1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 10-01820
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Philip J. Katauskas, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Christopher Graham, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s financial indebtedness was caused by medical and employment
problems. He was involved in a car accident in August 2005 that required hospitalization
and four months of rehabilitation to learn how to walk again. He was hospitalized in May
2006. He was unemployed for seven months in 2007 before finding his current
employment. Though he did not address his debt until after receiving the SOR, he has paid
off six of eight debts and is engaged in a monthly payment plan for the seventh debt.
Applicant has mitigated the financial security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified
information is granted. 
2
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on November 19, 2010. He was interviewed by an investigator from the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on two occasions: December 8, 2010, and
February 7, 2011. The interview summaries appear in Government Exhibit (GE) 2. Under
question #3 of GE 2, Applicant answered affirmatively that the investigator’s interview
summaries accurately reflected information he provided to the investigator. In response to
question #6 of GE 2, Applicant answered “yes” that he agreed with and adopted the
investigator’s interview summaries as accurately reflecting the interviews. In his answers
to interrogatories (GE 3), Applicant provided the status of the judgment and delinquent
debts that are listed in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).
On November 2, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a SOR detailing
security concerns under financial considerations (Guideline F). The action was taken
pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry
(February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel
Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the
adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant’s answer to the SOR was notarized on November 25, 2012. The Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a notice of hearing on January
18, 2013, for a hearing on February 14, 2013. The hearing was held as scheduled. At the
hearing, without objection, six exhibits (GE 1 through GE 6) were admitted in evidence in
support of the Government’s case. Applicant testified. Eight exhibits (AE A through AE H)
were entered into evidence in his behalf without objection. DOHA received the transcript
on February 22, 2013. The record in this case closed on February 22, 2013. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR lists eight allegations under the financial considerations guideline. There
are six medical accounts, one judgment for an unpaid student loan, and one
telecommunications account. The total amount of debt is $29,072. Applicant admitted all
allegations. 
Applicant is 34 years old. He has a 12-year-old daughter. He served in the U.S.
Marine Corps from March 1999 until his other than honorable discharge in April 2000,
following drug possession allegations. He received a network administration certificate
(information technology) from a technical school in September 2000. He obtained additional
training at a technical college from January 2003 to December 2004, but received no
degree or certificate.
 This was the amount of the judgment on November 30, 2010, the date of the credit bureau report. As a result1
of interest and collection costs, the amount increased to $18, 262 on June 7, 2012, when Applicant was
advised by letter he could settle the judgment with a $15,300 payoff or make monthly payments of $198 a
month until the loan was satisfied. (GE 3 at 264)
3
 Since September 2007, Applicant has been employed as a systems technician 2
with a defense contractor. Before his current employment, he was unemployed from
January to September 2007. Prior to his unemployment, he was a networking instructor
from January 2006 to January 2007, preceded by unemployment from August 2005 to
December 2005. Applicant has held an interim clearance since September 2007. 
In August 2005, Applicant was involved in a car accident and sustained a broken leg,
a crushed knee, and a broken wrist. He was employed as a sales manager at the time.
Besides causing unemployment, his injuries required hospitalization and four months of
rehabilitation to learn how to walk again. Though his health insurance was inadequate to
cover all the medical costs, a portion of bills was paid with his tax returns. During his
rehabilitation, his parents provided care and financial support. (GE 3 at 270)
Applicant was also unemployed from January 2007 until September 2007, when he
was hired by his current employer. During this time, he moved to another part of the United
States in search of a job. When he could not find employment, he returned home. 
The delinquent accounts in the SOR are based on information appearing in three
credit reports (GE 4-GE 6).
SOR 1.a. Resolved. Medical debt ($501) for services rendered during Applicant’s
four-day hospitalization in May 2006. On February 13, 2013, the creditor’s collection
agency notified Applicant that the delinquent account was paid in full. (AE A)
SOR 1.b. Resolved. Medical debt ($224) for services rendered in May 2006. On
December 18, 2012, the creditor’s collection agency notified Applicant that the account was
paid in full on November 27, 2012. (AE B)
SOR 1.c. Resolved. Medical debt ($28) for services rendered in May 2006. On
December 18, 2012, the creditor’s collection agency notified Applicant that the account was
satisfied on November 26, 2012. 
SOR 1.d. Payment plan. Student loan judgment ($15,952). The judgment was filed
in January 2005. (GE 4)  Applicant’s underemployment, unemployment, and medical1
issues, were major reasons why a judgment was filed against him. On February 6, 2013,
4
the student loan organization notified Applicant that his $5,000 payment constituted
acceptance of a payment plan of $150 a month beginning on March 15, 2013. (AE D; Tr.
30)
SOR 1.e. Resolved. Medical debt ($417) for services at an unknown time. The
account became delinquent in March 2007. On February 7, 2013, the creditor’s collection
agency notified Applicant that the account was paid in full. (GE 4; AE E) 
SOR 1.f. Unresolved. Medical debt ($249) for services at an unknown time. After
obtaining a copy of his credit report, contacting a debt firm, searching the Internet, and
telephoning other sources, Applicant was unable to identify the medical account. (Tr. 24)
Had he known about the account’s posted telephone number in the credit reports, he would
have attempted contact with the creditor. (Tr. 27)
SOR 1.g. Resolved. Telecommunications account ($265) opened in 2002 with an
unknown date of becoming delinquent. On December 12, 2012, Applicant was notified by
letter that the account was settled. (AE G)
SOR 1.h. Resolved. Medical account ($11,436) for hospitalization of four days in
May 2006. Applicant paid a portion of this debt with a settlement check ($9,308) he
received on January 13, 2013, from the party who collided with Applicant’s car in January
2012, and left the scene of the accident before the police arrived. He applied a portion of
the settlement check to the student loan judgment and the other debts. (GE 3 at 263, AE
H; Tr. 32) He also withdrew about $12,000 from his retirement savings to pay the other
delinquent medical accounts. He does not have to repay the amount because he used the
proceeds to pay medical bills. (Tr. 33-34)
Applicant has never had financial counseling of any kind. Although he does not use
a budget, he is current on all his other financial obligations. He has never had a credit card.
The credit reports do not list any credit cards. (Tr. 25, 35; GE 4-6) He provided credible
testimony and supporting documentation that he satisfied six of the eight delinquent
accounts listed in the SOR. 
Character Evidence
Applicant provided no character evidence related to his job performance or his
conduct in the community where he lives. 
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
5
mitigating conditions that are useful in evaluating an applicant's eligibility for access to
classified information.
The disqualifying and mitigating conditions should also be evaluated in the context
of nine general factors known as the whole-person concept to bring together all available,
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision for security clearance eligibility. Decisions include, by necessity,
consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to
protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to 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 ¶ E3.1.15., 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 of establishing that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him a security clearance. 
Analysis
Financial Considerations 
The security concern for financial considerations is set forth 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. Compulsive gambling is a concern
as it may lead to financial crimes including 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 potentially pertinent disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 are:
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
6
The Government has the burden of presenting sufficient information to support all
allegations of the SOR. Based on the three credit reports, Applicant’s December 2010 and
February 2011 interview summaries, his April 2012 interrogatory answers, and the record,
the Government’s evidence supports all allegations of the SOR. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c)
apply. 
Five mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially pertinent: 
(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 reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment; 
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond
the person's control 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. 
The record reflects that Applicant incurred the student loan judgment and seven
delinquent accounts between January 2005 and March 2007. The absence of new
delinquent financial obligations for more than five years and Applicant’s satisfaction of six
of eight listed debts constitutes convincing evidence of his current reliability, trustworthiness
and good judgment. AG ¶ 20(a) applies.
Applicant’s financial problems were caused by medical treatment, unemployment,
and underemployment problems beyond his control. In August 2005, he was involved in
a very serious car accident leaving him unemployed and unable to walk for four months.
After resuming work as a network instructor in January 2006, Applicant was hospitalized
for four days in May 2006 because of a medical condition. In January 2007, Applicant was
unemployed again. For nine months, he searched for work in another part of the United
States without success. However, Applicant has been continuously employed since
September 2007 with no disruption. With no evidence that demonstrates an effort to repay
the delinquent accounts until after he received the SOR in November 2012, Applicant can
only receive limited mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b).
Though Applicant has never had financial counseling, he exercised good judgment
in seeking qualified assistance in his attempt to pay the creditor in SOR 1.f. Having settled
7
or satisfied six of the eight listed creditors, Applicant has furnished credible evidence that
establishes his financial problems are being resolved. The evidence under AG ¶¶ 20(c) and
20(d) applies to overcome the adverse evidence under AG ¶¶ 19(ad) and 19(c). 
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 set
forth in 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 34 years old and single. He has a 12-year-old daughter. He has 13
months in the U.S. Marines, receiving an other than honorable discharge in April 2000. He
earned a networking administration certificate in September 2000. He has worked as a
systems technician 2 for a defense contractor since September 2007.
Applicant’s medical and employment problems have been addressed earlier in this
decision. Though he did not start to repay the delinquent debts until after he received the
SOR in November 2012, his documented steps in resolving the six of the listed debts justify
complete confidence he will complete the student loan payment plan (SOR 1.d), and
resolve the medical account (SOR 1.f) After weighing the disqualifying evidence against
the mitigating evidence, and in the context of the whole-person concept, Applicant has
persuasively removed the security concerns presented under the financial guideline.   
8
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.h: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge