1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 11-11474
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
The 2005 hurricane, followed by large-scale flooding, damaged Applicant’s
home. Her expensive home repair caused her to fall behind in her bills. Though she told
the Government in July 2011 that she would take the necessary steps to deal with her
delinquent debts, she provided no documented action of satisfying any of the 17 listed
creditors. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case
Applicant signed and certified her Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) (Item 4) on June 16, 2011. She provided interrogatory responses
(Item 5) to adjudicators from the Department of Defense (DOD) on September 21, 2012.
Inside Item 5 is a summary of her interview taken by an investigator from the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) on July 21, 2011. Applicant agreed that the interview
summary could be used at a hearing to determine her security suitability. (Item 5 at 71-
72) 
 SOR 1.r is a duplicate entry of SOR 1.o. 1
2
On October 12, 2012, DOD issued the Statement of Reasons (SOR) (Item 1)
detailing security concerns under financial considerations (Guideline F). 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 (AG) implemented by the
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant furnished her notarized answer to the SOR on October 24, 2012. (Item
4) A copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM, the Government’s
evidence in support of the allegations of the SOR) was sent to Applicant on December
6, 2012. In an attachment to the FORM, Applicant was advised she could object to the
information in the FORM or submit additional information in explanation or extenuation.
She received the FORM on December 14, 2012. Her response was due by January 13,
2013. No response was received by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA). The case was assigned to me on February 20, 2013. 
Findings of Fact
The SOR alleges 17 delinquent accounts under the financial considerations
guideline.  The overdue accounts are credit cards, department store cards, and nine1
medical accounts. Applicant admitted responsibility for all accounts.
Applicant is 41 years old and has worked for a defense contractor since 1991.
She was hired as an electrician and through promotions, is currently an administrative
generalist. She is single. She pays no rent for a home given to her by her parents. She
has no criminal record and has never used illegal drugs. She has held a security
clearance since September 1993. 
On July 21, 2011, Applicant furnished information about the delinquent accounts
that are listed in the SOR. She stated that she had been making regular payments on
the credit card accounts before the September 2005 hurricane struck the area where
she was living. The hurricane caused significant damage to her home,  requiring
expensive repairs. She recalled receiving collection letters for some of the accounts.
Then, the letters stopped. She read in other collection letters that some accounts were
charged off, which she mistakenly interpreted to mean that she no longer owed the
debt. She promised to obtain a credit report in three or four months and pay the
delinquent debts so that she could achieve a good credit rating in the future. Applicant
claimed that she was paying a medical creditor (SOR 1.n) $10 a month until the debt
was paid. 
On September 21, 2012, Applicant was asked to furnish information about action
taken to pay off any of the delinquent debts as she had promised in her July 2011
interview. She indicated she had not taken any action to resolve the debts. She
3
provided no explanation to justify her inaction. Instead, as she had stated in July 2011,
she reiterated the billing records were lost in the 2005 hurricane. She indicated she was
keeping better records. She mentioned for the first time that her employer had issued
her a company credit card that she was paying off every month. 
The SOR lists 17 delinquent accounts totaling approximately $13,796. The debts
became delinquent between May 2008 and January 2012. Applicant told the OPM
investigator in July 2011 that she was paying the medical creditor in SOR 1.n $10 a
month. Making at least 10 monthly payments between July 2011 and August 2012
should reflect a reduction in the amount of the delinquent debt. Yet, the account amount
in the July 2011 credit report is the same as the amount posted in the August 2012
credit report. 
Character Evidence
The record reflects that Applicant has been employed by the same employer
since 1991. She indicated she is receiving better pay as an administrative generalist.
However, she provided no independent character evidence from supervisors or
coworkers regarding her job performance or from friends in the community where she
lives.
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the guidelines in the AG. Each guideline lists
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions that are useful in evaluating
an applicant's eligibility for access to classified information. The guidelines should be
evaluated in the context of nine general factors known as the "whole-person concept"
that brings together all available, reliable information about the person, past and
present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. 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.l.14., the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.l.l5., 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 bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in demonstrating that he warrants a
favorable security clearance decision. 
4
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.
There are two disqualifying conditions that are potentially applicable: AG ¶ 19(a)
(inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting
financial obligations).
Over the course of four years, Applicant incurred 17 delinquent debts totaling
approximately $13,796. She is unable to the pay the debts. In July 2011, she repeatedly
stated she was going to obtain a credit report and pay the debts. In September 2012,
she stated she had done nothing to address the debts. Her inaction shows an
unwillingness to come to grips with her financial indebtedness. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c)
apply. 
Four mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: 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 reliability, trustworthiness,
and good judgment); AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the financial problem
were largely beyond the person's control and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances); 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); and AG ¶ 20(d) (a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts). 
The credit bureau reports show that Applicant began having difficulty keeping her
debts current in May 2008. The reports show that when the SOR was published in
October 2012, she had collected 17 delinquent accounts. Her decision not to act on the
debts after she unequivocally stated she would investigate and address each debt
continues to raise doubt on Applicant’ reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. AG ¶
20(a) does not apply.
5
The hurricane of September 2005 was an unforseen weather event clearly
beyond Applicant’s control. It caused damage to her home requiring repairs. The
flooding resulted in lost documentation related to her creditors. While she fixed her
home, Applicant allowed over four years to pass without restoring her delinquent debts
to a current status. Without a detailed explanation of the hurricane’s damage to her
home, or how long it took to make her home inhabitable, or how much it cost for the
repairs, it is difficult for me to assess the hurricane’s adverse impact on Applicant’s
inability to pay the delinquent debts listed in the SOR. I conclude that she has not acted
responsibly in the aftermath of the hurricane to re-establish contact with her creditors
and resume paying her bills. AG ¶ 20(b) does not apply. 
There is no evidence that Applicant has had financial counseling related to her
indebtedness. Even if she had some type of counseling, there is no evidence showing
her debts under control. A good-faith track record of regularly paying debts is an
effective method of re-establishing control over delinquent accounts, but has not been
shown by Applicant. AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) do not apply.
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in
my ultimate finding against Applicant under 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 listed 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.
The final security clearance decision must be an overall commonsense judgment
based upon careful consideration of the specific guidelines, each of which is to be
evaluated in the context of the whole person. (AG ¶ 2(c)) 
Applicant is 41 years old and single. She has no criminal record and has never
used drugs. Though she has not presented any character evidence from supervisors or
coworkers, there is reason to believe that her job performance is satisfactory because
she has worked for this employer since 1991.
On the other hand, the credit bureau report shows that since 2008 she has
incurred 17 delinquent accounts totaling about $13,796. In July 2011, she promised to
resolve the delinquent accounts, but she has done nothing. The DOHA Appeal Board
has stated that a key element of the whole-person analysis in financial cases is the
development of a credible track record. The Board indicated:
6
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the
concept of “‘meaningful track record’ includes evidence of actual debt
reduction through payment of debts.” 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. All that is required is that an applicant
demonstrate he has . . . established a plan to resolve his financial
problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.’ The judge
can reasonably consider the entirety off an applicant’s financial situation
and his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for
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. 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. ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008)
(internal citations omitted).
In July 2011, Applicant stated her intention to obtain a credit report and pay her
debts because she wanted to regain good credit. Her credible statements, combined
with the fact that she has been steadily employed since 1991, seemed to indicate she
was prepared to carry out a plan to repay her past due debts. However, in the past 1½
years, she provided no documentation showing that she paid any of the accounts, not
even a $22 debt identified at SOR 1.m. Having weighed all the evidence under the
disqualifying and mitigating conditions, and in the context of the nine general factors of
the whole-person concept, Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised
under the guideline for financial considerations. See AG ¶ 2(a)(1) through AG ¶ 2(a)(9).
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): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.q: Against Applicant
Subparagraph 1.r:  For Applicant
7
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                      
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge