1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 12-04467
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
May 7, 2014
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his most recent Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP), on December 22, 2011. (Government Exhibit 4.)  On December 18,
2013, the Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the
security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) concerning Applicant.
The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified
Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG)
effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on January 13, 2014, and requested a
hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on February 14, 2014. This case was assigned to me on February 25, 2014. DOHA
issued a notice of hearing on February 26, 2014. I convened the hearing as scheduled
on March 13, 2014. The Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 9, which
were admitted without objection. Applicant submitted Applicant Exhibits A through C,
which were admitted without objection, and testified on his own behalf. Applicant asked
that the record remain open for the receipt of additional documents. DOHA received the
A full data credit report dated April 7, 2009, before his wife’s death, showed no delinquent debt at that time.1
(Government Exhibit 3.)
2
transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on March 21, 2014. Applicant submitted Applicant Exhibits
D through G in a timely fashion, which were all admitted without objection. Based upon
a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 51 and a widower. He is employed by a defense contractor and
seeks to retain a security clearance in connection with his employment.
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable,
untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant
denied, or his answers were viewed as denials, allegations 1.a, 1.b, 1.d, 1.j, 1k, and 1.o.
He admitted the remaining allegations in the SOR under this Paragraph. He also
submitted additional information to support his request for a security clearance.
The SOR lists 16 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $142,303. The
existence and amount of these debts is supported by credit reports dated January 10,
2012; August 13, 2013; September 20, 2013; and March 6, 2014. (Government Exhibits
5, 6, 7 at 13-55, and 9.) (See also Interrogatories dated October 1, 2013. (Government
Exhibit 7 at 1-12.)) 
Applicant’s financial difficulties began on August 26, 2009, when his wife passed
away after a lingering illness. (Government Exhibit 4 at Section 17; Tr. 49.)  She did not1
have life insurance, and there were problems with her health insurance, because of her
condition, which impacted his ability to pay bills. (Tr. 57- 58.) She also was the person in
their marriage who handled the finances. “She was very good managing the money and
I had to kind of pick up all the loose ends and make sense of it.” (Tr. 50.) It has taken
Applicant several years to fully recover from the loss of his wife. He is now attending
therapy to help him reach a better emotional state, which will help him in taking control
of the financial aspects of his life. He is also obtaining financial counseling through his
employer’s employee assistance program. (Tr. 65.)
He was just beginning to recover from this event when Applicant suffered a heart
attack in December 2009. He had to have open-heart surgery, followed by other
medical procedures. (Tr. 40-41.)  He was laid off in October 2010, and was unemployed
until September 2011. He had difficulty with his medical insurance, which with the drop
in income from his unemployment, affected his ability to pay his bills. He used up his
savings, as well as a substantial amount of his 401(k) account, to make ends meet
3
during his time of unemployment. (Government Exhibit 7 at 6; Tr. 41-43.) The use of his
401(k) funds resulted in tax consequences.
Applicant had contemplated filing for bankruptcy relief, but had been led to
believe by co-workers that such an action would result in automatic revocation of his
security clearance. He further testified that he had been discussing filing for Chapter 7
relief with two bankruptcy attorneys. (Tr. 70-72.) Applicant retained counsel and filed for
Chapter 7 relief on April 15, 2014. (Applicant Exhibit F.) Applicant’s bankruptcy counsel
submitted the schedules for Applicant’s bankruptcy. (Applicant Exhibit G.)
The current status of the debts is as follows:
1.a. Applicant admits that he is indebted for past-due student loans in the
amount of $111,483. This is Applicant’s largest creditor. Applicant has made a payment
arrangement with this creditor and has been paying $500 a month on this account for
approximately six months. (Applicant Exhibit E at 4-5, 9, 16, 22; Tr. 27-33.) This debt is
listed as an unsecured priority claim in Applicant’s bankruptcy, which he will continue to
pay after the bankruptcy is completed. (Applicant Exhibit G at 13.) It is being resolved.
1.b. Applicant denied that he was indebted for a past-due telephone account in
the amount of $228. At the hearing Applicant stated that he had confirmed the account
as his debt. (Tr. 33-34.) This debt was not included in the Applicant’s schedules.
However, an email from Applicant’s bankruptcy lawyer states that not all debts were
listed because of a lack of information. She indicated that additional creditors would be
added to the schedules in a timely fashion. (Applicant’s Exhibit G at 2.) This debt will be
resolved.
1.c. Applicant admits that he is indebted for a past-due telephone account in
the amount of $286. However, Applicant had issues with the company and filed a
dispute with the credit reporting agencies. (Tr. 34-38.) This debt has been included in
Applicant’s bankruptcy petition. (Applicant Exhibit G at 17.) It is being resolved.
1.d. Applicant denies that he is indebted for a past-due cable television
account in the amount of $205. Applicant filed a dispute with the credit reporting
agencies. (Tr. 38-39.) This debt has been included in Applicant’s bankruptcy petition.
(Applicant Exhibit G at 16.) It is being resolved.
1.e. Applicant admits that he is indebted for a past-due medical bill in the
amount of $349. (Tr. 39-40.) This debt has been included in Applicant’s bankruptcy
petition. (Applicant Exhibit G at 16.) It is being resolved.
1.f. Applicant admits that he is indebted for a past-due medical bill in the
amount of $54. (Tr. 47-48.) This debt has been included in Applicant’s bankruptcy
petition. (Applicant Exhibit G at 18.) It is being resolved.
4
1.g. Applicant admits that he is indebted for a past-due medical bill in the
amount of $1,135. (Tr. 50-51.) This debt has been included in Applicant’s bankruptcy
petition. (Applicant Exhibit G at 15.) It is being resolved.
1.h. Applicant admits that he is indebted for a past-due medical bill in the
amount of $156. (Tr. 51.) This debt has been included in Applicant’s bankruptcy petition.
(Applicant Exhibit G at 17.) It is being resolved.
1.i. Applicant admits that he is indebted for a past-due medical bill in the
amount of $2,021. (Tr. 51.) This debt has been included in Applicant’s bankruptcy
petition. (Applicant Exhibit G at 17.) It is being resolved.
1.j. Applicant could not confirm or deny that he is indebted for a past-due
medical bill in the amount of $255. (Tr. 52-53.) This debt has been included in
Applicant’s bankruptcy petition. (Applicant Exhibit G at 18.) It is being resolved.
1.k. Applicant denied that he is indebted for a past-due department store bill in
the amount of $532, stating he had made payments on this debt. (Tr. 53-55.) This debt
has been included in Applicant’s bankruptcy petition. (Applicant Exhibit G at 16.) It is
being resolved.
1.l. Applicant admits that he is indebted for a past-due credit card bill of his
late wife in the amount of $10,078.(Tr. 55-57.) This debt has been included in
Applicant’s bankruptcy petition. (Applicant Exhibit G at 17.) It is being resolved.
1.m. Applicant admits that he is indebted for a past-due revolving line of credit
in the amount of $7,693. (Tr. 59.) This debt has been included in Applicant’s bankruptcy
petition. (Applicant Exhibit G at 15.) It is being resolved.
1.n. Applicant admits that he is indebted for a past-due telephone bill in the
amount of $391. He further stated that the account is in dispute because of bad service.
(Tr. 59-61.) This debt was not included in the Applicant’s schedules. However, an email
from Applicant’s bankruptcy lawyer states that not all debts were listed because of a
lack of information. She indicated that additional creditors would be added to the
schedules in a timely fashion. (Applicant’s Exhibit G at 2.) This debt will be resolved.
1.o. Applicant admits that he is indebted for a past-due medical bill in the
amount of $1,250. He further stated that the account is in dispute because of issues
concerning health insurance. (Tr. 61-62.) Many medical debts are included in the
bankruptcy, but it is not clear that this debt was included in Applicant’s schedules.
However, an email from Applicant’s bankruptcy lawyer states that not all debts were
listed because of a lack of information. She indicated that additional creditors would be
added to the schedules in a timely fashion. (Applicant’s Exhibit G at 2.) This debt will be
resolved.
1.p. Applicant denied that he is indebted to the Internal Revenue Service in the
amount of $6,187. Applicant submits that he has a payment arrangement with the IRS
Applicant is also making regular monthly payments to his state taxing authority for back taxes. This debt is2
not alleged in the SOR. (Applicant Exhibit E at 2, 8, 16, 22.)
5
and has been making monthly payments of $255 on this tax debt since 2010. (Tr. 62-
64.) He submitted evidence that he has been consistently making these payments.
(Applicant Exhibits D, E at 7, 19.) This debt has been included in Applicant’s bankruptcy
petition, and will continue to be paid after completion of the bankruptcy. (Applicant
Exhibit G at 13, 16.) It is being resolved.2
Applicant’s current financial situation is stable, as shown by his Personal
Financial Statement of April 13, 2014. (Applicant Exhibit B.) He is able to pay his normal
monthly debts, as well as the student loan and tax debts that are not dischargeable in
bankruptcy.
Mitigation
Applicant is a successful employee, and a respected person. Applicant Exhibit A
at 1 is a letter from his program manager stating that Applicant is “a wonderful [asset] to
this team. He is a very dedicated and hard worker.” The letter also includes excerpts
from emails sent to the program manager from other people commenting favorably
about Applicant. (See Applicant Exhibit A at 3-5.)
Applicant Exhibit A at 2 is a letter from the bishop of Applicant’s church. Applicant
is a deacon of his church, and the bishop states Applicant has a “sense of responsibility,
honesty and tireless dedication to work.”
Applicant Exhibit C consists of various certificates of training earned by
Applicant. He has completed training in such topics as ethics, privacy and information
assurance awareness.
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  When evaluating an
applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider
the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each
guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions, which are to be used as appropriate 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
over-arching 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
6
unfavorable, in making a decision.  In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on
his or her own common sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the
ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that, “Any 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance 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. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that the 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any
determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination 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
Paragraph 1 (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. 
Three of the debts in the SOR are not included in the schedules provided by Applicant’s counsel. (1.b, 1.n,3
and 1.o.) The total of these debts is less than $2,000.
7
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant, by his own admission, and supported by the documentary
evidence, had delinquent accounts that he could not resolve. The evidence is sufficient
to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), disqualifying conditions
may be mitigated where Athe 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.@ In addition, AG
¶ 20(b) states that disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where “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.”  
Both of the above mitigating conditions apply to Applicant. Evidence shows that
Applicant’s financial situation was stable before his wife’s death in 2009. Her passing
was quickly followed by Applicant’s own serious health problems, then with his being
laid-off for almost a year. There is no underestimating the emotional and financial
burdens of these hammer blows, exacerbated by health and life insurance issues. It is
obvious that Applicant has had great difficulty coming to terms with his wife’s death.
That had an impact on his ability to organize his thoughts, and take care of his bills, for
several years.
Applicant had taken concrete steps to arrange payments with regards to his
student loans and tax debts before the hearing. He contemplated filing for bankruptcy
relief, but did not follow through before the hearing because he had received bad advice
from well-meaning friends. He has retained a lawyer, who submitted proof that a petition
has been filed and all Applicant’s debt has been or will be included in the schedules.3
Based on the particular facts of this case, I find that he has also “initiated a good-faith
effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” as required by AG ¶ 20(d).
Applicant has received financial counselling. In addition, as found above, his
current financial situation is stable. I find that “there are clear indications that the
problem is being resolved or is under control,” as required by AG ¶ 20(c). 
Applicant has acted in a way that shows good judgment, making the best he
could out of a difficult and very painful personal situation. The DOHA Appeal Board has
stated, “A security clearance adjudication is not a proceeding aimed at collecting an
applicant’s personal debts. Rather, it is a proceeding aimed at evaluating an applicant’s
ISCR Case No. 07-09966 at 3 (App. Bd. June 27, 2008).4
ISCR Case No. 06-12930 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 17, 2008) (quoting ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2-3 (App. Bd.5
Jul. 6, 2006)).
8
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.”  As the DOHA Appeal Board has also said,4
“An applicant is not required to show that [he] has completely paid off [his]
indebtedness, only that [he] has established a reasonable plan to resolve [his] debts
and has taken significant actions to implement that plan.”  The stated mitigating5
conditions apply to the facts of this case.
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 the applicant’s
conduct and all the relevant circumstances. 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 administrative judge must 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The discussion under
Guideline F, above, applies here as well. While Applicant had financial problems in the
past, they have been or are being resolved. He is knowledgeable about his finances,
and evinces a credible intent not to allow his finances to reach this point again.
Under AG ¶ 2(a)(2), I have considered the facts of Applicant’s debt history.
Based on the record, I find that there have been permanent behavioral changes under
AG ¶ 2(a)(6). Accordingly, I find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); and that there is a low likelihood of recurrence
(AG ¶ 2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me with no questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
situation. Accordingly, the evidence supports granting his request for a security
clearance.
9
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.p: 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.
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge