1 
 
  
    DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
  DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
  
  
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 11-12513 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Ray Blank, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
HEINY, Claude R., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant contests the Department of Defense’s (DoD) intent to deny his eligibility 
for a security clearance to work in the defense industry. His wife and son are citizens 
and residents of Thailand. He has five charged-off or collection accounts which total 
approximately $14,500. The foreign influence security concerns have been resolved. 
However, the financial consideration security concerns have not been resolved or 
mitigated. Clearance is denied.  
 
History of the Case 
 
 Acting under the relevant Executive Order and DoD Directive,1 on Septmber 14, 
2012, the DoD issued an SOR detailing security concerns. DoD adjudicators could not 
find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s 
                                                          
1 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) effective within the DoD 
on September 1, 2006. 
 
2 
 
security clearance. On November 30, 2012, Applicant answered the SOR and 
requested a hearing. On January 21, 2013, I was assigned the case. On February 5, 
2013, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing 
for the hearing convened on February 26, 2013. I admitted Government’s Exhibits (Ex) 
1 through 3, without objection. Applicant testified at the hearing, but provided no 
documents. The record was held open to allow Applicant to submit additional 
information. No additional material was received. On March 7, 2013, DOHA received 
the hearing transcript (Tr.). 
 
Procedural Rulings 
 
Department Counsel (DC) requested administrative notice of facts concerning 
Thailand and provided supporting documents to show detail and context for those facts. 
Applicant agreed to the administrative notice request and the five documents were 
admitted as Hearing Exhibits (HEx) 1 parts I through V.2 
 
Administrative or official notice is the appropriate type of notice used for 
administrative proceedings. See ISCR Case No. 05-11292 at 4 n.1 (App. Bd. Apr. 12, 
2007); ISCR Case No. 02-24875 at 2 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 2006) (citing ISCR Case No. 
02-18668 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 10, 2004)); McLeod v. Immigration and Naturalization 
Service, 802 F.2d 89, 93 n.4 (3d Cir. 1986)). The most common basis for administrative 
notice at ISCR proceedings, is to notice facts that are either well known or from 
government reports. See Stein, Administrative Law, Section 25.01 (Bender & Co. 2006) 
(listing fifteen types of facts for administrative notice). I marked the documents as Ex. 
Exhibits I to V. See the Thailand section of the Findings of Fact of this decision, infra, for 
the facts accepted by administrative notice. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
In Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, he denied owing any delinquent child support 
(SOR 1.c, $10,929). He admitted the remaining allegations. I incorporate Applicant’s 
admissions as facts. After a thorough review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I 
make the following additional findings of fact: 
 
 Applicant is a 38-year-old electrician who has worked for a defense contractor 
since October 2010, and seeks to maintain a secret security clearance. Applicant was 
so concerned as to the early resolution of his case that he chose to drive more than 300 
miles to attend the hearing. He also waived the 15-day notice requirement. (Tr. 7)  
 
Applicant called no witnesses other than himself, and produced no work or 
character references. In July 1995, Applicant married and in April 2010, he divorced. 
That marriage ended due to a lack of communication and long periods of separation 
                                                          
2 DC also submitted 14 documents related to the People’s Republic of China (China). (HEx. 2, parts I 
through XIV) The material related to China was made a hearing exhibit, but was not considered because 
Applicant, his spouse, and in-laws have no connection to China. 
3 
 
resulting from his frequent and lengthy overseas employment.3 He had two daughters 
from the prior marriage and is obligated to pay $996 twice monthly for child support, 
which was automatically deducted from his pay when working. (Ex. 2, Tr. 27). Between 
jobs, he would fall behind on his support obligation. Since the divorce, Applicant has 
paid $8,905 in child support directly to his ex-wife without going through the state child 
support office. (Ex. 2) When the money was sent directly to his wife, the child support 
office listed no payment and asserted he owed $10,929 (SOR 1.c) in delinquent child 
support.  
 
 When back in the United States, Applicant went to the local child support office 
and completed an affidavit of direct payments. His ex-wife acknowledged she had 
received approximately $9,000 in June 2011 and approximately $7,000 in November 
2012. (Ex. 2, SOR Response) The state agreed he does not owe any delinquent 
support. 
 
 In September 2010, Applicant remarried. His second wife is a citizen and 
resident of Thailand. (Ex. 1) In January 2011, he petitioned the U.S. Government for an 
alien registration for his spouse and her daughter. (Ex. 2) His wife currently resides with 
her parents in Thailand. In April 2011, he went to Thailand to live with his wife and in-
laws. (Ex. 2) He stayed with them until June 2011. When working, he sent $1,000 every 
two weeks to the account to provide for his wife and son’s living expenses. (Ex. 2) At 
the time of the hearing, he had reduced the amount to $200 weekly. (Tr. 20, 22) 
 
 While married, Applicant would stay with his wife in Thailand three or four months 
and then leave to go back to work. (Tr. 21) Sometimes he would only stay two or three 
weeks in Thailand before returning to work. On his last overseas job he would spend 
two or three days every other weekend in Thailand. (Tr. 21) He was last in Thailand in 
February 2012, when his son was born. (Tr. 21)  
 
 Applicant is separated from his second wife. He stated the reason for the failure 
of his second marriage was because he was traveling all the time and differences 
between them. (Tr. 21) Before Applicant can file for divorce, he needs to address his 
son’s dual citizenship and resolve the custody issues. (Tr. 22, 31) He has a Thai 
attorney assisting him in these matters. (Tr. 22)  
 
 In July 2011, Applicant had a personal subject interview in which Applicant’s wife, 
foreign travel, and his finances were discussed. (Ex. 2) At that time, a delinquent gym 
membership fee in the amount of $1,507 (SOR 1.d) was discussed. He said he intended 
to settle the account by making payments when he returned to work. When Applicant 
and his first wife experienced marital problems he moved out and obtained a six-month 
lease on an apartment. After three months, they reconciled and he returned home. 
When he broke the lease to move home, he was notified he owed $1,815 (SOR 1.e). 
(Ex. 2) He was unsuccessful in his attempts to settle the debt, stating in July 2011 that 
                                                          
3 From December 2008 to March 2010, Applicant worked in Afghanistan. From March 2010 to September 
2010, he worked in Iraq and from October 2010 to April 2011, Applicant worked in India. From 2011 to 
December 2012, he was in Serbia. (Ex. 2, Tr. 33) 
4 
 
he intended to pay it when he returned to work. He owes a $179 cable bill (SOR 1.a). At 
the time of his interview, he stated he intended to contact the communications company 
and pay the debt. (Ex. 2) He asserted he had not paid some of the SOR debts because 
his ex-wife was supposed to pay them, but never did. (Tr. 30) 
 
 In the early 2000s, Applicant purchased a vehicle. His ex-wife kept the truck 
when they separated and said she would make the monthly payments. (Tr. 25) When 
she failed to do so, it was repossessed. Following the vehicle’s sale, he was informed 
he owed $10,870 (SOR 1.f). (Ex. 2) He asserted, but failed to provide documentation, 
that his former spouse settled and paid this debt in 2008. (Ex. 2)  
 
 In July 2011, Applicant stated that during his last period of employment his 
monthly income was $6,750 and his monthly expenses were $4,483, which included 
approximately $2,000 for child support and $2,000 sent to his wife. His net monthly 
remainder (monthly income less expenses) was $2,267. His last annual salary, with 
overtime, was $86,000. (Tr. 19)  
 
 At the hearing, Applicant stated he had filed his tax returns for 2009, 2010, 2011, 
and 2012 in January 2013. (Tr. 18, 29) He had been delayed in filing his tax returns 
because he had been working overseas in Afghanistan, Iraq, India, and Serbia. (Tr. 18) 
He had given his brother a power-of-attorney to file his taxes, but his brother failed to do 
so. (Tr. 29) He stated he intended to use his $27,000 income tax refund to pay all the 
SOR debts. (Tr. 19, 30) He provided no documentation showing payment has been 
made on any of his debts. 
 
 Applicant was born and raised in the United States as were his parents, brothers, 
and sister. (T. 34) His father is deceased and his mother and siblings live in the United 
States. 
 
Thailand 
 
Thailand is a constitutional monarchy headed by a civilian government.4 In 2006, 
a military coup overthrew the government, repealed the constitution, and abolished 
Parliament. In 2007, free and fair elections restored the democratic government. 
Approximately 95 percent of the population is ethnically Thai and Buddhist, with Muslim 
and Christian minorities.5  
 
In its majority Muslim southern provinces, Thailand has endured a persistent 
separatist insurgency with a history of separatist violence.6 There is no evidence that 
international terrorist groups are directly involved in attacks within Thailand, nor was 
                                                          
4 U.S Relations with Thailand, U.S. Department of State, dated July 31, 2012, page 1. (HEx. 1 I) 
 
5 Thailand Country Specific Information, U.S. Department of State, dated October 31, 2011, page 1.(HEx. 
1 II) 
 
6 Thailand: Background and U.S. Relations, Congressional Research Service, dated June 5, 2012, page 
9. (HEx. 1 III) 
5 
 
there evidence of operational linkages between the southern Thai insurgent groups and 
international terrorist networks.7 The groups that have led this surge in violence are 
generally poorly understood, and their motives are difficult to characterize. The Thai 
Government has a poor understanding of the diverse groups active in the south.8 
 
 Thailand is a key U.S. security ally in Asia, and the country’s stability and growth 
are important to the maintenance of peace in the region. Since World War II, the United 
States and Thailand have significantly expanded diplomatic and commercial relations.9 
 
Thailand has been an American treaty ally since 1954 and has long been 
praised as an economic and democratic success story. The U.S. – Thai 
relationship, solidified during the Cold War, strengthened on the basis of 
shared economic and strategic interest . . . Access to military facilities and 
sustained military-to-military cooperation made Thailand an important 
element of U.S. strategic presence in the Asia – Pacific.10.  
 
Thailand’s human rights record has been criticized by U.S. officials and 
international groups.11 Security forces continue at times to use excessive force against 
criminal suspects, and there have been reports that police torture, beat, and otherwise 
abuse suspects, detainees, and prisoners.12  
 
The State Department is concerned that there is a continued risk of terrorism in 
Southeast Asia, including Thailand.13 The political environment in Thailand remains 
beset by deep political divisions.14 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
                                                          
7 Chapter 2. Country Reports: East Asia and Pacific Overview, U.S. Department of State, dated July 31, 
2012, page 1. (HEx. 1.V) 
 
8 Thailand: Background and U.S. Relations, Congressional Research Service, dated June 5, 2012, page 
9. (HEx. 1 III) 
 
9 Thailand Country Specific Information, U.S. Department of State, dated October 31, 2011, page 1. (HEx. 
1 II) 
 
10 Thailand: Background and U.S. Relations, Congressional Research Service, dated June 5, 2012, page 
1. (HEx. 1 III)  
 
11 Id, page 16. 
 
12 2010 Human Rights Report: Thailand, U.S. Department of State, dated April 8, 2011, p. 1. (HEx. 1 IV) 
 
13Thailand Country Specific Information, U.S. Department of State, dated October 31, 2011, page 3.(HEx. 
1 II)  
 
14Id. 
6 
 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered 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. 
 
The protection of the interests of 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, 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 to obtain 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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
  
Section 7 of Executive Order (EO) 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 B, Foreign Influence 
  
AG ¶ 6 explains the Government’s security concern regarding foreign influence: 
 
7 
 
Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the individual 
has divided loyalties or foreign financial interests, may be manipulated or 
induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a 
way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by 
any foreign interest. Adjudication under this Guideline can and should 
consider the identity of the foreign country in which the foreign contact or 
financial interest is located, including, but not limited to, such 
considerations as whether the foreign country is known to target United 
States citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a 
risk of terrorism. 
 
AG ¶ 7 describes four conditions that could raise a security concern and may be 
disqualifying in this case: 
 
(a) contact with a foreign family member, business or professional 
associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a 
foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign 
exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion;15 
 
(b) connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that 
create a potential conflict of interest between the individual's obligation to 
protect sensitive information or technology and the individual's desire to 
help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information;  
 
(d) sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of 
citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign 
inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; and  
 
(e) a substantial business, financial, or property interest in a foreign 
country, or in any foreign-owned or foreign-operated business, which 
could subject the individual to heightened risk of foreign influence or 
exploitation. 
 
Applicant has contact with his wife and her relatives, who are resident citizens of 
Thailand. He last had contact with his in-laws in February 2012, when his son was born. 
His son is a dual U.S. – Thai citizen living in Thailand. He anticipates filing for divorce as 
soon as arrangements are made concerning custody of his son. His connections to his 
son creates a potential conflict of interest because the relationship is sufficiently close in 
nature and could raise a security concern over his desire to help his son. Applicant also 
maintains a joint bank account in Thailand, which raises a security concern, albeit a 
limited concern, given the small amount of money involved. 
                                                          
15 The mere possession of close family ties with a person in a foreign country is not, as a matter of law, 
disqualifying under Guideline B. However, if only one relative lives in a foreign country and an applicant 
has contacts with that relative, this factor alone is sufficient to create the potential for foreign influence 
and could potentially result in the compromise of classified information. See ISCR Case No. 03-02382 at 
5 (App. Bd. Feb. 15, 2006); ISCR Case No. 99-0424 (App. Bd. Feb. 8, 2001). 
 
8 
 
 
The Government produced substantial evidence of those four disqualifying 
conditions and the burden shifted to Applicant to produce evidence and prove 
mitigation. Four of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 8 are potentially applicable:  
 
(a) the nature of the relationships with foreign persons, the country in 
which these persons are located, or the positions or activities of those 
persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the individual will be 
placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a foreign 
individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the 
U.S.; 
 
(b) there is no conflict of interest, either because the individual's sense of 
loyalty or obligation to the foreign person, group, government, or country is 
so minimal, or the individual has such deep and longstanding relationships 
and loyalties in the U.S., that the individual can be expected to resolve any 
conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest; 
 
(c) contact or communication with foreign citizens is so casual and 
infrequent that there is little likelihood that it could create a risk for foreign 
influence or exploitation; and 
 
(f) the value or routine nature of the foreign business, financial, or property 
interests is such that they are unlikely to result in a conflict and could not 
be used effectively to influence, manipulate, or pressure the individual.  
 
AG ¶ 8(a) and 8(c) applies to Applicant’s relationships with his spouse and in-
laws. None of those relatives are in positions connected with the Thai government or 
engaged in activities that would likely cause Applicant to be exploited or placed in a 
position of having to choose between them and the United States. His last in-person 
contact with his wife and in-laws, who are farmers, occurred when his son was born in 
February 2012. His contacts with his in-laws are infrequent; however his love for his son 
is not so casual that it does not create any risk of foreign influence. 
 
In applying AG ¶ 8(a) the country in which these persons are located must be 
considered. Thailand is a key U.S. security ally. Since World War II, the United States 
and Thailand have significantly expanded diplomatic and commercial relations and have 
sustained military-to-military cooperation.  
 
There are terrorists in Thailand. In southern Thailand there is a separatist 
insurgency with a history of violence. There is no evidence that international terrorist 
groups are directly involved in attacks within Thailand, nor was there evidence of 
operational linkages between the southern Thai insurgent groups and international 
terrorist networks. The groups that have led this surge in violence are generally poorly 
understood, and their motives are difficult to characterize. Applicant’s spouse, son, and 
in-laws do not live in southern Thailand.  
9 
 
 
 Applicant established the application of AG ¶ 8(b). Applicant was born and raised 
in the United States. His mother, brothers, and sister are citizen and residents of the 
United States. In September 2010, he married a Thai citizen who he last saw in 
February 2012. His relationship with his wife is such that divorce proceeds will 
commence shortly. AG ¶ 8(b) applies because Applicant’s sense of loyalty or obligation 
to his wife and in-laws is so minimal and he has such deep and longstanding 
relationships and loyalties in the U.S., that Applicant can be expected to resolve any 
conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. interest. 
 
Applicant also established the application of AG ¶ 8(f) to the security concern. He 
maintains a bank account in Thailand, but only to facilitate providing his son with proper 
support. The money is used as soon as it enters the account. The likelihood that this 
account creates a conflict for him is miniscule. 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18 articulates the security concerns relating to 
financial problems: 
 
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. 
 
Additionally, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, negligent, or careless in properly handling and 
safeguarding classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect 
of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.  
 
A person’s relationship with his creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts as agreed. Absent 
substantial evidence of extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant with a 
history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a position of risk that is 
inconsistent with holding a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be debt 
free, but is required to manage his finances to meet his financial obligations. 
 
 Applicant has a history of financial problems. Applicant owes approximately 
$11,000 on a vehicle repossession. He has one charged-off account and three 
collection accounts, which total less than $4,000. Two of Applicant’s debts are 
approximately $200 or less. A delinquent child support obligation was also alleged, but 
Applicant adequately addressed the matter. Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a), 
10 
 
“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting 
financial obligations,” apply.  
 
 Five Financial Considerations 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 was able to address the largest of the SOR debts his delinquent child 
support obligation (SOR 1.c, $10,929). His ex-wife filed an affidavit indicating he had 
paid her the required amount of child support. I find for him as to SOR 2.c. 
 
In April 2010, Applicant and his first wife divorced. She had agreed to continue 
making payments on the truck and to pay some of the other debt. This she failed to do. 
In July 2011, he was questioned about his debts and said he intended to contact his 
creditors, verify his debts, and pay what he owed. At the time, he was making 
approximately $86,000 a year. The debts are old and even the two small obligations of 
approximately $200 each have yet to be paid. More than two-and-a-half months have 
passed since filing and he has yet to show any payment on his debts. He asserts he will 
pay all of his outstanding obligations with his $27,000 income tax refund. This assertion 
is merely speculation as to future plan to address his debts. In July 2011, he said he 
was going to pay various SOR debts when he returned to work. He did return to work, 
but the debts remain unpaid.  
 
 Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations. His 
financial difficulties are both recent and multiple. He produced no evidence of 
11 
 
circumstances beyond his control, and he has not acted responsibly in addressing his 
debts. He has received no credit or financial counseling, nor has he demonstrated that 
his financial problems are under control, or that he has a plan to bring them under 
control. He has not made a good-faith effort to satisfy his debts. I conclude Guideline F 
against Applicant.  
 
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 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.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s one-year-old son is a 
dual U.S. – Thai citizen residing in Thailand. Because of Applicant’s deep and 
longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S., coupled with the fact that Thailand 
is a key ally of the United States, Applicant can be expected to resolve any conflict of 
interest in favor of the U.S. interest. There are terrorists in Thailand, but this is 
insufficient to overcome the close cooperation, diplomatic, and commercial relations 
between the United States and Thailand. However, he has yet to address his delinquent 
debts, which he should have been aware raised a security concern when he was asked 
about these delinquent accounts in July 2011. 
 
The issue is not simply whether all Applicant’s debts have been paid – they have 
not – it is whether his financial circumstances raise concerns about his fitness to hold a 
security clearance. (See AG & 2(a)(1).) Applicant asserted he will pay his delinquent 
debt, but has not done so. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and 
doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these 
reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his 
financial considerations.  
 
 
12 
 
This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot 
or will not attain the state of true reform and rehabilitation necessary to justify the award 
of a security clearance. The awarding of a security clearance is not a once in a lifetime 
occurrence, but is based on applying the factors, both disqualifying and mitigating, to 
the evidence presented. Under Applicant=s current circumstances, a clearance is not 
recommended. Should Applicant be afforded an opportunity to reapply for a security 
clearance in the future, having paid the delinquent obligations, established compliance 
with a repayment plan, or otherwise addressed the obligations, he may well 
demonstrate persuasive evidence of his security worthiness. However, a clearance at 
this time is not warranted.  
 
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, Foreign Influence:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.e:  For Applicant 
   
 Paragraph 2, Financial Considerations:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a and 2.b: Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 2.c:   For Applicant 
  Subparagraphs 2.d – 2.f:  Against Applicant 
   
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. 
Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.  
 
 
_______________________ 
CLAUDE R. HEINY II 
Administrative Judge