1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-03797
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Robert Kilmartin, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, 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 February 21, 2014. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on August 29, 2014, detailing security
concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations, and Guideline J, criminal conduct.
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. 
 
GE 1; Tr. 19.1
GE 1; GE 4; Tr. 17-21.2
2
Applicant received the SOR on September 19, 2014, and he answered it the
same day. Applicant requested a hearing before an administrative judge with the
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). Department Counsel was prepared to
proceed on November 10, 2014, and I received the case assignment on November 13,
2014. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on November 26, 2014, and I convened the
hearing as scheduled on December 10, 2014. The Government offered exhibits (GE)
marked as GE 1 through GE 4, which were received and admitted into evidence without
objection. Applicant testified. He submitted exhibits (AE) marked as AE A and AE B,
which were received and admitted into evidence without objection. DOHA received the
hearing transcript (Tr.) on December 22, 2014. I held the record open until January 9,
2015, for Applicant to submit additional matters. Applicant timely submitted AE C - AE
K, which were received and admitted without objection. The record closed on January 9,
2015.
Procedural Ruling
Notice
Applicant received the notice of the date, time and place of the hearing less than
15 days before the hearing. I advised Applicant of his right under ¶ E3.1.8. of the
Directive to receive the notice at least 15 days before the hearing. Applicant
affirmatively waived this right under the Directive. (Tr. 9.)
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all the factual allegations in the
SOR. His admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. He also provided
additional information to 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 35 years old, works as an ordinance assembler and driver for a
DOD contractor. He began his current employment in July 2013. He previously worked
as an aluminum welder from August 2012 until July 2013. Applicant is single.1
Applicant attended an art and design school to learn video game designing. He
completed his studies in December 2007, but he does not have his diploma for
unknown reasons. Over the next several years, Applicant worked sporadically in his
chosen profession. Because of the economic downturn, he was unable to find steady
employment in his chosen career. Between January 2008 and August 2012, he worked
as a video game designer, in a warehouse, in bicycle design and sales, and at any
other jobs he could find. He experienced periods of unemployment and low income.  2
AE C; AE E.3
AE H - AE I.4
SOR; GE 3; GE 4; Tr. 31.5
GE 4; Tr. 31-34.6
3
Applicant currently earns $659 a week, plus occasional overtime. His monthly
gross income, without overtime, totals $2,636. His net monthly income, without
overtime, totals approximately $1,900. His monthly expenses include a car payment of
$505, car insurance of $70, student loan payments of $189, and food and gasoline for
$400. His total monthly expenses are $1,164. He has a net remainder of $736 for
unanticipated expenses. He lives with his parents, which eliminates housing costs for
him.3
Applicant provided a copy of his unsigned federal and state tax returns for the tax
years 2008 and 2010. He also provided a copy of his signed federal and state tax
returns for the tax years 2012 and 2013. He did not file a tax return for the tax year 2009
because he was unemployed most of that year. He did not provide a copy of his federal
and state tax returns for the tax year 2011. His 2008 tax return reflects an income of
$5,427; his 2010 tax return reflects an income of $2,823; his 2012 tax return reflects an
income of $20,617, and his 2013 tax return reflects an income of $38,654. He received
a tax refund in 2008, 2012, and 2013.4
The SOR identified eight education loans totaling $34,357 purportedly delinquent,
as reflected by the March 6, 2014 credit report. The credit report reflects different
account numbers for each debt listed on the credit report. A close review of these
accounts shows that the date the account was open and the high balance are the same
for four accounts. The difference in account numbers has not been explained. The
difference in the amount owed is always higher and can be explained by additional
interest and/or penalties added to the debt.5
Applicant admitted that he did not pay his education loans after he completed his
studies. He did not seek forbearance of his loans. He simply ignored his loans because
he did not have enough income to pay his school loans and provide basic needs for
himself. When he obtained steady employment with his current employer, he assumed
responsibility for his education loans.6
In November 2013, two months after beginning his current position, Applicant
began looking for a company to help him consolidate his education loans. Company A
provided these services to Applicant. Company A worked with the education loan lender
on a rehabilitation plan for Applicant’s education debts. In November 2013, Applicant
began a loan rehabilitation program, which required him to pay $70 a month for nine
months. Applicant completed the rehabilitation program in August 2014. Company A
AE A; AE D; Tr. 31-32.7
Response to SOR; AE B.8
SOR; Response to SOR; GE 3; AE B; AE D; Tr. 24-25, 35-36.9
GE 2; GE 4; AE F; Tr. 25-26.10
4
succeeded in persuading the education lender to remove some of the penalties and
collection fees on Applicant’s debts.7
Company A returned Applicant’s education loan accounts to the original lender in
August 2014. This lender required Applicant to make a monthly payment of $64
beginning in October 2014. Applicant made two $64 payments as required. In October
2014, Applicant received a letter advising that Company B would now service
Applicant’s education loan accounts for the lender. Applicant’s monthly payment
increased to $189 a month beginning December 2014. He has made the payments as
required.8
The eight education debts listsed in the SOR are with the same lender.
Applicant’s documentation and repayment plan list the accounts in SOR allegations 1.b,
1.d, 1.f, and 1.h as the debts owed to the education lender. The amount of the original
loan is verified on these documents and coincides with the high credit amount for six
loans (¶¶ 1.a-1.f) identified in the March 2014 credit report. The education lender shows
a somewhat higher loan balance for the two remaining debts. The lender’s statement of
account is given substantial weight. I find that the debts in SOR allegations 1.a, 1.c, 1.e,
and 1.g are duplicate debts. Applicant’s documentation establishes that he currently
owes approximately $16,500 on his education loans, and that he is paying his loans. He
does not recognize the $103 debt in SOR ¶ 1.i as the original insurance company
creditor means nothing to him. In his answer, he indicates that he thought this bill was
paid, but he did not have any proof. He no longer receives any statements from this
creditor.9
On March 4, 2011, Applicant joined others individuals at a local bar for a going
away party for a mutual friend. During the evening, he drank five or six mixed drinks. He
left the bar around 2:00 a.m. with a friend. On his way home, the police stopped him
and eventually arrested him for driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI). He spent
the night in jail. His breathalyzer tests results indicated a .16% blood-alcohol level.
Applicant appeared in court on April 18, 2011. He was found guilty. The court directed
him to enroll in a first offender’s program, placed him on unsupervised probation for
three years, suspended his driver’s license for six months, fined him $1,600 plus other
costs totaling $400, and directed him to perform six days of community service.
Applicant complied with the terms of his sentence and paid all his fines. His probation
ended in May 2014. He also paid $500 to retrieve his car from the impound lot.10
Applicant describes himself as a social drinker. He drinks when he is out with
friends, usually consuming two to three beers. He does not get drunk nor does he drink
GE 4; Tr. 26-28.11
5
every weekend. If he has consumed too much alcohol, he stays with friends, takes a
cab, or does not drive until he is sober.11
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
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
 
6
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 when he did not pay his
education loans. The March 2014 credit report indicated that his debts had not been
resolved when the SOR was issued. 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
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
7
When Applicant completed his education to be a video-game designer, he could
not find steady employment because the economic downturn of the last decade had
begun. Over the next almost five years, Applicant worked sporadically, earning very little
income. When he obtained his current employment, he believed he now had a future
and undertook to resolve his education loan debt. He located a company, which helped
him rehabilitate his education loans. He is now paying his education loans as required.
He acted responsibly under the circumstances. AG ¶ 20(b) applies.
The record does not reflect that Applicant has participated in financial or credit
counseling; however, his debts and finances are under control. He has sufficient income
each month to pay his obligations, including his education loans. Once he had secure
employment, he initiated efforts to resume responsibility for his education loans. With
the help of Company A, he rehabilitated his education loans and is now paying his
educational loan obligations.  AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) apply. 
Guideline J, Criminal Conduct
AG ¶ 30 expresses the security concern pertaining to criminal conduct, “Criminal
activity creates doubt about a person's judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its
very nature, it calls into question a person's ability or willingness to comply with laws,
rules and regulations.”
AG ¶ 31 describes the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially applicable: 
(a) a single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses;
(c) allegation or admission of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the
person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted; and
 (d) individual is currently on parole or probation.
The police stopped, arrested, and charged Applicant with DUI in March 2011. His
arrest was for a serious offense. Applicant completed unsupervised probation in May
2011 before the SOR was issued. A security concern is established under AG ¶¶ 31(a)
and 31(c).
The Criminal Conduct guideline also includes examples of conditions that can
mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 32(a) through ¶
32(d), and the following are potentially applicable:
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur
and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment; and
8
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited
to the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or
constructive community involvement.
Applicant’s only DUI arrest occurred almost four years ago. He completed all the
requirements of his sentence and is now off probation. He changed his drinking habits
after his arrest. He limits the amount of his alcohol consumption to two or three beers
when socializing with friends. He will not drive if he has consumed too much alcohol.
Instead, he will take a cab home or stay with friends. He will not drive until he is sober.
He has matured, and he acts responsibly about his alcohol use. His past DUI does not
cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. AG ¶¶ 32(a) and 32(d)
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,
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):
9
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
ignored his responsibility to pay his education loans for a long time. During much of this
time, he did not have sufficient income to pay his education loans. When his finances
stabilized, he acted to rehabilitate his education loans. He took action more than nine
months before the issuance of the SOR and several months before his March 2014
personal subject interview. He has shown a track record for paying the loans over the
last 14 months. He has not incurred any other large unpaid debts. He believes he paid
the $103 debt, the only other debt on the SOR. He does not have documentation to
support his belief. This debt cannot be a source of pressure or coercion.
Applicant recognizes that his decision to drive after consuming too much alcohol
was a poor decision, which he regrets. He complied with all the terms of his sentence,
including participating in the first offender’s program. He has changed his attitude and
behavior towards the use of alcohol. He has shown that he is responsible about his
alcohol use and that he refrains from overindulging in alcohol. He will not drive if he has
over indulged in alcohol. This one DUI cannot be a source of duress or coerce.
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
10
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his finances and alcohol
use under Guidelines F and J.
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
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.i: For Applicant
Paragraph 2, Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraph 2.a: 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