to find a well-paying job for the first six months after leaving the
profession also cannot be characterized as a circumstance beyond her control.
Conversely, after returning to the teaching profession, Applicant, in 2004, was
compelled to leave a job after being physically assaulted by a student. Over the next
three years, her daughter was sexually assaulted, and later was diagnosed with two
serious medical conditions (unrelated to the sexual assault), and Applicant suffered a
serious, at times debilitating, injury. On balance, I conclude that circumstances beyond
Applicant’s control significantly contributed to her financial difficulties.
As Applicant’s salary began gradually increasing over the years, she began to
address her delinquent finances. Currently, her most significant delinquency, the
student loan totalling $35,500, is in forbearance. Of the remaining $22,000 of debt,
8
Applicant has satisfied approximately $7,500 of delinquencies in their entirety, and is
paying three creditors, whom she collectively owes approximately $12,500, through
monthly payments. Also, she has successfully disputed debts totalling approximately
$2,849.   
Applicant maintains a budget and is meticulously adhering to it. I conclude that all
of the mitigating conditions apply. 
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’s financial hardship was not caused by irresponsible spending. Instead,
it was caused by career setbacks, periods of unemployment, medical problems, and
family crises. Since 2006, Applicant has rebuilt her life and her career, getting
progressively higher-paying jobs and gradually satisfying her debts. Currently, she is a
highly-respected employee at the company where she works. Given that she was
homeless as recently as June 2007, her progress, both professionally and with debt
reduction, has been remarkable. Under these circumstances, I conclude that 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
Subparagraphs 1.a: WITHDRAWN
Subparagraphs 1.b -1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: WITHDRAWN
9
Subparagraphs 1.I - 1.m: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.n: WITHDRAWN
Subparagraphs 1.o - 1.ss: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.tt: WITHDRAWN
Subparagraph 1.uu: 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.
                                             
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge