1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
 )       ISCR Case No. 12-07487
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, Applicant’s eligibility for
access to classified information is granted.
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on January 3, 2011. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on July 30, 2013, detailing security concerns
under Guideline F, financial considerations. The action was taken under Executive
Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960),
as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance
Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative
Guidelines For Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG),
implemented on September 1, 2006. 
 
W hen  SOR allegations are controverted, the Government bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient1
to prove controverted allegations. Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. “That burden has two components. First, the
Government must establish by substantial evidence that the facts and events alleged in the SOR indeed took
place. Second, the Government must establish a nexus between the existence of the established facts and
events and a legitimate security concern.” See ISCR Case No. 07-18525 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 18, 2009),
(concurring and dissenting, in part) (citations omitted). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection
between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See
ISCR Case No. 08-06605 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 4, 2010); ISCR Case No. 08-07290 at 2 (App. Bd. Nov. 17,
2009).
Item 5; Item 6; Item 9.2
Item 5; Item 6 - Personal Subject Interview.3
2
Applicant received the SOR on August 18, 2013. He submitted a notarized,
written response to the SOR allegations dated August 26, 2013. He requested a
decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing. 
Department Counsel prepared a file of relevant material (FORM) and mailed
Applicant a complete copy on September 13, 2013. Applicant received the FORM on
September 19, 2013. He had 30 days from receipt of the FORM to file objections and
submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He did not submit a response.
DOHA assigned this case to me on November 6, 2013. The Government submitted nine
exhibits, which have been marked as Items 1-9 and admitted into the record. Applicant’s
response to the SOR has been marked and admitted as Item 3, and the SOR has been
marked as Item 1.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶ 1.c of
the SOR. His admission is incorporated herein as findings of fact. He denied the factual
allegations in ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b of the SOR.  He also provided additional information to1
support his request for eligibility for a security clearance. After a complete and thorough
review of the evidence of record, I make the following findings of fact.  
Applicant, who is 32 years old, works for a DOD contractor. He began his current
employment in June 2012. He took a $22,000 reduction in pay when he accepted this
position. Previously, from 2008 until 2011, Applicant worked as a project manager for a
DOD contractor until this employer laid him off in 2011. In August 2011, he started
temporary employment, which continued until sometime in 2012. The exact dates of his
employment are unknown. In addition to his full-time job, Applicant began working a
second job in May 2013.2
Applicant graduated from high school in 1999. He enlisted in the United States
Air Force in June 1999 and received an honorable discharge in October 2008. He
achieved the rank of staff sergeant. While in the Air Force, Applicant took some college
courses, but he did not complete a degree or certification program.  3
 
Id.4
Item 6 - Item 8. 5
Item 3; Item 6; Item 7.6
Item 6; Item 7.7
3
Applicant and his wife married in August 2003. They have a nine-year-old son.
He parents his wife’s 13-year-old son from an earlier relationship. Applicant has a 12-
year-old daughter from a prior relationship. His daughter does not live with him, but he
pays child support through payroll deductions.4
In November 2007, Applicant and his wife purchased a house for approximately
$337,000. At the time he purchased this house, Applicant was serving on active duty.
He also worked part-time as an event monitor technician on the Air Force base for a
private company. In January 2008, Applicant ceased his part-time employment because
of the commute. By 2009, he experienced problems paying his mortgage and his truck
payment, in part because his wife had been laid off or lost her job three times, for a total
unemployment of 10 to 12 months, while he only worked one job. He attempted to
modify his mortgage four times. During each attempt to modify his mortgage, he did not
make his mortgage payment for at least two months. He was unsuccessful in obtaining
a mortgage loan modification, and he was unable to catch up on his payments. His
mortgage company foreclosed on his property in July 2010 (SOR ¶ 1.c). Applicant
states that he does not owe any money on his mortgage. The April 17, 2013 credit
report indicates that his mortgage account has a zero balance.5
Applicant purchased a used truck in 2007. Applicant experienced problems
complying with the terms of his loan agreement after he purchased his house and
stopped working his part-time job. The note holder repossessed his truck and filed a
court action. The note holder obtained a judgment against Applicant in September 2011
in the amount of $15,882 (SOR ¶ 1.a). The note holder applied for and received an
order of garnishment. The note holder began garnishing Applicant’s pay in April 2013.
As of August 15, 2013, Applicant’s pay had been garnished in the amount of $2,343,
which has been applied towards this judgment. The amount paid through garnishment
varies each paycheck because the amount paid in garnishment is dependent upon his
income each paycheck.6
Concerning the remaining $641 debt (SOR ¶ 1.b), Applicant advises that he
negotiated a settlement and paid the bill. He did not provide proof of his payment
although his budget reflects payments to this creditor as part of his budget. Applicant’s
answers to financial interrogatories and the January 2011 and April 2013 credit reports
reflect that Applicant incurred other debts, which he has paid. The credit reports also
show many debts, which have been timely paid.7
Applicant earns $5,280 a month in gross income from his first job and $5,250 a
month in gross income from his second job for a total gross monthly income of $10,530.
Item 3; Item 6.8
4
In the past, he earned overtime pay from his first job. His net monthly income from both
jobs, without overtime and after taxes medical, child support, and garnishment
deductions, totals $6,682. His monthly expenses total $2,846, leaving approximately
$3,836. Applicant has sufficient income to resolve the judgment and small debt noted in
SOR ¶ 1.b, if it is not resolved.  8
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used in evaluating an
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶
2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as
the “whole-person concept.” The administrative judge must consider all available,
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in
making a decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to
classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” An
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
5
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18:      
Failure or inability to live within one=s means, satisfy debts, and meet
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise
questions about an individual=s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to
protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
AG ¶ 19 describes the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially applicable: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Applicant developed significant financial problems after he and his wife
purchased a home, he stopped working his part-time job, and his wife lost her jobs. The
record reflects a history of unpaid debts. These two disqualifying conditions apply.
The Financial Considerations guideline also includes examples of conditions that
can mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 20(a) through
¶ 20(f), and the following are potentially applicable:
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person=s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or
separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem
and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is
under control; and
6
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
Applicant’s financial problems began after the purchase of his house and his
decision to stop working a second job. His ability to take control of his debts was slowed
by his wife’s loss of income in 2009, his job losses in 2011 and 2012, and his $22,000
reduction in income in 2012. While stopping his part-time was a choice, the periods of
unemployment for he and his wife, and his decline in income are conditions beyond his
control. He attempted to modify his mortgage, which is a reasonable action. After four
attempts to modify his mortgage, which necessitated the nonpayment of his mortgage
for approval, Applicant was unable to catch up his mortgage payment, and the
mortgage lender foreclosed on his property. The 2013 credit report shows that Applicant
does not owe any additional money on his mortgage. This debt is resolved.
The $15,000 judgment is being resolved through garnishment. To facilitate
resolution of his debts, Applicant has taken a second job, which substantially increased
his household income. The record evidence also indicates that he took steps to resolve
his smaller debts and that his finances are under control. He has sufficient income to
pay his monthly living expenses and to resolve his remaining debts. AG ¶¶ 20(b) and
20(c) apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):
(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the
circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to
which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of
rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation
for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct,
7
but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a
nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
In assessing whether an Applicant has established mitigation under Guideline F,
the Appeal Board provided the following guidance in ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 3
(App. Bd. May 21, 2008):
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the
concept of “‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of
actual debt reduction through payment of debts.” See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2007). However, an applicant is not
required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and
every debt listed in the SOR. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-25499 at 2
(App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2006). All that is required is that an applicant
demonstrate that he has “. . . established a plan to resolve his financial
problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.” See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 6, 2006). The Judge can
reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and
his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for the
reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. See
Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (“Available, reliable information about the person, past
and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching
a determination.”) There is no requirement that a plan provide for
payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable
plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such
debts one at a time. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-25584 at 4 (App. Bd.
Apr. 4, 2008). Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually
paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the
SOR.
The evidence in support of granting a security clearance to Applicant under the
whole-person concept is more substantial than the evidence in support of denial. In
reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s
financial problems first began after he and his wife purchased a home, and he stopped
working his part-time job. His wife was laid off or lost three jobs during their period of
financial distress. Slowly, Applicant paid his smaller bills. Because he was unable to
modify his mortgage, he could not make his payments as well as catch up his past
payments. He recently obtained a second job, which takes him away from his family, but
allows him to pay his remaining debts. His mortgage debt is resolved, and he is
resolving the remaining debts. He took responsibility for supporting his stepson, and he
provides child support for his daughter. His actions show that he is a responsible person
and that he will fully resolve his remaining debts as he has a track record for resolving
unpaid debts. Most significantly, he has taken affirmative action to pay or resolve most
of the delinquent debts raising security concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(6).) The issue is not
simply whether all his debts are paid: it is whether his financial circumstances raise
8
concerns about his fitness to hold a security clearance. While some debts remain
unpaid, they are insufficient to raise security concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(1).)
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his finances under
Guideline F.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge