1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 11-06888
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Candace L. Garcia, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Kenneth M. Roberts, Esquire  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on October 1, 2010. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on August 23, 2012, 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 Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended
(Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines For Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Information (AG) implemented on September 1, 2006. 
 
W hen  SOR allegations are controverted, the Government bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient1
to prove controverted allegations. Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. “That burden has two components. First, the
Government must establish by substantial evidence that the facts and events alleged in the SOR indeed took
place. Second, the Government must establish a nexus between the existence of the established facts and
events and a legitimate security concern.” See ISCR Case No. 07-18525 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 18, 2009),
(concurring and dissenting, in part) (citations omitted). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection
between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See
2
Applicant received the SOR on August 30, 2012, and he answered it on
September 20, 2012. Applicant requested a hearing before an administrative judge with
the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). Department Counsel was
prepared to proceed on November 23, 2012, and I received the case assignment on
November 29, 2012. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on December 5, 2012. Applicant
retained counsel, who entered his appearance on December 14, 2012, and requested a
continuance. By order dated December 14, 2012, Applicant’s request for a continuance
was granted. The parties agreed to February 12, 2013 as the hearing date. I convened
the hearing by video teleconference as scheduled on February 12, 2013. The
Government offered exhibits (GE) marked as GE 1 through GE 7, which were received
and admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant and three witnesses testified.
He submitted exhibits (AE) marked as AE A through AE S, which were received and
admitted into evidence without objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on
February 21, 2013. I held the record open until February 26, 2013, for Applicant to
submit additional matters, if he chose. Applicant did not submit any additional
information. The record closed on February 26, 2013.
Procedural and Evidentiary Rulings
Notice
Applicant received the notice of the date, time and place of the second hearing
date less than 15 days before the hearing. I advised Applicant of his right under ¶
E3.1.8 of the Directive to receive the notice 15 days before the hearing. After consulting
with counsel, Applicant affirmatively waived this right under the directive. (Tr. 10.)       
Evidentiary ruling
Applicant requested to correct two errors in AE A. On page two of AE A, the date
for his employment at a major airline is 1997, and on page 5, the first line, the word “my”
is extraneous. Applicant’s request was granted, and this information is corrected. (Tr.
22)
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a,
1.c, and 1.h of the SOR with explanation. His admissions are incorporated herein as
findings of fact. He denied the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.b, 1.e-1.g, and 1.k-1.s of the
SOR with explanations.  He also provided additional information to support his request1
ISCR Case No. 08-06605 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 4, 2010); ISCR Case No. 08-07290 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 17,
2009).
GE 1; Tr. 76-83, 129, 130, 132-133, 139-141.2
AE M - AE S; Tr. 24-75.3
GE 1.4
Applicant’s wife has a security clearance which was granted after her background investigation in 2010 which5
also showed unpaid debts.
3
for eligibility for a security clearance. After a complete and thorough review of the
evidence of record, I make the following findings of fact.  
Applicant, who is 47 years old, works as an aircraft mechanic for a DOD
contractor. He began his current employment in December 2004. He previously worked
as an aircraft mechanic for several other private airline companies, including a major
U.S. airline. As a result of the incidents of September 11, 2001, the major airline laid
him off from his job in State A in 2001. Applicant found other work in his field with a
newly formed airline in State B. This job lasted about a year, during which time his
family continued to live in State A, where his wife worked. He continued to find work in
State B, and his family moved to State B. His wife did not work for a year after the family
moved. He worked two jobs during this time frame to provide for his family.2
Applicant’s program manager and two co-workers testified on his behalf. All are
aware of his financial problems. They describe Applicant as a professional, who
acknowledges and is accountable for his mistakes, and as a highly skilled and
knowledgeable aircraft mechanic. He is a highly responsible person, whom they trust.
Applicant does not live extravagantly nor does he gamble. Two witnesses socialize with
him outside of work and do not consider him financially irresponsible. Applicant also
submitted seven letters of recommendation, including letters from his three witnesses.
All describe him as conscientious, reliable, hardworking, dependable, and a man of
integrity.3
Applicant attended college, but did not finish. Applicant and his wife married in
July 1992. They have two sons, ages 18 and 16. His oldest son is a college student.
Applicant has held a security clearance since 2004 without incident.4
After he moved to State B, and he began his current employment, Applicant and
his wife decided to improve their finances by closing credit card accounts and paying
purchases with cash. During his 2010 background investigation,  issues arose with his5
finances. His credit reports for 2010 showed many unpaid and charged off debts for
accounts unknown to him and not opened by him. He, along with his wife, sought help
to manage and resolve this problem. He and his wife enrolled with a credit identity theft
reporting service and in the fall of 2012, Applicant enrolled in an enhanced identification
protection service through his banking service. He also consulted a law firm about the
GE 1; GE 3; GE 7; AE K; AE L; Tr. 88-89, 114-116, 160,183-191, 200-202. 6
GE 4 - GE 7.7
Response to SOR; GE 3 - GE 7; AE C; AE D; Tr. 90-92, 146, 177.8
4
debts on his credit report. This firm advised him to dispute the debts with the credit
reporting companies, which he has done on several occasions, including on April 18,
2012. If the creditors contacted him or began to harass him, the law firm advised that it
would work with him to resolve any debts the creditors sought to collect from him. After
receiving the SOR, Applicant filed a fraud and identity theft notice with the credit
reporting companies. His November 5, 2012 credit report notes that he is a victim of
fraud. This is the first time such a notice is listed on his credit reports.6
The SOR identified 19 purportedly continuing delinquencies as reflected in credit
reports dated January 26, 2005, April 2, 2010, and November 5, 2012, totaling
approximately $31,411.  Some accounts have been transferred, reassigned, or sold to
other creditors or collection agents. Other accounts are referenced repeatedly in both
credit reports, in many instances duplicating other accounts listed, either under the
same creditor or collection agency name or under a different creditor or collection
agency name. Some accounts are identified by complete account numbers, while others
are identified by partial account numbers, in some instances eliminating the last four
digits, and in others eliminating other digits.7
Applicant denied most of the debts, asserting that the debts are not his and are
the result of identity theft. He has disputed most of the debts listed in the SOR. He
submitted two credit reports, dated September 18, 2012 and January 21, 2013. I have
reviewed all the credit reports in the record and make the following findings about the
SOR debts.  
SOR allegation 1.a concerns a $4,364 credit card debt with a credit union
associated with the major airline where Applicant worked until 2001. The credit report
dated January 26, 2005 lists five accounts with this credit union with a notation “pays as
agreed.” Three accounts are real estate accounts, one account is a line of credit, and
the last account is a credit card. The 2005 credit report shows the two real estate
accounts and the line of credit as closed, paid, and a zero balance. The remaining real
estate debt is shown as paid on the October 13, 2010 credit report. The October 2010,
April 2012, and November 2012 credit reports show the credit card as paid, and the
account closed at the consumer’s request, as Applicant testified he did. The SOR debt
with this credit union contains an account number different from the above five
accounts, and this SOR debt first appeared on the October 13, 2010 credit report, which
shows the date the account opened as September 2000 and the date of last activity on
the account as January 2006. Applicant denies any knowledge of this account and
believes some person used his employee information to open the account. He disputed
this account with the credit reporting agencies on April 18, 2012, and it is not listed on
his January 21, 2013 credit report.8
Response to SOR; GE 4 - GE 7; AE D; Tr. 93.9
GE 5 - GE 7; AE C - AE F; Tr. 93-95, 147. 10
Response to SOR; GE 3; GE 5 - GE 7; AE C; AE D; Tr. 95-96.11
Response to SOR; GE 3 - GE7; AE C; AE D; Tr. 96-98, 147.12
GE 3 - GE 7; AE G; AE H; Tr. 98-99, 147.13
5
The $75 debt in SOR allegation 1.b is with the credit union identified in SOR
allegation 1.a. None of the credit reports in the record reflect a $75 debt with this credit
union. Applicant denies any knowledge of this debt.9
The creditor for the $2,035 debt in SOR allegation 1.c obtained a judgment
against Applicant for the debt. Applicant denied receiving the court papers and
unsuccessfully disputed the debt. Upon advice of counsel and after weighing the legal
expense to dispute the judgment, Applicant took no legal action to dispute the
garnishment. The creditor garnished his salary, and this debt is paid.10
Applicant denies possessing a credit card with the creditor in SOR allegation 1.d
($267). This account is shown on the October 13, 2010 credit report as a closed
account with a zero balance and transferred to recovery. Applicant disputed the debt,
which is not listed on the four later credit reports in the record.  11
Applicant acknowledged having an account with this creditor before he married in
1992. He stopped using the credit card in the early 1990s, which is the reason he
disputed the debt in SOR allegation 1.e ($1,081) as not his. The January 2005 credit
report reflects a “pays as agreed” account. The October 13, 2010 credit report shows
the account as a delinquent debt, and the April 2, 2012 credit report indicates the debt
has been charged-off. Applicant disputed this debt on April 18, 2012. The dispute result
indicates the account was paid in March 2002, and the account closed by the
consumer. The debt is not listed on the September 18, 2012, November 5, 2012, and
January 21, 2013 credit reports.12
Applicant admitted that he had a company credit card with a large retail store, but
denies he had a second bank credit card with the retail store. He closed the company
credit card account when he moved in 2001 to State B. The 2005 credit report indicates
Applicant had two credit card accounts with the retail store, which were in good
standing. One account was opened in 1991, and the second account was opened in
2001. The second account showed up on his October 13, 2010 credit report as a
collection account, which was sold to the current collection agency (SOR ¶ 1.f). The
collection agency obtained a judgment for $11,000, including interest, against Applicant,
and his salary is being garnished. Applicant denies receiving the court papers and any
knowledge of the judgment until he received notice of the garnishment. His legal
counsel recommended payment of the garnishment. He has paid more than $6,800 on
this debt as of the hearing. He did dispute this debt on April 18, 2012.13
Response to SOR; GE 3 - GE 7; AE C; AE D; AE J; Tr. 99-101; 148.14
Response to SOR; GE 4- GE 7; AE D; AE I; Tr. 101-103.15
Response to SOR; GE 3 - GE7; AE J; Tr. 104-105, 148-149.16
Response to SOR; GE 5 - GE 7; AE D; Tr. 106, 149.17
6
Concerning the debts in SOR allegations 1.g ($1,683), 1.h ($627), and 1.i ($568),
Applicant denied any past-due accounts with these creditors, although he
acknowledged he had an account in the past with the creditor in allegation 1.h. He
closed this account in 2007 with a zero balance. The debts in allegations 1.g and 1.i
appear only on the April 2012 credit report. Applicant disputed these debts on April 18,
2012. The debts in allegations 1.g and 1.i have been removed from his credit report. He
continues to dispute the debt in 1.h, even though an earlier investigation of his dispute
showed the debt as paid in 2008, and the account closed by the consumer.14
Applicant acknowledged that the $147 debt in allegation SOR 1.j related to a car
lease. He paid the car lease in full and provided documentation to show this debt is
paid. All the credit reports of record show this debt as paid.15
Applicant acknowledges that he had a credit card with the creditor identified in
SOR allegation 1.k in the 1990s, but denies that he owes this creditor $1,584. He closed
this account in 2002. The January 2005 credit report reflects that Applicant opened this
account in March 1997 and that he paid the account “as agreed”. The October 2010
credit report shows that the account was in collections. Applicant disputed this debt on
several occasions beginning on April 18, 2012, and he has not received information on
the results of his dispute, although two credit reporting agencies have resolved the
dispute without providing information about their findings. Applicant currently maintains
accounts with this bank and can find no information about this debt on the bank’s
website.16
Applicant denies that he or his family ever shopped at the retail establishment for
the debt in SOR allegation 1.l or had a credit card with this company. He disputed the
$291 debt, which is not listed on his four most recent credit reports after being shown on
the October 2010 credit report.17
The three credit card debts identified in SOR allegations 1.m ($1,326), 1.n
($254), and 1.s ($720) are with the same credit card company. Applicant acknowledged
one credit card with this company, which he opened in the 1990s and later closed. The
2005 credit report listed four accounts with this credit card company, all with a zero
balance and noted as “pays as agreed.” One account also indicates that the account
was paid and “closed at the consumers request”. The debts in allegations 1.m and 1.s
are not listed on the January 2005 credit report. The October 2010 credit report lists five
credit card accounts opened in 1995 or 1999 with this credit company, and it notes that
three accounts were closed by the consumer with a zero balance. The debts in
Response to SOR; GE 4 - GE 7; AE D; Tr. 107-109, 113, 150.18
Response to SOR; GE 3 - GE 7; AE D; AE J; Tr. 109-110, 150.19
Response to SOR; GE 4 - GE 7; AE D; Tr. 110-111, 150-151.20
Response to SOR; GE 4 - GE 7; AE D; Tr. 111.21
7
allegations 1.m and 1.s appear on this report with similar account numbers. Applicant
disputed these debts, which do not appear on his four most recent credit reports.18
Applicant acknowledged that he had account with the original creditor identified in
SOR allegation 1.o ($553) while a college student in the 1980s. He denies continued
use of this account after college, stating that he closed the account. The account is
listed as disputed on the recent credit reports. Applicant disputed this debt on April 18,
2012, and the dispute result reflects that the debt was settled and paid in September
2009.     19
SOR allegation 1.p ($2,519) concerns a credit card with a membership retailer.
Applicant acknowledged having a membership with this retailer, but denies opening a
credit card account with this retailer. The January 2005 credit report indicates that this
account was opened in March 2002, that Applicant paid as agreed, that there was a
current balance of $1,018, that the date of last activity was October 2004, and that the
card was lost or stolen. The October 2010 credit report shows a zero balance on the
account with a date of last activity of December 2009 and notes that the credit card was
lost or stolen as well as a charged-off collection account. Applicant disputed this
account, which does not appear on his four most recent credit reports.20
The account in SOR allegation 1.q ($1,449) concerns a charge account, which
the January 2005 and October 2010 credit reports reflect was opened in December
2004. The creditor number is the same and the account number is the same except two
additional digits appeared on the October 2010 account number. The account was
current in January 2005 and a charge-off by October 2010. Applicant denied that this
account was his, as it was unknown to him. He disputed the debt on April 18, 2012. The
dispute result showed that the account was paid in March 2002 and closed by the
consumer. This debt does not appear on his four most credit reports.21
Finally, SOR debt 1.r ($713) concerns a gasoline credit card administered by a
large bank. Applicant denies having a gasoline credit card with this company, but
acknowledged a gasoline credit card in the past with another gasoline company. The
January 2005, October 2010, and January 2013 credit reports show an account with the
same account number, a zero balance, and as a current account. The October 2010
credit report indicates that the account was transferred and closed. This report shows
another account with the same creditor and a different account number, which was sold
to the collection company identified in the SOR. Applicant disputed this account, and it
Response to SOR; GE 4 - GE 7; AE D; Tr. 112, 151.22
AE B.23
Response to SOR; GE 3; AE A; Tr. 84-89, 160-168, 180-183.24
8
was removed from his credit reports. This account is not listed on his four most credit
reports.22
Applicant and his wife’s net monthly incomes total $7,425 after deductions,
including his garnishment deduction. Their monthly expenses total $6,674, leaving $751
a month to pay other debts and unexpected expenses.23
 
The January 2005 credit report reflects that Applicant and his wife paid all their
bills in a timely manner. By 2010, the credit reporting agencies report many unpaid
debts. On his e-QIP, Applicant indicated that he and his wife had noticed credit
accounts that were not theirs. Applicant also stated that they were working with a law
firm and their bank’s consumer protection services to resolve the problem. When he met
with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator, Applicant stated that he
was aware of the debts listed in his credit report, but denied that the debts were his. He
advised the OPM investigator that he was working with his attorney and bank to resolve
the problem. In his answer to the SOR and in a statement prepared for the hearing, he
again denied the debts were his. He testified to problems with receiving his mail for a
number of years. He denied receiving notice of the court cases and receiving bills from
the creditors listed in the SOR. He attributes these debts to identity theft and fraud. He
has been disputing the debts for several years and is not relying on the debts falling off
his credit report as a way to resolve the debts.24
Policies
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 used 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 overarching
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.
9
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, an applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining 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 an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
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 concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is 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. 
AG ¶ 19 describes the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially applicable: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
10
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
The credit reports submitted by the Government indicate that by 2010, Applicant
had developed significant financial problems. The 2012 credit reports submitted by the
Government indicated that most of the debts had not been resolved. Based on the
Government’s submissions, these two disqualifying conditions apply.
The Financial Considerations guideline also includes examples of conditions that
can mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 20(a) through
¶ 20(f), and the following 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
(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 is not receiving financial counseling. In 2005, his credit reports showed
that he paid his bills. Over the next few years, significant unpaid debts appeared on his
credit report. Applicant did not recognized the debts and began to dispute them with the
assistance of his bank and financial attorney. He continues to dispute several
unresolved debts because the debts are not his, and the accounts are unknown to him.
The April 18, 2012 dispute information report reflects that some debts had been paid
several years earlier and were resolved. Because he did not recognize the debts,
Applicant had a reasonable basis to dispute these debts.
Most of the debts listed in the SOR are resolved because of his disputes. He paid
one garnishment and is paying a second garnishment, which resolves SOR allegations
1.c and 1.f.  He also established that the debt related to his car lease had been resolved
(allegation 1.j). The credit report shows a lost or stolen credit card for the debt in SOR
allegation 1.p. After challenging the validity of this debt, it has been removed from his
credit report.
Applicant attributes the SOR debts to fraud. Because he does not recognize
most of the debts and closed other accounts a long time ago, Applicant had a
reasonable basis to believe that his debts were the result of conditions beyond his
control. When he learned about the debts, he acted responsibly when he started
disputing the validity of the debts, spoke with legal counsel about his options, and
11
enrolled in a credit protection program. Applicant has mitigated the security concerns
about his finances under AG ¶¶ 20(b), 20(c), and (20(e).
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 an applicant’s
conduct and all 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. 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct,
but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a
nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern.
 
The evidence in support of granting a security clearance to Applicant under the
whole-person concept is more substantial than the evidence in support of denial. In
reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. For many
years, Applicant and his wife maintained good credit. They paid their bills. About seven
or eight years ago, Applicant and his wife decided to close their credit card accounts
and pay cash for their purchases. They started closing accounts, as reflected by the
credit reports. When they later reviewed their credit reports, they discovered numerous
unpaid debts, which they did not recognize as belonging to either one of them. They
sought guidance from a law firm and from their bank. They began to challenge the
validity of the account information in their credit reports by writing credit reporting
companies, and Applicant continues to dispute the few remaining unresolved accounts.
His disputes have led to the removal of many incorrect entries alleging unpaid debts
from his credit reports. They sought professional guidance and help on how to address
these financial problems. They currently monitor their credit reports to protect against
any future incorrect listings of debts that do not belong to them.
In assessing whether an Applicant has established mitigation under Guideline F, the Appeal Board provided25
the following guidance in ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008):
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the concept of
“‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of actual debt reduction through
payment of debts.” See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2007).
However, an applicant is not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off
each and every debt listed in the SOR. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-25499 at 2 (App. Bd.
Jun. 5, 2006). All that is required is that an applicant demonstrate that he has “. . . established
a plan to resolve his financial problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.”
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 6, 2006). The Judge can reasonably
consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and his actions in evaluating the
extent to which that applicant’s plan for the reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is
credible and realistic. See Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (“Available, reliable information about the
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a
determination.”) There is no requirement that a plan provide for payments on all outstanding
debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for
the payment of such debts one at a time. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-25584 at 4 (App. Bd.
Apr. 4, 2008). Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually paid in
furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the SOR.
12
Applicant lives within this monthly income and pays his expenses. His employer
recognizes his dedication, integrity, honesty, reliability, dependability, and
trustworthiness. His work skills are excellent, and he is well respected by his co-workers
and managers. He and his wife have been married 20 years, and they have two sons.
He has a stable domestic environment and stable finances. Most significantly, he has
taken affirmative action to pay or resolve most of the delinquent debts raising security
concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(6).) He has not been able to resolve all the SOR debts, but
continues to work on a resolution of the debts. Thus, his remaining unresolved debts
cannot be a source of improper pressure or duress. Of course, the issue is not simply
whether all his debts are paid: it is whether his financial circumstances raise concerns
about his fitness to hold a security clearance. He has shown sufficient progress to
establish a “track record” of debt resolution.  While some debts remain unpaid, they are25
insufficient to raise security concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(1).)
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his finances under
Guideline F.
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.s: For Applicant
13
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.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge