1 
 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE    
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
  ) ISCR Case No. 09-06202 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Stephanie Hess, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Benjamin Flam, Esq. 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant is an information systems security manager (ISSM) who exercised very 
poor judgment during difficult and stressful domestic circumstances. In 2009, she used 
marijuana once while holding a Top Secret security clearance, and she was arrested on five 
occasions on charges varying from simple assault and stalking, to filing a false report with 
law enforcement, to negligent driving after she caused an accident. In September 2010, she 
was reprimanded by her employer for gaining authorized access to a computer system but 
through improper means. Financial concerns that arise because of delinquent debt are 
being appropriately addressed through repayment plans. Counseling has minimized the risk 
of recurrence of the personal conduct concerns, and the security violation was an isolated 
incident in 27 years of security compliance. Clearance continued. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On January 30, 2013, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications 
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the 
security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial 
 
 
 2 
Considerations), and explaining why it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the 
national interest to grant or continue security clearance eligibility for her. The DOD CAF 
took the action under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense (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. 
 
On March 5, 2013, Applicant responded to the SOR allegations. She requested a 
hearing before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(DOHA). Department Counsel indicated on August 15, 2013, that the Government was 
ready to proceed to a hearing. On August 27, 2013, the case was assigned to me to 
conduct a hearing and determine whether or not it is clearly consistent with the national 
interest to continue Applicant’s security eligibility. On August 28, 2013, I scheduled a 
hearing for September 25, 2013. 
 
 The hearing was held as scheduled on September 25, 2013. Twenty-two 
Government exhibits (GEs 1-22) were admitted into evidence, GE 12 over Applicant’s 
objections.
1
 Thirteen Applicant exhibits (AEs A-M) were admitted without objection. 
Applicant and two witnesses testified on her behalf, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) 
received on October 4, 2013. 
 
Summary of the Pleadings 
 
 The SOR alleges under Guideline E that Applicant received a letter of reprimand 
from her employer for accessing a classified information system using another individual’s 
login credentials in September 2010 (SOR 1.a). She is further alleged to have been 
arrested in December 2009 for driving under the influence (SOR 1.b); for stalking in July 
2009 (SOR 1.c); for providing a false report to law enforcement in May 2009 (SOR 1.d); for 
simple assault, stalking, and obstructing report of a crime with injury in February 2009 
(SOR 1.e); and for simple assault in January 2009 (SOR 1.f). Applicant is also alleged to 
have used marijuana on at least one occasion in January 2009 while holding a Top Secret 
clearance (SOR 1.g). She reportedly failed to notify her facility security officer (FSO) of her 
marijuana abuse and of her arrests in July 2009 and December 2009 (SOR 1.c and 1.b). 
Under Guideline F, Applicant is alleged to owe past-due debt totaling $22,426 (SOR 2.a-
2.i). Applicant provided a very detailed response in which she admitted the allegations with 
explanation. 
                                                 
1 
GE 12 consisted of a chemical dependency treatment discharge summary and release forms completed by a 
licensed alcohol and drug counselor (LADC), whom Applicant consulted in December 2009. The discharge 
summary is admissible under the Directive. To the extent that Applicant argued about the prejudicial nature of 
the LADC’s diagnosis, it goes to the weight to be afforded the diagnosis. No Guideline G concerns are alleged 
in the SOR. 
 
 3 
Findings of Fact 
 
 At her hearing, Applicant confirmed the accuracy of the information in her SOR 
response. (Tr. 33.) Applicant’s admissions are accepted and incorporated as factual 
findings. After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I make the following 
additional findings of fact. 
 
 Applicant is a high school graduate with 27 years of experience in defense-related 
security management. She has worked for her current defense contractor employer as an 
information systems security manager (ISSM) since June 2011. She previously worked for 
the company from October 2004 to June 2005.
2
 (GE 1; AEs K, L; Tr. 36.) She holds a Top 
Secret security clearance, which she has held since 1986, and which was renewed most 
recently in July 2008. (GEs 1, 18; AE A; Tr. 35.) 
 
 Around October 1986, a few months after she graduated from high school, Applicant 
began working as a Facility Security Officer (FSO) and ISSM for a small defense 
contractor. (GE 1; AE A; Tr. 33.) In 1987, she married her now ex-husband. They had two 
sons, who are currently in their 20s. (GE 1.) 
 
 In December 2000, Applicant took a new job as an assistant security manager and 
ISSM with another defense contractor, where she worked on classified and special access 
programs. (Tr. 34.) Applicant gained knowledge and experience in industrial security as her 
career progressed with a succession of defense firms. By the mid-2000s, Applicant was 
also very active in an organization for security professionals. (AE A.) 
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 Applicant’s success in her chosen field eventually proved to be source of marital 
discord. In June 2005, Applicant commenced employment as a business-level ISSM with a 
large defense contractor. She traveled frequently for her work. Applicant’s spouse began to 
spend more time with his friends and eventually with a girlfriend. (Tr. 35-39.) Applicant and 
her spouse argued frequently, and on occasion, he physically abused her. (Tr. 39-40.) 
Applicant had an affair with one of her husband’s friends (hereafter Mr. X), and in early 
2008, she discovered she was pregnant by Mr. X. Applicant disclosed her pregnancy to her 
spouse, who promised to be supportive if she pretended the child was theirs. (Tr. 41.)  
 
 In April 2008, Applicant’s father moved into Applicant’s home. Her father was 
seriously ill and going through a divorce after 39 years of marriage to Applicant’s mother. 
(Tr. 41-43.) In September 2008, Applicant gave birth to her and Mr. X’s daughter. (GE 5; 
Tr. 72.) Applicant informed Mr. X of his paternity. He began to visit her home frequently and 
to drink regularly with her spouse. Both men physically and verbally abused Applicant, and 
she began losing control over her temper. (GE 11.) 
 
                                                 
2 
The company that employed Applicant from December 2000 was acquired by Applicant’s current employer 
around October 2004. Applicant stayed on in her position until June 2005. (GE 1.) 
 
 4 
 Around January 2009, Applicant’s spouse invited Mr. X to move into the marital 
home.
3
 Applicant was the primary income earner for the household. In January 2009, 
Applicant purchased some fitness clothing with the intent of working off the stress caused 
by her home situation and by the pending divorce of her parents. Applicant’s spouse 
reacted angrily to her purchase, and an argument escalated into a fight also involving their 
older son. Applicant was arrested for misdemeanor assault after she scratched her son’s 
neck. (GEs 11, 13; AE C; Tr. 57-59.)  
 
 The day after her arrest, Applicant went out to lunch with Mr. X to discuss their living 
situation. After they left the restaurant, she smoked some marijuana provided by him in an 
attempt to relax, although she claims she did not inhale. (GE 5; AE J; Tr. 96-97.) They 
continued to argue as she urged him to vacate her home. Feeling frustrated and trapped, 
she jumped from his vehicle while it was moving around 20 miles an hour. Applicant was 
brought to a local emergency room by the police. She was unable to ensure her safety, and 
she admitted herself to a hospital for treatment of diagnosed bipolar disorder, mixed, 
unspecified.
4
 Applicant denied any substance abuse, although she reported drinking 
around three glasses of wine daily for the past few months to manage her anxiety. Four 
days later, Applicant was discharged on psychiatric medications, including a mood 
stabilizer, to live with her mother temporarily, and to follow up with outpatient medication 
management and counseling. (GE 11.) Applicant apparently reported her arrest and mental 
health treatment to her FSO. (GE 17.) 
 
 As of early February 2009, Applicant was covering all the household expenses as 
well as caring for her young daughter. Her spouse ran a machine shop out of their house, 
but he brought in little income. (Tr. 39.) Mr. X and Applicant’s two sons were unemployed. 
Applicant had an incident with her older son after she became emotionally distraught over 
her living situation. She testified that she threw telephones outside after her son told her 
that he was going to contact the police. (Tr. 61.) She was arrested for simple assault, 
stalking her older son, criminal mischief, and obstructing report of a crime or injury. 
Ordered by the court to stay away from her home, Applicant and her infant daughter moved 
in with her mother until she could save enough to rent a townhome in late March 2009. (Tr. 
49.) 
 
 On February 18, 2009, Applicant had an intake evaluation with an Employee 
Assistance Program (EAP) licensed mental health counselor (LMHC). (GEs 10, 15.) The 
LMHC diagnosed Applicant with bipolar disorder. At her first counseling session with the 
                                                 
3 
Applicant described an incident of her spouse being verbally and physically abusive to her and so angry that 
he threw her terminally ill father out of their home at midnight. (Tr. 44.) She indicated that after her father was 
forced to vacate her home, her spouse allowed Mr. X to move in. (Tr. 47.) However, medical records of 
Applicant’s mental health hospitalization from January 13-16, 2009, indicate that Applicant lived with her 
husband, three children, and her elderly father, and that her boyfriend just moved in. (GE 11.) It would appear 
that at some point in January 2009, Applicant had a household of seven persons before her father was forced 
out of the home. 
  
4 
The SOR does not allege any psychological conditions concerns. Factual findings concerning Applicant’s 
mental health are included to the extent that they provide context for her responses to her difficult domestic 
situation and her efforts to address the personal conduct issues through counseling and psychiatric 
medications. Applicant went to the hospital voluntarily. (Tr. 108.) 
 
 5 
LMHC, Applicant reported that she was court-ordered to attend counseling once a week.
5
 
Applicant continued to attend counseling with the LMHC until May 20, 2011, to deal with 
her frustration with Mr. X and other family issues, including coping with the death of her 
father in July 2009. (GE 10; AE D.) Applicant saw a psychiatrist for medication 
management as well, but only through June 10, 2009. She was reportedly not compliant in 
that she had stopped seeing the psychiatrist and taking her medication on her own. (GE 7.) 
 
 Applicant was involved with Mr. X on and off during the first half of 2009. When he 
was not staying with a girlfriend, he stayed with Applicant in her townhouse. He did not pay 
Applicant any child support. (Tr. 63.) In late May 2009, Applicant and Mr. X were arguing in 
her car about custody of their daughter when, according to Applicant, Mr. X dragged her 
out of the car and struck her. Applicant was arrested for filing a false report to law 
enforcement. Applicant claims that she thought Mr. X had scratched her when she had 
been scratched while being dragged out of her car. (Tr. 64.)  Other evidence indicates that 
the incident escalated when Applicant refused a police request to get out of her car, and 
she was then removed forcibly. (GE 15.) The charge was dismissed in October 2010. (GE 
13.) 
 
 On May 19, 2009, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM), partially about her arrests in January 2009 and in 
February 2009. She admitted that during an altercation with her son in January 2009, she 
scratched him in the neck. She indicated that in February 2009, she took machine tools out 
of the house and threw them in the yard. Her husband called the police, and she was 
arrested for domestic disturbance. Applicant indicated that on March 4, 2009, the charges 
were continued without a finding for one year, to be dismissed at that time provided there 
was no further trouble. Applicant attributed the incidents to postpartum depression 
following the birth of her daughter and a more recent diagnosis of bipolar disorder. (GE 14.) 
  
 By June 2009, Applicant’s spouse had vacated the marital residence, leaving her 
oldest son as the only inhabitant. Applicant moved back into the home, in violation of the 
restraining order. (Tr. 52-53, 106.) In early July 2009, Applicant became inconsolable about 
her domestic situation. She had been spending much of her free time caring for her 
terminally ill father, who was in and out of the hospital. (Tr. 44-45.) Applicant’s older son 
was not sympathetic, and she threw a vase through the front window. Her son called the 
police, and she was arrested for stalking her son. (Tr. 64-66.) The charge was dismissed in 
October 2009 for lack of prosecution. (GE 13.) Applicant did not inform her employer of this 
arrest. 
 
 Applicant had ongoing issues with Mr. X during the second half of 2009, even 
though they were no longer living together. Around November 2009, she hit his car with her 
vehicle. (GE 10.) 
 
                                                 
5
 In early March 2010, the January 2009 and February 2009 misdemeanor charges were dismissed on proof 
that she had attended counseling. (GE 13; AE C.) 
 
 
 6 
 In October 2009, Applicant was evaluated for substance abuse problems by a 
licensed alcohol and drug abuse counselor (LADC) per court order. The LADC, who 
administered an alcohol screening test, found no evidence that Applicant had a drinking 
problem as of his evaluation. (GE 6.) 
 
 In early December 2009, Applicant consumed alcohol while out to dinner with a 
male friend. En route home with her companion following, Applicant struck another vehicle 
at a red light. Applicant claims that she was reaching for her phone when the accident 
occurred. She went home to get her checkbook,
6
 while her dinner companion stayed at the 
scene. Applicant returned to the scene after being contacted by the police, and she was 
arrested for misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol with excessive alcohol 
concentration. In June 2009, she was convicted of negligent driving, a motor vehicle 
violation, and fined $310. (GE 13; Tr. 66-68.) Applicant did not report this arrest to her 
FSO. Applicant maintains that she did not report her July 2009 and December 2009 arrests 
because it did not occur to her to do so at the time: 
 
I had so much going on in my life at that time and I just didn’t think of it. And 
then I got a package in from DOHA asking me if I had ever been arrested 
and I wrote all those in there, so I figured that was my reporting.
7 
(Tr. 69.)  
 
 At the advice of her lawyer, Applicant attended six sessions of counseling with a 
LADC from December 14-22, 2009, before withdrawing from the program prematurely. In 
the opinion of the LADC, Applicant was “very much in denial.” She repeatedly denied any 
issues with alcohol and asserted that the domestic-related criminal charges were not her 
fault. Applicant indicated that she would address her issues with her LMHC, who reportedly 
agreed with her that she could control her drinking. (GE 12.) Applicant continues to 
                                                 
6 
Applicant initially testified that about the incident as follows: 
 
So these two African American gentlemen pulled up next to me in a van and they said she 
doesn’t speak any English, we just called the cops. I said okay. So I went out and spoke 
with—I tried to speak with the woman as much as I could. I gave her my information and I 
said I’m going to go back to my house and get my checkbook, left my friend to stay there until 
I got back. 
 
About why she left to get her checkbook, Applicant indicated it was to pay for the car because she “didn’t want 
to get the insurances involved.” (Tr. 67.) Yet, when I asked her about going to get her checkbook, Applicant 
testified that neither she, nor the woman whom she hit, had insurance coverage. Concerning how she knew 
the other woman was not covered by insurance if the victim did not speak English, Applicant testified, “She 
spoke very little English. I had to make it out. She wasn’t supposed to be driving, she didn’t have a license. 
They were going to arrest her as well. I think she was from Brazil.” She supposedly then asked the woman if 
$800 would be sufficient and the woman responded affirmatively. (Tr. 119.) 
 
7 
Applicant was apparently referring to DOHA interrogatories that were sent to her around September 2010. 
See GE 13. Applicant was sent interrogatories around December 2009 where she was given the opportunity to 
review a summary of her May 2009 interview with the OPM investigator wherein she discussed her January 
2009 and February 2009 arrests. On January 4, 2010, Applicant verified the accuracy of the summary, and 
she provided additional information indicating that she was in therapy for postpartum depression and mixed 
bipolar disorder brought on by recent events, such as her father’s death. She did not mention her arrests in 
July 2009 or December 2009, although to be fair to Applicant, she was asked to add information “regarding the 
matters discussed during [her] interview.” See GE 14. 
 
 7 
maintain that the incident was caused not by drinking but rather by bad weather and her 
inattention to the road. She had consumed only two glasses of wine that evening. (GE 5; 
Tr. 68.) 
 
 Around early April 2010, Mr. X moved back in with Applicant. By the summer of 
2010, Applicant’s spouse had filed for divorce, and she was experiencing increased stress 
at work. (GE 10.) In mid-September 2010, while certifying a classified information system 
at work, Applicant and two other ISSMs improperly accessed several computer 
workstations through a system administrator account instead of obtaining their own 
privileged accounts to document their access into the system. Two systems administrators, 
both of whom had Secret clearances, logged in and then allowed the ISSMs to have 
unsupervised access through their accounts to certify the system while they moved on to 
configure other computer workstations. After being confronted by an information systems 
security officer (ISSO) about the practice, which had occurred on at least one previous 
occasion, Applicant and another ISSM told their security manager about the incident. Citing 
their requisite clearance and need-to-know, Applicant and the other ISSMs expressed 
belief that they were not violating security procedures under the National Industrial Security 
Program Operating Manual (NISPOM).
8
 (Tr. 75-80.) During an independent investigation 
into the incident, it was determined that the practice that precipitated the violation was seen 
by many of the ISSOs and ISSMs to be a common occurrence. ISSMs were not given 
ROOT or Admin access to systems due to trust issues as well as to a misunderstanding of 
separation of duties. No classified information was accessed during the certification 
process. Nonetheless, the ISSMs, including Applicant, and a system administrator involved 
in the incident,
9
 were all issued written reprimands for violating their security responsibilities 
under ¶ 8-103 of the NISPOM.
10
 (GE 16.) Applicant now attributes the violation to working 
late, “probably not thinking clearly” until it was brought to their attention. She was focused 
                                                 
8 
Applicant and the other ISSM admitted to their security manager that they used the administrator accounts 
unsupervised in an effort to complete the certification process. They indicated that they were not intentionally 
disregarding the requirements, and expressed their belief that they were not violating the NISPOM. See GE 
16. However, Applicant’s testimony about the incident suggests that she knew there was a problem with the 
practice:  “I was in another large area of [program name omitted] and [the ISSO] came in and he told me what 
had occurred, and I said, okay, I said well, we’re certifying the systems. And he said, [name of Applicant 
omitted], you don’t understand, she’s on it by herself and I said oh, [expletive omitted], we shouldn’t be doing 
this.” (Tr. 79.) 
  
9 
The other systems administrator terminated employment for unrelated reasons. It was Applicant’s first 
security violation within one year. (GE 16.) When explaining the incident to the DOD in August 2011, Applicant 
indicated that it was never the company’s intent to forward its report to the Defense Security Service, but it 
was “inadvertently” forwarded by an assistant security officer. (GE 2.) 
 
10 
Paragraph 8-103 of the NISPOM sets forth the responsibilities and duties of the ISSM. Under ¶ 8-103a, the 
ISSM is required to ensure the development, documentation, and presentation of information security (IS) 
security education, awareness, and training activities for facility management, IS personnel, users, and others, 
as appropriate. Under ¶ 8-103b, the ISSM establishes, documents, implements, and monitors the IS security 
program for the facility and ensures compliance with IS requirements. Under ¶ 8-103f(3), the ISSM is tasked 
with developing facility procedures to properly implement vendor supplied authentication (password, account 
names) features, or security-relevant features. Under ¶ 8-103i, the ISSM is to ensure that personnel are 
trained on the IS’s prescribed security restrictions and safeguards before they are initially allowed to access a 
system.  
 
 8 
on meeting the deadline rather than on the policy, and the systems administrators were 
“right there.” (Tr. 124-125.) Applicant was placed on a performance improvement plan, with 
which she disagreed. She became “the fall guy” for not performing a 100% inventory that 
should have been done by previous ISSMs. (Tr. 115-116.) 
 
 During a session with the LMHC in September 2010, Applicant discussed the need 
to be more aware of her stress levels. Applicant admitted that she had stopped taking any 
of her psychotropic medications. She was encouraged to return to her psychiatrist for a 
new evaluation (GE 10.) Yet, as of early October 2010, the LMHC opined for the DOD that 
Applicant did not have a condition that could impair her judgment, reliability, or ability to 
properly safeguard classified information. Applicant appeared to be “making positive 
choices regarding managing stress of [her] job and family obligations. (GE 9.) In May 2011, 
Applicant’s therapy ended with the LMHC. Applicant had shown the therapist an 
“awareness of being able to manage the stress in her life.” (AE D.)   
 
 In November 2010, Applicant was voluntarily evaluated by a mental health clinician 
on her complaints of anxiety. She entered into a therapeutic relationship, which included 
psychotropic medication management every two months, through at least August 2011, 
when Applicant reported feeling more relaxed because of her recent change in her 
employment closer to her home. (GE 4.) 
 
 Applicant and her spouse were divorced in July 2010. (Tr. 118.) Although her 
spouse was out of her life, she continued to have issues with Mr. X over custody of their 
daughter. After Mr. X threw some objects at her, Applicant obtained a domestic violence 
order of protection against him in December 2010. The order of protection was in effect for 
one year. Mr. X was also ordered to pay child support to Applicant for care of their 
daughter, with the amount to be determined on completion of required paperwork. (GE 5; 
AE B.) In January 2011, Applicant was granted primary physical custody of their daughter, 
and Mr. X was given visitation rights. (GE 5.) 
 
 In February 2011, Applicant underwent a substance abuse evaluation for the DOD 
by the same LADC who evaluated her for the court in November 2009. Applicant reported 
current consumption of one to two glasses of wine two to three times a week. Based on 
three interviews with Applicant; on interviews of two of her friends, who supported her claim 
of responsible drinking; and on the alcohol screening test that he previously administered 
to Applicant in October 2009, the LADC found no evidence of a current alcohol problem. 
(GE 6.) 
 
 In September 2012, Applicant was evaluated by a licensed psychologist for the 
DOD. Applicant was cooperative, focused, and stable throughout the evaluation. Based on 
the “near-absence” of psychiatric symptoms and no legal difficulties in the past three years, 
her stability during the evaluation, and her “sharp reduction of alcohol consumption,” 
Applicant was assessed as unlikely to “re-experience deterioration in stability and judgment 
likely to compromise her workplace performance or trustworthiness.” (GE 15.) 
 
 
 9 
 Applicant cohabited with Mr. X most recently from about June 2012 to June 2013. 
(Tr. 121.) She allowed him to move back in with her for her daughter’s sake. Mr. X has 
been a good father. (Tr. 120.) Yet, she and Mr. X apparently did not get along. She blocked 
Mr. X from calling or texting her so that her contact with him is now primarily through email 
(Tr. 101.), although they see each other in connection with their daughter’s visitation. (Tr. 
113.) 
 
 Applicant currently lives with her two sons and her five-year-old daughter. (Tr. 38.) 
The older of her two sons is in the National Guard. He graduated from boot camp in 
February 2013. (Tr. 110-111.) Applicant’s younger son works as a bartender. (Tr. 38, 111.) 
Applicant is in a dating relationship with a policeman. (Tr. 113.) Applicant was not asked 
any details about this relationship. 
 
 Applicant no longer takes any psychiatric medications on a regular basis. She has a 
prescription for small amounts of Klonopin if needed to deal with anxiety from public 
speaking. (Tr. 108-109.) Applicant has not used any illegal drugs beyond the single 
episode in January 2009 with Mr. X, which she describes as a period of “personal crisis.” 
(GE 5; AE J.) On August 16, 2013, Applicant executed a statement of intent to refrain from 
all illegal drug use in the future with automatic revocation of her security clearance for any 
violation. (AE J; Tr. 99-100.) 
 
Financial 
 
 When Applicant applied for renewal of her Top Secret clearance in March 2008 for 
her duties as ISSM with a previous employer, she disclosed that two liens had been filed 
against her, but had since been paid, for credit card debt of $6,000 and $13,000. She was 
working to satisfy a third credit card debt.
11
  They were late on their payments on the debts 
because her spouse’s business was slow. (GE 1.) 
 
 Applicant’s financial situation deteriorated around 2009. Because of the restraining 
order entered against her after her February 2009 arrest, Applicant rented a townhouse in 
March 2009 at $1,800 a month. (Tr. 49-50.) Around May or June 2009, her spouse 
informed her that he was behind in the mortgage on their marital home. (Tr. 50.) To avoid 
foreclosure of the mortgage, Applicant paid about $10,000 to catch up on their mortgage. 
She also spent another $3,000 to buy a new furnace and hot water heater for the home 
and $900 to pay some of the household bills (cable and utilities). (Tr. 50-52.) 
 
 Around late September 2010, DOHA asked Applicant to provide the current status 
about several past-due debts on her credit record:  a $1,773 tax lien from April 2004; two 
medical debts in collection of $135 and $355; a consumer credit debt of $960 (SOR 2.i); a 
credit card account with a home improvement retailer with a collection balance of $8,604 
(SOR 2.b); a $1,953 charged-off loan balance (SOR 2.d); two defaulted student loans of 
                                                 
11 
Applicant indicated in response to question 27c regarding any liens in the last seven years that she was 
working to pay a $5,000 credit card debt from January 2006. In response to 28a (debts over 180 days 
delinquent in the last seven years) and 28b (debts currently over 90 days delinquent), she listed a $9,000 
credit card debt with the same lender on which she and her spouse were arranging repayment. 
 
 10 
$678 (SOR 2.g) and $9,198 (SOR 2.h); and a $9,380 charged-off automobile loan balance. 
Applicant provided documentation showing payment of the 2004 lien debt in late January 
2005, and settlement of the auto loan debt for a lump sum payment of $2,857.75 in 
October 2010.
12
 Also, the creditor holding the debt identified in SOR 2.d had agreed to 
settle her debt balance, then at $2,580.86, for $903.30, payable in six installments of 
$150.55 between October 2010 and March 2011. Applicant had arranged to make monthly 
payments of $50 and $35 on the medical debts, and had paid $50 to a hospital on October 
19, 2010. Repayment arrangements were also made for $115 monthly payments on her 
defaulted student loans, and she made a $115 payment on October 21, 2010. Applicant 
indicated that the consumer credit debt in SOR 2.i had been paid in full, although she 
provided proof only of a $300 payment on October 6, 2010. She disputed the home 
improvement debt (SOR 2.b), as she believed it had been paid. Applicant’s monthly take-
home wages totaled $4,305, and her two sons contributed $200 to the household. 
Applicant estimated monthly expenses of $3,149. Of her $1,156 in disposable income per 
month, Applicant was paying $301.85 to the escrow balance on her mortgage. (GE 13.) 
 
 As of January 2011, Equifax Information Services had updated its records to show 
the settlement of the auto loan, the satisfaction of the $135 medical debt, and payment on 
the $355 medical debt to reduce its balance to $291. The lien was still on her credit record 
with payment status not listed, while Applicant reportedly still owed $8,736 on the disputed 
account in SOR 2.b, $1,953 on the debt in SOR 2.d; $960 on the debt in SOR 2.i; and 
defaulted student loan debt of $651 and $8,831 (SOR 2.g and 2.h). A student loan of 
$18,000, on which she cosigned for her son in August 2006, had a balance of $26,778. 
That account was current but had been late as recently as September 2010. (GE 21.) 
 
 As of July 2011, Applicant had paid off the $355 medical debt. (GEs 20, 21.) In 
August 2011, Applicant opened a credit card account with a $300 limit. Around November 
2011, Applicant began falling behind on the mortgage payments. Also, a $75 medical debt 
from July 2007 was placed for collection (SOR 2.a) in November 2011. (GE 20.) Applicant 
made little effort to repay the debts in the SOR because she was focused on repaying 
money borrowed from others. She also asserts that she did not know about the bad debts 
on her credit record before she received the SOR. (Tr. 109-110.) 
 
 By October 2012, Applicant had paid off the debt in SOR 2.g, and also the debt in 
2.i, which was no longer on her credit record. (GE 20; AE I.) Yet, she owed $95 in medical 
debt in collection and delinquent credit balances of $8,371 on SOR 2.b, $709 on SOR 2.c, 
and $1,953 on SOR 2.d. Her student loan in SOR 2.h was $1,336 past due on a $9,304 
balance. Her son’s student loan, on which she was a cosigner, was past due $2,181 on a 
$29,154 balance. No payments had been made on the accounts in the past year. 
Applicant’s home loan was past due $20,460 due to nonpayment since October 2011. (GE 
20.) 
 
                                                 
12 
The offer of settlement was for $2,957.75. Applicant paid $100 on October 6, 2010, and $2,875 on October 
28, 2010. (GE 13.) 
 
 11 
 As of the issuance of the SOR in late January 2013, Applicant had not resolved 
some of her delinquent accounts. She has since satisfied in full or is making payments on 
her remaining debt, as shown in the following table. 
 
Debt in SOR Delinquency history Payment status as of Sep. 
2013 
2.a $95 medical debt in 
collection 
Debt from Jul. 2007; $75 for 
collection Nov. 2011 (GEs 
19, 20.); $95 balance Oct. 
2012. (GE 19.) 
Paid in full by Mar. 2013. 
(AE E.) 
2.b $6,670 revolving charge 
debt in collection 
Last activity Oct. 2006; 
$6,670 high credit for 
collection Aug. 2008; $8,736 
balance as of Jan. 2011 (GE 
21.); $8,371 collection 
balance as of Oct. 2012 (GE 
20.); unpaid as of Jul. 2013. 
(GE 19; AE F.) 
Around Mar. 2013, arranged 
to repay debt at $100 per 
month starting Apr. 2013; 
paid $100 to reduce balance 
to $8,295 as of Apr. 2013 
(AE F; Tr. 84-85.)  
2.c  $709 wireless telephone 
debt in collection 
Co-signed for son’s phone in 
May 2006 (Tr. 87.); last 
activity Jul. 2006; $709 high 
credit in collection as of Sep. 
2012 (GE 20.); $756.86 
balance as of Mar. 2013. 
(AE G.) 
Authorized payments of $80 
per month starting Mar. 21, 
2013. (AE G; Tr. 87-88.) 
2.d $1,953 charged-off loan Opened Jun. 2006; $3,499 
high credit; last activity Oct. 
2008; $1,953 past-due 
balance as of Dec. 2010 
(GE 21.); charged off as of 
Sep. 2012 (GE 20.); debt 
sold as of Jun. 2013. (GE 
19.); $2,879.50 balance as 
of Apr. 2013. (AE H.) 
Creditor agreed to settle for 
$903.30 Oct. 2010 in six 
installment payments of 
$150.55 Oct. 2010-Mar. 
2011 (GE 13.); payments 
not debited by creditor (GE 
5.); authorized payments of 
$50 monthly starting Apr. 21, 
2013. (AE H; Tr. 89.) 
2.e $2,181 over 120 days 
past due student loan 
Co-signed on $18,000 loan 
for older son Aug. 2006 (Tr. 
91-92.); $2,181 past due 
120 days with $29,154 
balance Sep. 2012 (GE 20.); 
$26,778 current balance as 
of Dec. 2012 (GE 21.); late 
in early 2013; brought 
current; $27,920 balance as 
of Jul. 2013. (GE 19.) 
Son addressing debt with 
help of U.S. military. (Tr. 92.)  
2.f $1,336 over 120 days 
past due student loan 
$6,625 student loan opened 
Apr. 2007; last activity Jul. 
Paid $115 per month Oct. 
21, 2010-Mar. 2011 (GEs 5, 
 
 12 
2008; claim filed with 
government; $7,675 balance 
for collection; $8,831 
balance Dec. 2010 (GE 21.); 
$9,325 balance transferred 
Mar. 2011; last activity Aug. 
2011; $1,336 past due on 
$9,304 balance as of Sep. 
2012 (GE 20.); $9,754 
balance as of Jun. 2013. 
(GE 19.) 
13.); no proof of any 
payments Aug. 2011-Apr. 
2013 (GE 19.); payment 
plan as of Sep. 2013. (Tr. 
93.) 
2.g $651 student loan in 
collection 
$875 student loan opened 
Aug. 2007; last activity Jul. 
2008; claim filed with 
government; $565 for 
collection; $651 collection 
balance Dec. 2010. (GE 21.) 
Consolidated with SOR 2.f  
2.h $8,831 student loan in 
collection 
Same debt as SOR 2.f.  
2.i. $960 consumer loan 
balance in collection 
Account opened Dec. 2006; 
last activity Apr. 2007 (GE 
20); $960 for collection Oct. 
2008 (GE 21.) 
Paid $300 on Oct. 6, 2010 
(GE 13.); satisfied before 
Mar. 2013. (AE I.) 
 
 Applicant is currently living within her means. (Tr. 82.) Her August 2013 credit report 
shows that she had made timely payments for the most part on her $300 limit credit card 
account, which had a balance of $266. Her mortgage had been modified and was current 
as of May 2013, although it had been 120 days past due as recently as April 2012. (GE 
19.) 
 
Character References 
 
 Applicant was hired by her current employer in June 2011 as the ISSM for one of 
their facilities. The company’s FSO credits Applicant with the facility receiving a superior 
rating with very few information technology vulnerabilities during a DSS facility assessment 
in November 2012. The FSO has no knowledge of any incidents where Applicant has been 
less than upfront and honest with her since Applicant began her employment in 2011. In 
the FSO’s opinion, Applicant is not a risk to national security. (AE K.) 
 
 Applicant’s direct supervisor, the director of security for information technology at 
the facility, considers her ISSM position as one of the most critical in their department. As 
ISSM, Applicant is responsible for the certification, configuration management, and weekly 
security audits on all classified systems under her area of responsibility. As evidence of 
Applicant’s outstanding performance, the director cites the commendable rating received 
from the DSS in December 2011 and the superior rating in November 2012. In terms of job 
knowledge, understanding of government security requirements, and customer relations, 
 
 13 
he regards Applicant’s performance as “second to none.” Applicant’s supervisor, who 
“understands the predicament concerning [Applicant’s] security clearance and the events 
that lead the government to this decision,” has witnessed nothing in her character since 
she has worked for him which would indicate that she is a threat to national security. (AE L: 
Tr. 132-137.) 
 
 A company security manager, who worked with her four of the 13 years of their 
acquaintance, has witnessed Applicant’s compliance with DOD regulations and policies. In 
his opinion, Applicant is well aware of her reporting requirements and of her responsibility 
to protect classified information. In recommending continuation of Applicant’s security 
clearance, this co-worker indicates that he knows of “some personal problems” that 
Applicant experienced “several years ago.” (AE L.) 
 
 An ISSO, who works for Applicant’s employer at a different facility, met Applicant in 
2004 through their outside involvement in a professional organization. She attests to 
Applicant’s reputation in their field for being a leader and mentor. Aware that Applicant 
made “bad choices” in 2009 while dealing with family issues, this ISSO indicates that 
Applicant made “a conscious effort to right those wrongs” since then. (AE M.) This ISSO 
also worked for Applicant’s previous employer, although she was not in the field in 2009 
and 2010. (Tr. 151.) About Applicant’s September 2010 security violation, the ISSM 
testified that it was “normal practice” at the company for systems administrators to log in, 
for the ISSMs then to check the policies and to log out before going on to the next 
computer. The systems administrators were with the ISSM as they went down the line so 
they were never left alone. The security manager regarded it as a prohibited practice even 
though other facilities were doing it. (Tr. 149-150.) This ISSM believes Applicant’s 
clearance should be continued. (Tr. 143.)  
 
 Continuation of Applicant’s security clearance eligibility is also endorsed by a retired 
master sergeant, who is familiar with her work since February 2006. He worked with her at 
her previous employer, and he has been working for her current employer at a different 
facility since June 2011. He considers it “absurd” that Applicant could lose her security 
clearance. She had “one stressful year dealing with a very ugly divorce that [he believes] 
contributed to some poor judgment, which [Applicant] truly regrets.” (AE L.) 
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  emphasizing 
that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 
U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 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 required to 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 
 
 14 
process. The administrative judge’s overall 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 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, 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 
that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. 
Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about 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 E, Personal Conduct 
 
The security concern for personal conduct is set out in AG ¶ 15: 
 
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or 
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about 
an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified 
information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid 
answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to 
cooperate with the security clearance process. 
 
 Applicant repeatedly exercised questionable judgment from 2008-2009 while her 
marriage was deteriorating, as shown by her arrest record detailed above. All charges but 
for the December 2009 negligent driving were dismissed, although the evidence shows that 
she scratched her son during a physical altercation in January 2009. In February 2009, she 
 
 15 
either threw telephones (Tr. 49) or machine tools (GE 14) in her yard during an argument 
with her older son in February 2009. About the May 2009 incident, Applicant indicates that 
she was physically struck by her daughter’s father and dragged out of the car, but she was 
also charged with filing a false report to law enforcement, apparently after telling the police 
that Mr. X scratched her. In July 2009, she was charged with stalking her older son after 
she threw a vase through a window. She demonstrated a disregard of law, rules, or 
regulations by moving back into the marital home, in knowing violation of a court order. 
Concerning the accident in December 2009, security significant Guideline E concerns are 
raised because she left the scene of an accident involving property damage, despite 
knowing that the police had been called. Furthermore, she violated her security clearance 
responsibilities. In January 2009, she smoked marijuana while possessing a Top Secret 
clearance; she failed to timely report her July 2009 and December 2009 arrests; and in 
September 2010, she violated security protocol by accessing computer workstations 
through the login credentials of a systems administrator. Even though it may have been 
common practice for ISSMs to “drive” computers logged in by systems administrators, 
Applicant knew that the practice was improper, if not a clear violation of her security 
responsibilities under the NISPOM. Disqualifying condition AG ¶ 16(c) applies: 
 
(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not 
sufficient for an adverse determination under any other singe guideline, but 
which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of 
questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, 
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics 
indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information.  
 
 Applicant has not engaged in any of the conduct of alleged personal conduct 
concern since 2010. Applicant’s marijuana abuse is aggravated by the fact that she held a 
security clearance at the time, but it occurred only once. Her September 2010 security 
violation appears to be an aberration in an otherwise unblemished record of security 
compliance for some 27 years. Concerning the risk of further domestic assault or stalking 
incidents, Applicant is apparently on good terms with her older son now, and she and her 
ex-husband have been divorced since July 2010. Even so, AG ¶ 17(c), “the offense was so 
minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under 
such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the 
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” does not completely mitigate the 
security concerns. Applicant reportedly suffered physical and verbal abuse at the hands of 
Mr. X, her daughter’s father. He used illegal drugs (Tr. 96.) and was involved in her drug 
use in January 2009. After arguing with him over custody of their daughter in January 
2009, she jumped from his moving vehicle. In the May 2009 incident, Applicant claims that 
Mr. X struck her and dragged her from her car. Although not alleged in the SOR, she 
admitted during a therapy session in November 2009 that she had hit Mr. X’s car with her 
vehicle. Yet, she allowed him to move back in with her in April 2010. In December 2010, 
she obtained a one-year order of protection against him after he threw some objects at her. 
Despite this troubled relationship, they were again cohabiting from June 2012 to June 
2013, reportedly for their daughter’s sake. While there is no evidence of any recent 
incidents between them that involved the police being called, there is some indication that 
 
 16 
their relationship was still discordant. Applicant has blocked him from being able to 
telephone or text her. They presently have contact only by email or in person to pick up or 
drop off their daughter. (Tr. 101.) 
 
 In Applicant’s favor, she obtained counseling to deal with family and work stress. 
After she jumped from Mr. X’s moving vehicle in January 2009, she was taken to a local 
emergency room by police. She then voluntarily admitted herself for mental health 
treatment at a local hospital. Aftercare recommendations included outpatient psychotropic 
medication management and counseling. Possible concerns about her unilateral 
termination of her treatment with the psychiatrist are alleviated by the fact that she 
continued in her therapeutic relationship with the LMHC from February 2009 until May 
2011. Her therapy ended because she had exhibited an “awareness of being able to 
manage the stress in her life.” Professional evaluations for substance abuse in February 
2011 and for mental health issues in September 2012 show no ongoing concerns about 
Applicant’s judgment or trustworthiness. The absence of any recent police involvement 
during her latest cohabitation with her daughter’s father is evidence of an improved ability 
to manage family stress. AG ¶ 17(d) and AG ¶ 17(e) are pertinent in that Applicant has 
acknowledged the mental health issues, and positively dealt with the issues that led to 
much of her inappropriate conduct with family members and her daughter’s father in 2009. 
AG ¶ 17(d) and AG ¶ 17(e) provide as follows: 
 
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to 
change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, 
circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, or other 
inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur; and 
 
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability 
to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. 
 
 Some concerns arise about whether Applicant is minimizing her culpability. 
Concerning her marijuana use, she thought smoking the marijuana would help her, but she 
asserts that she didn’t inhale. To her credit, she informed the Government about her 
marijuana use. About her failure to inform her security manager about her July 2009 and 
December 2009 arrests, Applicant testified that she had so much going on in her life at that 
time that she did not think about it. The death of her father shortly after her arrest in July 
2009 could reasonably distract her, and the charge was not prosecuted. About her arrest 
for DUI in December 2009, Applicant has not provided a credible explanation for her failure 
to report the incident before November 2010, when, in response to DOHA alcohol 
interrogatories, Applicant indicated that she joined an alcohol counseling group due to her 
accident on December 2, 2009, for the court to be lenient in regard to her case. (GE 8.) 
She provided no other detail about the incident, although she is credited with alerting 
DOHA of a December 2009 legal matter. In March 2011, in response to new interrogatories 
from DOHA in which she was confronted about her arrests in July 2009 and December 
2009, Applicant admitted that she had not reported the July 2009 and December 2009 
arrests to her FSO, but she had “reported the events directly to DOHA.” Assuming she 
believed that her reporting responsibilities were fulfilled by a report to DOHA, there is no 
 
 17 
indication that she told DOHA about her July 2009 arrest before March 2011. AG ¶ 17(a), 
“the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or 
falsification before being confronted with the facts,” does not apply. However, she has 
minimized any concerns of vulnerability under AG ¶ 17(g) by executing appropriate 
releases and providing documentation to DOHA about the personal conduct issues. 
 
 Applicant suffered physical and verbal abuse at the hands of her ex-husband and 
Mr. X while dealing with the stress of caring for her terminally ill father and being the sole 
financial provider for her family. At the same time, she bears some responsibility for her 
own unreliable behavior. She is now four years removed from much of the domestic stress 
caused in part or exacerbated by her poor judgment. Applicant has not possessed or used 
any illegal drugs beyond the single episode in January 2009 with Mr. X, during a period of 
“personal crisis.” On August 16, 2013, Applicant executed a statement of intent to refrain 
from all illegal drug use in the future with automatic revocation of her security clearance for 
any violation. Mental health and substance abuse professionals have expressed no 
concerns about her present judgment and reliability. About Applicant’s security violation, 
the company’s internal investigation revealed it was common practice among ISSMs at the 
company. While neither work demands nor the fact that others were engaged in the same 
practice can justify any shortcuts in security procedure, Applicant has otherwise executed 
good judgment with regard to information technology security. Whatever the reason for the 
delay in the issuance of the SOR in this case, Applicant has benefitted from the passage of 
time to prove that with counseling and stabilization of her home life, those issues are safely 
behind her. The personal conduct concerns are mitigated. 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern 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. 
 
 Applicant began to struggle financially around the same time as her marriage was 
breaking down. Her spouse, who operated a machine shop outside the home, brought in 
little to no income. Applicant paid one credit card account for less than its full balance in 
February 2008. In April 2008, she paid off another credit card debt after it had been 
charged off. She defaulted on her student loans in 2008 (SOR 2.f and 2.g/2.h), and an 
aggregate balance around $8,240 was referred for collection. In August 2008, her revolving 
charge account with a home improvement retailer was placed for collection with a past-due 
balance of $6,670 (SOR 2.b). After July 2006, her son stopped paying for wireless 
telephone services (SOR 2.c) on an account that she had guaranteed in May 2006. A loan 
taken out in June 2006 (SOR 2.d) was $1,953 past due as of December 2010 due to 
nonpayment after October 2008. She had stopped paying on another consumer loan in 
 
 18 
April 2007, and a $960 balance was placed for collection in October 2008 (SOR 2.i). Three 
smaller medical debts, including the debt in SOR 2.a, were referred for collection between 
May 2009 and November 2011. Student loan debt of $18,000 (SOR 2.e), on which she 
was a co-signer for her older son, was over 120 days past due as if September 2012. The 
evidence also shows a history of late payments on the family mortgage while she was living 
separately from her spouse, who failed to pay the mortgage in 2009. However, her 
mortgage was also 120 days past due as recently as April 2012. While her record of 
delinquent payments on the mortgage in 2012 cannot provide a separate basis for 
disqualification because they were not alleged, it shows that Applicant’s financial problems 
were more extensive than the SOR indicates.
13
 AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to 
satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” are 
established. 
 
Applicant has the burden of mitigating the financial concerns. 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 current reliability, 
trustworthiness, or good judgment,” cannot reasonably apply. While Applicant’s finances 
were negatively impacted by her spouse’s low income during her marriage, several of her 
accounts were in collection with no payment plans in place as of January 2013. 
 
AG ¶ 20(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,” has some applicability. The lack of spousal income in 2008 and 
2009 was not within her control. She suffered from anxiety and other mental health 
problems due to her personal and marital situation. As a result, she made poor choices 
that negatively affected her finances. She incurred the financial burden of the townhouse 
from March 2009 to June 2009 because she was prohibited by protective order from 
remaining in the marital home after her arrest in February 2009. AG ¶ 20(b) applies 
because she had to spend around $10,000 to catch up on the mortgage and on other 
household bills that her spouse should have paid when Applicant was living in the 
townhouse. 
 
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), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts,” address efforts to resolve financial problems. Applicant testified 
that she was largely unaware of the debt balances in her name because she did not check 
her credit until after she received the SOR. She was also focused on repaying loans 
                                                 
13 
The DOHA Appeal Board has long held that the administrative judge may consider non-alleged conduct to 
assess an applicant’s credibility; to evaluate an applicant’s evidence of extenuation, mitigation, or changed 
circumstances; to consider whether an applicant has demonstrated successful rehabilitation; to decide 
whether a particular provision of the Adjudicative Guidelines is applicable; or to provide evidence for a whole-
person analysis under Directive Section 6.3. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-07218 (App. Bd. Mar. 15, 2004); 
ISCR Case No. 03-20327 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006); ISCR Case No. 09-07219 (App. Bd. Sep. 27, 2012). 
  
 
 19 
borrowed from others. (Tr. 109.) The evidence shows that Applicant settled some $15,000 
in credit card debt around the time that she applied to renew her Top Secret clearance in 
2008. As of early October 2010, Applicant was placed on notice by DOHA of the tax lien 
(which was satisfied in 2005), six debts in collection (two medical debts, two student loans, 
and two consumer credit card debts) and two charged-off debts (2.d and a $9,380 auto 
loan). So, Applicant knew well before the SOR that she owed delinquent debt. However, 
the evidence shows that she paid off the medical debts in December 2010 and July 2011, 
respectively. She began repaying the debt in SOR 2.i in October 2010, and she satisfied 
the debt sometime before March 2013. Applicant paid $115 per month from at least 
October 2010 to March 2013 on her defaulted student loans (SOR 2.f and 2.g). AG ¶ 20(c) 
and AG ¶ 20(d) apply because of those payments. While she authorized debits from her 
account to pay the loan debt in SOR 2.d, those withdrawals were not made, and Applicant 
neglected her responsibility to ensure that her account was debited. 
 
It is unclear whether Applicant knew that her son had defaulted on the payments for 
his cell phone and student loans. After she received the SOR, she satisfied the $95 
medical debt in SOR 2.a. She arranged to make monthly payments of $80 toward the 
wireless phone debt (SOR 2.c); $100 to the $8,371 home improvement charge debt (SOR 
2.b); and $50 on the charged-off loan debt of $2,879 (SOR 2.d). Applicant presented 
documentation of only the initial monthly payments toward those debts currently in 
repayment plans. While her case would have been aided in mitigation had she provided 
proof of subsequent payments, I accept her assertion that those repayment plans are still 
in place. It is unclear whether Applicant made any payments on her student loan debt 
between August 2011 and April 2013, but her student loans were transferred in June 2013. 
Her latest available credit report, dated August 2013, does not reflect an amount past due. 
The collection agency reporting an $8,395 balance on SOR 2.b indicates last activity of 
October 2006, but Applicant presented evidence of a $100 payment to reduce the balance 
to $8,254 as of April 2013. Her son’s student loan in SOR 2.e was reportedly rated as 
current as of July 2013. 
 
Nothing in the Directive requires that Applicant completely pay off all her past-due 
debts to be eligible for a security clearance. Nonetheless, her overall debt burden must be 
considered in determining whether her finances are sufficiently stable to ensure that she 
can continue to address her old delinquencies without falling behind in her current debt 
obligations and living expenses. Applicant was chronically late in paying her mortgage in 
2012, but the loan has been modified and was brought current around January 2013. She 
has only one open credit card account, which has a limit of $300. Latest information 
available shows a current balance on the account of $266. (GE 19.) Applicant has made 
some progress toward reducing her delinquent debt to where she can reasonably be 
counted on to continue to address her debts. While it would have been helpful to have a 
recent accounting of her living expenses, she is not likely to ignore her legitimate financial 
obligations and possibly jeopardize her security clearance and the employment that she 
needs to support herself and five-year-old daughter.
 
 20 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the totality 
of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative 
process factors in AG ¶ 2(a).
14
 
 
Applicant has 27 years of compliance with her security responsibilities, with the very 
limited exceptions discussed above. Since Applicant rejoined her current employer in June 
2011, she has exhibited competence and dedication to her duties. Her FSO and her 
supervisor attest to the improvement in the information technology department’s security 
posture since Applicant was hired. While the Government was clearly justified in 
scrutinizing Applicant’s security clearance eligibility in light of the incidents cited in the 
SOR, Applicant’s life has stabilized sufficiently to where mental health and substance 
abuse professionals have no concerns about possible recurrence. Financial issues that are 
still outstanding do not rise to the level of concern to revoke her security clearance. She is 
taking credible steps to resolve her debts. On balance, I find that it is clearly consistent with 
the national interest to continue Applicant’s security clearance. 
 
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 E:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.g: For Applicant 
   
 Paragraph 2, Guideline F:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a-2.i: For Applicant 
  
                                                 
14
The factors under AG ¶ 2(a) are as follows: 
 
(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. 
 
 
 21 
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 or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
___________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge