Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government exhibits (GE) 1-4, and Applicant exhibits (AE) A-B. AE B was1
timely received post-hearing.
DoD acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20,2
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
1 September 2006. 
1
           
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 11-14775
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah A. Minster, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
              
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  I deny Applicant’s clearance.1
On 8 May 2013, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial
Considerations.  Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a hearing before the2
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). DOHA assigned the case to me 27
June 2013, and I convened a hearing 1 August 2013. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.)
7 August 2013.
The Government investigator who interviewed Applicant in July 2011 recorded that Applicant was aware of3
the delinquency, but did not list it on his clearance application because it was his mother’s house (GE 2).
However, Applicant testified (Tr. 47) that he first became aware of the delinquency in July 2011, when the
Government investigator confronted him with his June 2011 credit report (GE 3).
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant denied the SOR allegation. He is a 38-year-old project manager
employed by a defense contractor since May 2010. His past clearance record is
unknown. 
             
The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits establish, one delinquent debt
totaling $51,000. The amount represents the past-due balance on a $234,000 mortgage
that Applicant cosigned with his mother in about September 2008.
The original mortgage was cosigned by Applicant’s sister. Applicant’s mother
had insufficient income from her church secretary position to qualify for the mortgage.
In 2008, Applicant’s sister wanted to buy her own home, so it was necessary to
refinance the mortgage to get her off it. Applicant then cosigned his mother’s mortgage.
The refinanced balance was $238,000. Applicant was either unaware or indifferent to
the legal obligations cosigning the note placed upon him.
 The house encumbered by the mortgage was originally purchased by Applicant’s
mother as her residence, and it was so when Applicant’s name was put on the
mortgage in September 2008. However, after the refinancing, Applicant’s mother
converted the house to rental property. She had difficulty keeping the house rented and
getting the tenants to pay the rent. There is no evidence of the efforts she undertook to
enforce payment of the rent or evict the tenants. She apparently did not communicate
these financial issues to her son.
In June 2011, Applicant executed a clearance application to upgrade his
clearance (GE 1). He reported no financial difficulties. However, by June 2011, the
mortgage was 120 days past due: $14,000 on a balance of $234,000. The record is
unclear concerning whether Applicant knew this at the time he executed his clearance
application.  However, the Government did not allege falsification of the clearance3
application.
During his July 2011 interview, Applicant acknowledged the debt to the
Government investigator, and implied that he would address it. Applicant made the
same representations in October 2011, when the investigator re-interviewed Applicant.
However, Applicant took no meaningful action to address the delinquent mortgage. He
thought his mother would take care of it, because she owned the house. In March 2013,
she was dealing with a third-party negotiator to modify the mortgage (GE 2). The record
is unclear to what extent Applicant was involved in this process.
3
 Applicant testified (Tr. 67-68) that he was not more aggressive dealing with the
delinquent mortgage because until he received the SOR in June 2013, he was unaware
that the delinquent mortgage could be the basis for losing his clearance. Given the
financial questions on the clearance application, and two interviews with a Government
investigator discussing the debt, no reasonable person can believe this to be true.
Nevertheless, the SOR galvanized Applicant into action. He dismissed the third-party
negotiator and began dealing with the lender directly. By 27 July 2013, he had
submitted the loan modification paperwork required by the lender (AE A). On 30 July
2013, Applicant was approved for a trial period plan (AE B). The plan required Applicant
to execute a plan agreement and return it by 29 August 2013, followed by three trial
mortgage payments of approximately $1,500 on 1 September, 1 October, and 1
November 2013. After completion of the trial program, the lender would determine if
Applicant remained eligible for a permanent loan modification.
Applicant and his mother planned to sell the property if they were able to obtain
the permanent loan modification. He did not document his acceptance of the trial plan,
or his ability to make the trial mortgage payments.
Applicant submitted no work or character references. Except for the debt alleged
in the SOR, his credit accounts are current.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors to evaluate a person’s suitability for
access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also show a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). The applicability of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is
not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific guidelines should be followed when a case
can be measured against them, as they are policy guidance governing the grant or
denial of a clearance. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, disputed facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, the
burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the required judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
¶19(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;5
¶ 20(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that6
it is  unlikely to recur . . . ;
¶ 20(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and7
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶ 20(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;8
¶ 20(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that9
the problem is being resolved or is under control;
4
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels deciding any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.4
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has over $51,000 in
delinquent debt that he has only recently begun to address.  Applicant became aware of5
his indebtedness by June 2011, yet took no meaningful action to address the debt for
nearly two years. While he may be on the verge of a satisfactory resolution of the debt
through loan modification, complete resolution of the debt hinges on his ability to sell the
house once the delinquency is removed, a contingency that is by no means certain.
In addition, Applicant meets none of the mitigating conditions for financial
considerations. His financial difficulties are recent and ongoing.  Applicant’s6
responsibility as cosigner for his mother, and his ability to monitor the status of that
loan, were certainly within his control. Further, he cannot be considered to have acted
responsibly in addressing this debts under the circumstances because of the length of
time it took him to begin to address the delinquency.  Further, while his recent efforts to7
address the delinquency have borne partial results, his failure to act sooner means that
it is too early to tell if he will be successful in completing the trial mortgage program,
obtaining a permanent loan modification, and ultimately selling the property.  8
The concern with Applicant is that while he credibly stated his intent to resolve
this debts, successful resolution remains speculative. He has not produced a budget, or
documented that he has received financial counseling. He certainly has not
demonstrated that the delinquent mortgage can be resolved with his current financial
means.  I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.9
5
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: Against Applicant
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge