1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 11-09502
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns about his finances. Despite
having the resources to do so, Applicant has not acted to resolve several longstanding
delinquencies, and he failed to document claimed disputes of some of his debts.
Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On April 20, 2010, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance required for his work as
an employee of a federal contractor. After reviewing the results of the ensuing
background investigation, Department of Defense (DOD) adjudicators were unable to
find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Applicant’s access
 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DoD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.1
 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. These2
guidelines were published in the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006).
2
to classified information.  On October 5, 2012, DOD issued to Applicant a Statement of1
Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which raise security concerns addressed in the
adjudicative guideline  for financial considerations (Guideline F).2
Applicant timely responded to the SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing. The
case was assigned to me on December 19, 2012, and I convened a hearing on January
16, 2013. DOHA received the transcript of hearing (Tr.) on January 30, 2013.
Department Counsel presented Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 6, which were
admitted without objection. (Tr. 19 - 25) Applicant testified and proffered eight exhibits,
which were admitted without objection as Applicant’s Exhibits (Ax.) A - H. (Tr. 26 - 32,
34 - 35, 67 - 71) Additionally, I left the record open after the hearing to receive additional
information from Applicant. However, no post-hearing submissions were received and
the record closed on February 1, 2013.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owed approximately
$24,707 in past-due debts for 14 accounts specified in SOR 1.a - 1.n. Applicant
admitted SOR 1.d and 1.e. He also admitted SOR 1.f and 1.m, but averred that he was
not responsible for the debts because they no longer appeared on his credit report due
to age. He denied, with explanations, the remaining allegations. (Answer) Applicant’s
admissions are incorporated herein as facts. Having reviewed the pleadings, transcript,
and exhibits, I make the following additional findings of fact.
Applicant is 50 years old and employed by a defense contractor in support of
military training efforts. He served in the U.S. Army in special operations from 1981 until
retiring as a sergeant first class in 2002. He has worked for defense contractors since
2002 using skills learned in the Army to help train service members for combat
operations. Applicant was hired by his current employer in September 2008, but has
worked at the same location since April 2004. His performance evaluations from his
current employer show him to be an excellent employee. Applicant has held security
clearances up to the top secret level with eligibility for access to sensitive
compartmented information (SCI) for more almost 30 years. However, in 2010, the
Department of the Army revoked his SCI access because of security concerns about his
finances. (Gx. 1; Gx. 3; Ax. A)
Applicant and his wife have been married since July 2002. He was previously
married from 1986 until 2000. He has one adopted child from that marriage for whom he
pays $500 support each month. Applicant’s current wife has three daughters from a
previous marriage, all of whom were living with her when she married Applicant.
3
Applicant began experiencing financial problems in 2003 and 2004. After he retired from
the Army, Applicant found work in an area with a cost of living higher than he
anticipated. Although he may have struggled financially, there is no indication he fell
behind on his bills. However, when he remarried in 2002, he became obligated to
support three stepdaughters in addition to his own child’s support payments. In 2004, he
executed a voluntary repossession of a car on which he could no longer make
payments. (Answer; Gx. 3; Gx. 4; Tr. 12 - 13)
In 2004, Applicant and his family moved to their place of residence in another
state when he was hired by a previous defense contractor. Although the cost of living
was lower than before, he continued to struggle financially. When he submitted his April
2010 eQIP, he disclosed delinquent debts owed to Bank of America as collection
accounts for auto loans and credit accounts. One of the accounts, a delinquent $8,000
credit card account, is alleged at SOR 1.m, and he discussed it with investigators in
subject interviews in June 2010 and June 2011. In response to the SOR, Applicant
admitted the debt was his, but implied that he is no longer obligated to pay it because it
no longer appears on his credit report. The debt remains unpaid. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 3;
Gx. 4; Tr. 12, 28 - 29, 45 - 47)
The background investigation initiated by Applicant’s eQIP developed information
about other debts. Investigators asked him about those debts in the aforementioned
subject interviews. Some of those debts are alleged in the SOR. I make the following
findings of fact regarding those allegations:
- SOR 1.a alleges an unpaid civil judgment against Applicant for $5,449. The
credit reports submitted by Government do not reflect this debt. However, from
Applicant’s subject interviews, his responses to DOD interrogatories and the
SOR, and his testimony at hearing, it is apparent that he knows the plaintiff in this
matter to be his former landlord at the home he rented before moving to his
current residence in 2004. In response to interrogatories, he implied prior
knowledge of this debt when he stated, “[t]his account has been dropped from
my current credit report.” When he was interviewed in 2010, he had not
previously been aware of this judgment, which likely was entered by default after
Applicant left the state. As of the hearing, Applicant had not taken any action to
verify or resolve this debt despite telling an investigator in June 2010 that he
would address this matter. (Answer; Gx. 2 - 5; Tr. 34 - 38, 65, 68)
- SOR 1.b alleges a delinquent cable television account for $1,074. This account
is listed in both credit reports. In response to DOD interrogatories and the SOR,
Applicant acknowledges having an account with this cable provider, but disputes
without corroboration, the validity of this account. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 4; Gx. 5;
Gx. 6; Tr. 38 - 39)
- SOR 1.c alleges an unpaid debt to an online catalogue company for $472. The
creditor was discussed with Applicant in June 2010 and the debt is documented
in both credit reports; however, Applicant denies having an account with this
4
creditor. He claims to have disputed this debt, but provided no documentation
showing efforts to resolve the matter. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 4 - 6; Tr. 39 - 40, 39 -
40)
- SOR 1.d alleges a delinquent credit card account for $2,881. Applicant admitted
this debt, which became delinquent around 2004. It is also documented in his
credit reports and was discussed during both of his subject interviews with
government investigators. However, he also stated that by the time he was able
to repay the debt, he “elected to let the debt expire and fall off [his] current credit
report.” This debt remains unpaid. (Answer; Gx. 2 - 6; Tr. 40, 67)
- SOR 1.e alleges a debt for a delinquent cell phone account for $1,330.
Applicant admitted this debt, which he averred began as a $200 charge for early
termination. Applicant has not paid this debt. (Answer; Gx. 3; Gx. 5; Tr. 40, 67)
- SOR 1.f alleges a delinquent credit card debt for $975 past-due on a $6,270
balance. In response to DOD interrogatories, Applicant denied any knowledge of
this creditor and that he was disputing the account with credit reporting agencies.
However, in response to the SOR, Applicant admitted he once had an account
with this creditor, and an account with this creditor was discussed with Applicant
at his June 2010 interview. He has not paid it because “by the time [he] was able
to repay the debt the debt was over 6 years old and ... removed from
[Applicant’s] current [credit] report.” (Answer; Gx. 2 - 3; Tr. 40 - 41)
- SOR 1.g, 1.j, and 1.k allege delinquent medical account debts totaling $2,259.
Applicant is aware of these debts, but denies they are his obligations. Instead, he
insists that the medical care was rendered for one of his wife’s daughters, for
whom their father is obligated to provide medical insurance. Applicant and his
wife testified that his stepdaughter’s care was covered by Applicant’s military
medical insurance, and that the debts actually represent about 20% of the total
cost. Applicant’s wife is adamant that they not repay these costs, citing her ex-
husband’s obligation for his children’s medical care. The debts do not appear on
either of the credit reports submitted at the hearing. (Answer; Gx. 2 - 6; Tr. 13,
41, 43 - 44, 51 - 53, 56 - 58)
- SOR 1.h alleges a past-due $539 debt to an online catalogue company.
Applicant denies that he ever had an account with this creditor. Although this
creditor was among those addressed with Applicant in his June 2010 interview,  it
is not reflected in either of the credit reports presented at the hearing. (Answer;
Gx. 2 - 6; Tr. 42 - 43)
- SOR 1.i alleges a past-due credit card debt for $60 on a $323 balance.
Applicant admits he had an account with this creditor, but avers it was paid after
being “frozen” for non-payment. It does not appear on either of his current credit
reports. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 5 - 6; Tr. 43)
 See Directive. 6.3.3
5
- SOR 1.l alleges a delinquent credit card account in collection status for $6,067
due on a $6,270 balance. In response to the SOR, Applicant denied owing a debt
to the named collection agency. When he was asked by an investigator in June
2010 about a debt owed to the original credit card company listed in SOR 1.l, he
averred he had no knowledge of a such debt. This debt does not appear in either
credit report. (Answer; Gx. 4 - 6; Tr. 44 - 45)
- SOR 1.n alleges Applicant owes $181.92 to the county where he lived until
2004. This debt is being enforced through a civil judgment in favor of the county.
Applicant states in his Answer that this “is a debt I do not know about...I am
currently trying to clear up this matter with this agency.” At his hearing, he stated
that he had not yet taken any action to verify the accuracy of this allegation. He
was asked about this judgment in August 2012, but he provided no information
as requested. It does not appear on either of the credit reports in evidence and
the debt was not addressed during either of his subject interviews. (Answer; Gx.
3 - 6; Tr. 47 - 50, 81)
Applicant and his wife testified about their plan to resolve Applicant’s past-due
debts. However, they provided no documentary corroboration of those efforts or of their
claimed disputes of some of his debts. As to Applicant’s current finances, his August
2012 personal financial statement (PFS) disclosed income and expenses resulting in
about $1,410 of positive monthly cash flow. Applicant’s current finances, excluding past
delinquencies, appear to be sound. He has not incurred additional past-due debt. He is
meeting all of his current financial obligations. (Answer; Gx. 2; Tr. 68 - 69)
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,3
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the adjudicative
guidelines (AG). Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(a)
of the new guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept, those
factors are:
(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. 
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.5
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).6
6
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not
determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant. However, specific applicable
guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them as they
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified
information.
A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent with the national interest  for an applicant to either receive or continue to4
have access to classified information. The Government bears the initial burden of
producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or
revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able
to prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the government meets its burden, it
then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a “right” to a security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy
burden of persuasion.  5
A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government
has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgment,
reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or her
own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of
any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the
Government.6
Analysis
Financial Considerations
Applicant admitted some of the allegations but denied others. His denials created
controverted issues of fact. Accordingly, the burden remained on the Government to
present sufficient reliable information to support those SOR allegations. The
Government’s information was not sufficient to support the allegations in SOR 1.g, 1.h,
1.i, 1.j, 1.k, 1.l, and 1.n. These debts are resolved for Applicant. They were not listed in
either of the credit reports presented at hearing. Although some of the creditors involved
were referred to in one or both of Applicant’s subject interviews, he denied knowledge of
the debts on those occasions as well. Unlike his other denials of SOR allegations, no
other information in the record connects Applicant with the debts alleged.
7
Available information sufficiently supports the remaining SOR allegations, raising
a security concern about Applicant’s finances, which is articulated, in relevant part, at
AG ¶ 18 as follows:
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. 
More specifically, available information requires application of the disqualifying
conditions at AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and AG ¶ 19(c) (a
history of not meeting financial obligations). Applicant became financially overextended
starting around 2003. Since then, he has had the means to pay or otherwise resolve his
debts. Yet he has chosen to allow his older debts to fall off his credit report so that, in
his mind, he is no longer obligated to pay them. Other debts, such as the judgment
alleged at SOR 1.a, have not been addressed despite the fact that he was made aware
of them almost three years ago.
In response, Applicant submitted information that requires consideration of the
following AG ¶ 20 mitigating conditions:
(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;
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’s financial problems are recent and not isolated. They continue through
the presence of significant unresolved debt that arose almost ten years ago. AG ¶ 20(a)
does not apply.
In support of AG ¶ 20(b), Applicant averred that his financial problems arose from
unexpectedly high costs of living associated with his place of residence between 2002
and 2004, and the need to support a second wife and three stepdaughters. His decision
8
to marry into new family obligations was not beyond his control or unforeseen. Even if
these circumstances met the requirements of AG ¶ 20(b), Applicant did not show that
he has acted responsibly to address his financial problems. He has not addressed any
of the debts documented here. His reliance instead on credit reporting statutes of
limitations undermines confidence in Applicant’s judgment. AG ¶ 20(b) does not apply.
As to AG ¶ 20(e), Applicant claims he is disputing some of his debts, or that he
will investigate the accuracy of some of his debts. Applicant has known about most of
those debts since June 2010, and has been aware of the Government’s concerns about
his debts since at least October 2012. Yet, despite being given additional time after his
hearing to document his disputes, he has not met his burden in this regard. AG ¶ 20(e)
does not apply. On balance, Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns
established by adverse information about his finances. 
Whole-Person Concept
I have evaluated the facts and have applied the appropriate adjudicative factors
under Guideline F. I also have reviewed the record before me in the context of the
whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is a mature, responsible adult who
served his country with distinction for more than 20 years in one of the Army’s most
dangerous warfare mission areas. He is committed to supporting a new family, and he
has established an excellent performance record at work. Nonetheless, the positive
information in his background is, at this time, insufficient to overcome the adverse
information about his finances. Applicant’s failure to respond to financial problems that
are now almost ten years old undermines confidence in his judgment and reliability, and
sustains doubts about his suitability for continued access to classified information. In
consideration of his record of service and other positive attributes, it is hoped that he will
commence more substantial efforts to resolve his debts. However, given the record as a
whole, and because protection of the national interest is the primary concern in these
matters, the remaining doubts must be resolved against the Applicant.
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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.g - 1.l, 1.n: For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.f, 1.g, 1.m:   Against Applicant
9
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest
for Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security
clearance is denied.
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge