1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
---------------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 13-01018
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray T. Blank Jr., Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se 
                     
           
______________
Decision
______________
LEONARD, Michael H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant contests the Defense Department’s intent to revoke her security
clearance to work in the defense industry. The evidence shows she has a history of
financial problems or difficulties largely due to her husband’s bad behavior (drug
addiction and drug-related criminal conduct) as well as uninsured medical expenses
stemming from childbirth in 2010. The security concern is mitigated because: (1) the
financial problems happened under circumstances that are unlikely to recur; (2) the
conditions that resulted in the financial problems were largely beyond her control and
she has acted responsibly under the circumstances; and (3) there are clear indications
that the financial problems are being resolved or are under control. Accordingly, this
case is decided for Applicant.
  This case is adjudicated under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry,1
signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended, as well as Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program , dated January 2, 1992,
as amended (Directive). In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Information (AG), effective within the Defense Department on September 1, 2006, apply here. The
AG  were published in the Federal Register and codified in 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). The AG
replace the guidelines in Enclosure 2 to the Directive.    
2
Statement of the Case
On November 6, 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) sent Applicant a
statement of reasons (SOR), explaining it was unable to find that it was clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue access to classified
information.  The SOR is similar to a complaint, and it detailed the reasons for the1
action under the security guideline known as Guideline F for financial considerations.
Applicant answered the SOR on November 27, 2013. 
The case was assigned to me on February 5, 2014, to conduct a hearing as
requested by Applicant. The hearing was held as scheduled on March 6, 2014. At the
hearing, Department Counsel presented Exhibits 1–3, which were admitted. Likewise,
Applicant presented Exhibits A–C, which were admitted, she called one witness (her
husband), and she testified on her own behalf. The transcript (Tr.) was received March
14, 2014. 
The record was kept open until March 20, 2014, to allow Applicant to submit
additional documentary evidence. She made a timely submission, and those two
matters are admitted as Exhibits D and E without objections. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 32-year-old employee of a federal contractor. Her job title or
position is order clerk II, a job she has held since mid-2009. Her duties involve working
in supply and logistics managing equipment accounts at a military base. She is currently
pursuing a bachelor’s degree in health care administration, which she expects to
complete this year.  
Applicant is seeking to retain a  security clearance that was previously granted to
her in 2003, shortly after her enlistment in the U.S. Air Force. She was on active duty for
four years during 2003–2007, and she was then honorably discharged at the pay grade
of E-4. She has continued her military service with a maintenance squadron in the Air
Force Reserve. She was recently promoted to technical sergeant, pay grade E-6. 
Applicant married a fellow servicemember in 2006. They have one child, a
daughter, born in June 2010. She and her husband were assigned to the same military
base in 2007 when they were discharged from active duty. Her husband was
discharged first, and she joined him a few months later in their current state of
residence. She resumed full-time employment in late 2007, when she accepted a
3
position doing security-screening work for the federal government. Her income from that
job was lower than her military pay. She remained in the job until 2009, when she began
her current job. 
Applicant’s husband’s employment history since leaving military service in 2007
was irregular and unstable, but he has been steadily employed as warehouse worker
since October 2011. Initially, he worked as a payment specialist for a large technology
company from late 2007 to about the mid-2008. He began abusing crystal meth during
this period. In 2008, he persuaded Applicant to allow him to trade his current car, which
was leased, for an expensive SUV. Since he had poor credit, she was required to sign
the financial paperwork, which included rolling the balance due on the lease into the
new loan. The credit reports show the purchase was financed with a loan of $42,686
opened in August 2008; payment terms were $733 monthly for 75 months; and the loan
was charged off in August 2009. (Exhibits 2 and 3) This matter is alleged in SOR ¶ 1.j.
In 2008, Applicant’s husband quit his job as a payment specialist and decided to
attend school, which he paid for with benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA). He reports that he became “full-blown addicted” to crystal meth when he was
attending school, which led to the voluntary repossession of the SUV. (Tr. 34) Except
for a two to three-month period in 2009, he did not work during 2008–2010. He spent
his time living off his VA benefits and abusing drugs, which included marijuana, cocaine,
and pills in addition to crystal meth. He disappeared from home for indefinite periods
and would spend his time living in a hotel, partying, and abusing drugs. He paid for his
drug addiction with his VA benefits and money he obtained from a joint checking
account shared with Applicant. After Applicant closed the joint account, he found other
ways to obtain money, such as taking Applicant’s ATM card and obtaining the PIN
under false pretenses, making purchases at a department store and then pawning the
merchandise, and taking personal property from their home and pawning those items.
(Tr. 43–46)
 Applicant’s husband completed a drug-treatment program in mid-2010 as part of
his involvement with the state’s criminal justice system. (Tr. 35–38, 56–58) He has a
misdemeanor conviction for a drug offense and has completed the terms of the
sentence. He also has a felony conviction for a drug offense and is currently serving the
terms of the sentence, which include a suspended sentence to confinement for ten
years, supervised probation for two years, 200 hours of community service, as well as
fines and court costs. He was also subject to drug-testing and reports that he tested
negative.
Applicant first became aware that something was amiss with their personal
finances in about mid-2008. (Tr. 78–80). She closed their joint checking account and
opened an individual account in 2009. (Tr. 79–80) Subsequently, she noticed her
husband was still accessing the checking account, but her efforts to address it were
unsuccessful. (Tr. 81) Her husband’s drug abuse coupled with his unemployment
caused a great deal of financial strain, to include an eviction from a residence in 2009.
 Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“it should be obvious that no one has a ‘right’ to a2
security clearance”); Duane v. Department of Defense, 275 F.3d 988, 994 (10  Cir. 2002) (no right to ath
security clearance).
 484 U.S. at 531.3
4
(Tr. 98–99)  It also included Applicant’s brief period of hospitalization when she became
overwhelmed with stress from the difficulties with her husband. (Tr. 45)  
The SOR alleges and the credit reports establish 14 delinquent debts for a total
of about $50,000. (Exhibits 2 and 3) Eight of the 14 debts are medical accounts for a
total of about $19,753. Those accounts are due to uninsured medical expenses for her
pregnancy and childbirth in 2010. (SOR ¶¶ 1.c–1.f and 1.k–1.n; Tr. 69–70) The largest
debt is a $26,090 charged-off account due to the SUV purchase in 2008. (SOR ¶ 1.j)
The other five accounts amount to about $3,800. She attributes two of those accounts
to her husband’s bad behavior. (SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.h) And at the time she could not
afford to pay the remaining three accounts. (SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.g, and 1.i)
Applicant has not paid, settled, entered into repayment agreements, disputed, or
otherwise resolved any of the 14 accounts. (Tr. 82) She and her husband decided to
seek Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection and they retained a bankruptcy attorney in
November 2013. (Exhibit A). They provided the necessary information to the attorney
and they also completed the financial counseling required by bankruptcy law. A
bankruptcy petition should be filed soon. 
Except for the pending bankruptcy case, Applicant reports that their financial
situation is “pretty good now. I’m getting back on track, and I’m paying my debt that I
have, my current debt off.” (Tr. 94) She stated that they are current on rent, utilities,
routine monthly expenses, and paying extra on an auto loan, and that she is budgeting
to prevent overspending. (Tr. 94–95) She stated that as of the hearing date they had
about $1,500 in a joint checking account, $3,000 in her savings account, $800 to $1,000
in his savings account, $6,000 to $7,000 in her Roth IRA account, and $60,000 in her
401(k) account. (Tr. 96–97)
Applicant has a good record of employment as shown by four highly laudatory
letters of recommendation submitted on her behalf. (Exhibits B, C, D, and E) In addition
to Applicant’s work ethic, the authors of the letters commented favorably on her good
character, honesty, and trustworthiness. One of the authors described Applicant as “an
awesome friend” and faithful member of the same church. (Exhibit C).   
 
Law and Policies
It is well-established law that no one has a right to a security clearance.  As2
noted by the Supreme Court in Department of Navy v. Egan, “the clearly consistent
standard indicates that security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the
side of denials.”  Under Egan, Executive Order 10865, and the Directive, any doubt3
 Directive, ¶ 3.2. 4
 Directive, ¶ 3.2. 5
 ISCR Case No. 02-18663 (App. Bd. Mar. 23, 2004).6
 Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.14.7
 Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.8
 Directive, Enclosure 3, ¶ E3.1.15.9
 Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 10
 ISCR Case No. 01-20700 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002) (citations omitted).11
 Executive Order 10865, § 7.12
5
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to classified information will be
resolved in favor of protecting national security.  
A favorable clearance decision establishes eligibility of an applicant to be granted
a security clearance for access to confidential, secret, or top-secret information.  An4
unfavorable decision (1) denies any application, (2) revokes any existing security
clearance, and (3) prevents access to classified information at any level.  5
There is no presumption in favor of granting, renewing, or continuing eligibility for
access to classified information.  The Government has the burden of presenting6
evidence to establish facts alleged in the SOR that have been controverted.  An7
applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to refute, explain, extenuate, or mitigate
facts that have been admitted or proven.  In addition, an applicant has the ultimate8
burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision.  In Egan, the Supreme9
Court stated that the burden of proof is less than a preponderance of the evidence.10
The DOHA Appeal Board has followed the Court’s reasoning, and a judge’s findings of
fact are reviewed under the substantial-evidence standard.11
The AG set forth the relevant standards to consider when evaluating a person’s
security clearance eligibility, including disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions
for each guideline. In addition, each clearance decision must be a commonsense
decision based upon consideration of the relevant and material information, the
pertinent criteria and adjudication factors, and the whole-person concept. 
The Government must be able to have a high degree of trust and confidence in
those persons to whom it grants access to classified information. The decision to deny a
person a security clearance is not a determination of an applicant’s loyalty.  Instead, it12
is a determination that an applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President has
established for granting eligibility for access.
 AG ¶¶ 18, 19, and 20 (setting forth the security concern and the disqualifying and mitigating conditions). 13
 ISCR Case No. 95-0611 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996) (It is well settled that “the security suitability of an applicant14
is placed into question when that applicant is shown to have a history of excessive indebtedness or recurring
financial difficulties.”) (citation omitted); and see ISCR Case No. 07-09966 (App. Bd. Jun. 25, 2008) (In
security clearance cases, “the federal government is entitled to consider the facts and circumstances
surrounding an applicant’s conduct in incurring and failing to satisfy the debt in a timely manner.”) (citation
omitted). 
 AG ¶ 18.  15
 AG ¶ 19(a).  16
 AG ¶ 19(c). 17
 AG ¶¶ 20(a)–(f). 18
6
Discussion
Under Guideline F for financial considerations,  the suitability of an applicant13
may be questioned or put into doubt when that applicant has a history of excessive
indebtedness or financial problems or difficulties.  The overall concern under Guideline14
F is: 
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.  15
Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible,
unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information within the
defense industry.   
There is substantial evidence that Applicant has a history of financial problems or
difficulties. Her unfavorable financial history indicates inability or unwillingness to satisfy
debts  and a history of not meeting financial obligations.  The facts are more than16 17
sufficient to establish these two disqualifying conditions. 
There are six mitigating conditions under Guideline F.  Given the evidence here,18
I have considered the following:
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;
7
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;
and 
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.   
Applicant’s financial problems are related to her husband’s bad behavior and
uninsured medical expenses. Those circumstances are unlikely to recur because her
husband has abstained from drug abuse since 2010 and has been steadily employed
since 2011, and she now has health insurance. Her past financial problems do not cast
doubt on her current security suitability because her financial situation has stabilized
and the problem is being addressed. AG ¶ 20(a) applies.
The conditions that resulted in Applicant’s financial problems were largely beyond
her control and she has acted responsibly under the circumstances. As stated
previously, her financial problems are due to the combination of her husband’s bad
behavior and uninsured medical expenses. Although she has not paid or settled any of
the 14 delinquent debts in the SOR, she has nonetheless acted responsibly under
difficult circumstances by: (1) maintaining full-time employment with a good employment
record throughout this period; (2) advancing in the Air Force Reserve from E-4 to E-6;
and (3) remaining in her marriage to a husband many women would have simply given
up on and seeing him through his troubles with the state’s criminal justice system, drug
treatment, and a return to steady employment. Although she did not manage this
situation perfectly (few people would), those are not the actions of an irresponsible
person. AG ¶ 20(b) applies.
There are clear indications that Applicant’s financial problems are being resolved
or are under control. That conclusion is supported by the fact that Applicant, jointly with
her husband, is in the process of resolving the past indebtedness by a Chapter 7
bankruptcy case. Although that pales in comparison with repayment of debt, it shows,
along with Applicant’s otherwise stable financial situation, that the problem is under
control and will be resolved in the near future. AG ¶ 20(c) partially applies.   
After weighing the relevant disqualifying and mitigating conditions and evaluating
the evidence in light of the whole-person concept, I conclude Applicant presented
sufficient evidence to explain, extenuate, and mitigate the security concern under
Guideline F. The evidence established that Applicant was taken advantage of by her
husband. Through his drug addiction, he wreaked havoc in their marriage, to include
doing serious damage to their financial situation. Applicant, to her credit, endeavored to
persevere through difficult circumstances. The situation has stabilized, and she is a
busy mother, spouse, full-time employee, and college student. A remarkable
achievement under the circumstances, and a telling statement about the strength of her
8
character, which bodes well for her security suitability. Accordingly, I conclude she has
met her ultimate burden of persuasion to show that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information. 
Formal Findings
The formal findings on the SOR allegations are as follows:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: For Applicant 
Subparagraphs 1.a–1.n: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of the record as a whole, it is clearly consistent with the national interest
to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified
information is granted.     
Michael H. Leonard
Administrative Judge