1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 13-00987
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Pamela Benson, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON, Paul J., Administrative Judge:
Without a documented track record of payments of the listed debts, Applicant’s
evidence in mitigation is insufficient to overcome the Government’s case under the
financial considerations guideline. Eligibility for access to classified information is
denied.
Statement of the Case
On October 24, 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under the financial considerations guideline.
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)
implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
 Applicant’s response to the FORM was signed by [name], “Civilian Defense Counsel.”1
2
Applicant furnished his notarized answer to the SOR on November 14, 2013. A
copy of the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM), the Government’s
evidence in support of the allegations of the SOR, was sent to Applicant on February
19, 2014. In an attachment to the FORM, Applicant was advised he could object to the
information in the FORM or submit additional information in explanation, mitigation, or
extenuation. He received the FORM on March 17, 2014. He provided a response on
April 28, 2014.  On May 5, 2014, the Government indicated it had no objection to1
Applicant’s response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on May 9, 2014. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 38 years old and single. He received an honorable discharge after
serving in the United States (U.S.) Marine Corps from October 1995 to September
2001. During his service, he received several medals and ribbons. He obtained an
associate’s degree in December 2008. He completed academic requirements for a
bachelor’s degree in May 2011, but did not receive a diploma because he did not pay
the final semester’s tuition. He has been employed in security and diplomatic security
since June 2012. Before his current employment, he was attending school part-time
while working as a bar tender. In 2008, he began attending school full-time financed by
additional student loans. He received his first security clearance in the military in May
1999. His most recent security clearance was granted in November 2011. He has no
criminal record. He has never engaged in illegal drug use and has never abused
alcohol.   
The SOR cites a February 2013 foreclosure plus 16 delinquent debt allegations
totaling approximately $72,000. Eleven of the delinquent accounts represent student
loans. The other delinquent accounts include a foreclosed mortgage, credit cards, and a
cellular telephone account. Applicant admitted all allegations in his answer, which he
submitted about three days after he filed a federal consolidation loan and promissory
note to consolidate student loans identified at SOR 1.h-1.n. His essential position of his
submissions is that he wants his security clearance granted so he can resume working
and continue to pay his bills.
In his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) dated
September 10, 2012, Applicant faulted a bad economy and depressed real estate
market for his financial problems. He indicated that he hired a law firm online to resolve
those problems and could see the positive results achieved in repairing his finances. As
verification of resolving his debt difficulties, he cited a creditor’s letter he received in July
2012, forgiving his $49,000 equity line of credit debt related to the mortgage foreclosure
in SOR 1.q. The debt is not listed in the SOR. 
Applicant was interviewed by an investigator from the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) in October 2012. An OPM investigator re-interviewed Applicant on
August 13, 2013. Using a August 2, 2013, credit report, the investigator obtained
3
additional information about Applicant’s debts and prepared an affidavit which Applicant
signed the same day. After reviewing his August 2, 2013, credit report with the
investigator, he acknowledged he had between $45,000 and $50,000 in delinquent
student loans. Before 2008, when Applicant was working full-time as a bartender and
attending school part-time, Applicant earned approximately $40,000 to $50,000 a year.
When he began attending college full-time in 2008, his yearly earnings dropped from
$7,704 in 2008 to between $1,200 and less by 2013. He provided tax returns from 2008
through 2011 showing a decline in yearly income. He noted that the law firm which he
cited in his e-QIP never acted in his behalf in any financial issue with the creditors. Its
sole purpose was to help him understand a credit report. 
The affidavit also reflects that Applicant told the OPM investigator about his
financial status in the last five or six years. He indicated that he used all his savings and
retirement accounts to finance his college and living expenses. He only had $800 in his
checking account. He did not have any credit cards. He intended to establish payment
plans and make payments to the creditors as soon as his future overseas assignment
commenced. 
The SOR debts will be addressed in chronological order.
SOR 1.a, $8,682, student loan. The account was opened in 2009 and reported
delinquent in July 2013. Applicant’s claim in his response to the FORM that payments
were being made through his credit union direct allotment account is undocumented.
Account unresolved. 
SOR 1.b, $5,503, student loan. The account was opened in 2011 and reported
delinquent in July 2013. On November 6, 2013, Applicant was advised that his proposal
to begin making payments of $469 a month, beginning on December 5, 2013, was
acceptable. His documentation submitted in his response to the FORM shows a $50
payment to the creditor on March 28, 2014, about seven days after he received the
FORM. Applicant’s March 30, 2014, credit report reflects a reduced balance of $4,652,
which implies that undocumented payments have also been made to the creditor. 
SOR 1.c, $8,600, student loan. The account was opened in 2009 and reported
delinquent in May 2013. There is no supporting documentation of Applicant’s claim that
he has been making regular payments since before September 16, 2013. Account
unresolved. 
SOR 1.d, $325, cellular telephone account. The account was opened in 2012
and reported delinquent in March 2013. Applicant’s claim in his response to the FORM
that he was making payments through his credit union direct allotment account is not
supported by the record. Account unresolved. 
SOR 1.e, $1,749, auto installment loan. The account was opened in 2006 and
reported delinquent in July 2013. Applicant’s claim in his response to the FORM that
payments were being made through his credit union direct allotment account is
4
undocumented. The balance in Applicant’s credit report dated March 30, 2014, posts
the same balance that appears in the government’s August 2, 2013, credit report.
Account unresolved. 
SOR 1.f, $8,623, student loan. The account was opened in 2009 and reported
delinquent in June 2013. Applicant’s March 2014 credit report reflects that the balance
has decreased to $6,788. No documentation was presented to show how many
payments have been made or for how long. The reduced account balance connotes that
undocumented payments have been made to the creditor.
SOR 1.g, $341, student loan. The account was opened in 2010 and reported
delinquent in July 2013. The government’s August 2013 credit report and Applicant’s
March 2014 credit report show the same balance. Applicant claimed the account was
paid and provided a telephone number for confirmation. Account is unresolved. 
SOR 1.h-1.m, $19,907, six student loans. The accounts were opened in 2009
and reported delinquent in June 2013. Applicant’s March 2014 credit report reflects that
the loans were paid. On November 11, 2013, Applicant signed a federal direct
consolidated loan application and promissory note. On the same day, he signed the
repayment plan selection to repay the loans. The loans are paid by the organization that
services the account (account holder), but Applicant still has to repay the loans. 
SOR 1.n, $4,179, student loan. The account was opened in 2012 and reported
delinquent in July 2013. On November 11, 2013, Applicant signed a federal direct
consolidated loan application and promissory note. The same day, he signed a
repayment plan selection to repay the loans. The total amount of the seven student
loans that were consolidated is $24,086. As with the student loans in SOR 1.h-1.n, the
loan is paid by the account holder, but Applicant still has to repay the loan. 
SOR 1.o, $6,325, credit card. The account was opened in 2008 and reported
delinquent in May 2010. Applicant’s claim in his response to the FORM that he is
making payments through his credit union direct allotment account is not supported by
the record. Account is unresolved.
SOR 1.p, $7,724, credit card. The account was opened in 1998 and reported
delinquent in October 2012. In one part of his response to the FORM, he pointed to the
August 2013 credit report entries showing the accounts (SOR 1.o, 1.p) having zero
balances. The zero balances refer to accounts not listed in the SOR. Applicant’s claim
at another location of his response to the FORM that he was making payments through
his credit union direction allotment account are unsupported. Account is unresolved. 
SOR 1.q, condominium foreclosure. Applicant’s documentation in his response
indicates that the property was sold on February 15, 2013, for $123,400. The certificate
of sale was officially witnessed and stamped by the clerk of courts on February 21,
2013. There is no evidence of a deficiency balance on the sale of the condominium. In
2007, Applicant opened an home equity line of credit ($49,000) with the condominium
5
property as collateral. On July 23, 2012, Applicant’s credit line was approved for
forgiveness. The forgiven debt is not listed in the SOR. 
Since the August 2013 affidavit, Applicant repeatedly indicated that he has
worked hard to pay off or settle his debts. He stated that the result of his efforts “has
been a much lower amount of debt, where much of it is no longer collectible.”
(Response to SOR) In his response to the FORM, Applicant claimed that the delinquent
debt in the August 2, 2014, credit report should be reduced by $9,000.
Character Evidence
In a letter dated February 26, 2008, an associate professor of social science
recommended Applicant for admission to a university that Applicant attended. The
associate professor based the recommendation on Applicant’s academic record, his
leadership ability, and his military service. In a letter dated April 11, 2000, during
Applicant’ military service, a foreign service officer commended Applicant’s ability to
bridge cultural issues with the local cultural community. The officer praised Applicant’s
professionalism as a U.S. Marine security guard. Applicant received several training
certificates for completing: a foreign affairs counter threat course; a course instructing
participants about the fundamentals of diplomatic security; an antiterrorist driving
course; and a blue print reading course. These courses were completed in November
and December 2012. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the AG. Each guideline lists potentially disqualifying
conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful in evaluating an applicant's
eligibility for access to classified information.
The disqualifying and mitigating conditions should also be evaluated in the
context of nine general factors of the whole-person concept so that all available
information, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, is a part of the decision for or
against an applicant’s security clearance application. Such decisions entail a certain
degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to the potential, rather than actual, risk of
compromise of classified information.
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 applicant or proven by Department Counsel . . . ." The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion of establishing that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant him a security clearance. 
6
Analysis
Financial Considerations 
The security concern for financial considerations is set forth 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. Compulsive
gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including
espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of
income is also a security concern. It may indicate proceeds from
financially profitable criminal acts.
There are two pertinent disqualifying conditions that are potentially applicable:
AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not
meeting financial obligations). The credit reports, substantiated by Applicant’s
admissions, raise security concerns under the financial considerations guideline. The
SOR lists 16 delinquent debts totaling approximately $72,000 and a property
foreclosure. The accounts became delinquent between May 2010 and July 2013. AG ¶¶
19(a) and 19(c) apply. 
Five mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable: 
(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 reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment; 
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely
beyond the person's control 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; 
(d) a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts; and 
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of actions to resolve the issue.
7
Applicant has delinquent debts that he is unable to satisfy. He consolidated
seven of the delinquent student loans identified in SOR 1.h-1.n. He did not apply for the
loan consolidation until after he received the SOR. While his credit report shows that
balances in SOR 1.b and 1.f are less than the amounts set forth in the SOR, he
provided no supporting documentation to bolster his claims of making regular payments
for the debts identified in SOR 1.a, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 1.g, 1.o, and 1.p. AG ¶ 20(a) does not
apply because the listed accounts became delinquent between 2010 and July 2013 and
it is likely that Applicant’s financial problems will continue in the future.  
AG ¶ 20(b) applies when the financial problems were caused by conditions
beyond an applicant’s control and he acted responsibly under the circumstances.
Applicant’s actions in obtaining multiple student loans were voluntary choices and not
caused by conditions beyond his control. He knew or should have known that he was
accumulating a large amount of additional debt while earning steadily decreasing
income in a poor economy and anemic real estate market. Conversely, He receives
limited credit under the condition by consolidating some of his student loans, even
though he waited until after he received the SOR. On the other hand, he has not
responsibly managed the remaining accounts identified at SOR 1.a, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 1.g,
1.o, and 1.p. AG ¶ 20(b) is only partially applicable. 
AG ¶ 20(c) partially applies. Except for the advice he received on how to read a
credit report, there is no evidence of financial counseling. However, Applicant has
consolidated seven student loans and successfully received forgiveness for his unlisted
equity line of credit. Nonetheless, the elimination of the line of credit debt has little
probative value to Applicant’s overall financial responsibility in paying his debts. There
are no clear indications that the accounts identified at SOR 1.a, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 1.g, 1.o
and 1.p are being resolved or under control. 
AG ¶ 20(d) is applicable to circumstances that demonstrate a good-faith effort to
repay delinquent debts. The primary method of accomplishing this objective is to show a
meaningful track record of debt repayment. An applicant must demonstrate he has
established a plan to repay his debts (not necessarily all of them simultaneously) and
has taken purposeful action to implement the plan. The record reflects that Applicant
has consolidated seven of his student loans. However, the information he provided
about regularly paying the remaining debts is uncorroborated by independent evidence.
His promise to repay all debts when he receives his security clearance is not mitigating.
His precarious employment situation is acknowledged. He will not receive his
employment assignment until he obtains a security clearance. But the security concerns
present cannot be mitigated by the potential adverse consequences of an applicant
 See ISCR Case No. 08-10238 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 18, 2009), ISCR Case No. 08-10079 at 3 (App. Bd.2
December 10, 2009).
 See, e.g., ADP Case No. 07-13041at 4 (App. Bd. Sep 19, 2008), ISCR Case No. 99-0012 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec.3
1, 1999).
8
losing his security clearance  or his promise to repay his debts in the future after he2
resumes his employment.  AG ¶ 20(d) is inapplicable to this case. 3
Applicant claimed in his response to the FORM that the delinquent amount of
debt in the credit report should be reduced by $9,000. He did not identify the debts
which he disputes. He did not identify the reason and basis for his dispute. AG ¶ 20(e) is
inapplicable
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of
the financial considerations guideline, and within the context of nine variables known as
the whole-person concept. In evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the
administrative judge should consider the following factors listed in 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 the participation was 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.
As set forth in AG ¶ 2(c), the final trustworthiness decision must be an overall
commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the specific guidelines,
each of which is to be evaluated in the context of the whole person.
Applicant is 38 years old and single. He received an honorable discharge from
the U.S. Marines following his service from 1995 to 2001. In 2000, a foreign service
officer praised Applicant’s professionalism while in the service. He earned an associates
degree in December 2008. An associate professor provided a glowing assessment of
Applicant’s qualifications for the university he attended. In addition to having no criminal
record, Applicant has no drug or alcohol problems.
Under the Directive, the favorable evidence must be weighed and balanced
against Applicant’s delinquent debts. To his credit, he consolidated seven student loans.
However, he will have to resume paying the loans at some time in the future. The
unlisted forgiven equity line of credit debt reduces the amount of debt Applicant owes.
However, it bears little relevance to his bill paying practices and managing his financial
obligations in a responsible manner. Except for a reduction in Applicant’s overall debt
load, I am unable to give any probative weight to the sale after foreclosure of Applicant’s
9
condominium. In addition, there is no supporting documentation from Applicant’s direct
allotment account substantiating his regular payment claims of the accounts identified at
SOR 1.a, 1.c, 1.d, 1.e, 1.g, 1.o, and 1.p. Considering the evidence presented under the
disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the context of the whole-person concept, the
security concerns associated under the financial considerations guideline have not been
mitigated. See AG ¶ 2(a)(1) through AG ¶ 2(a)(9).
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): AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.b, 1.f, 1.h-n, 1.q:   For Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.a, 1.c, 1.d,1.e, 1.g, 1.o, 1.p: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for access to
sensitive information. Applicant’s request for a public trust position is denied. 
                      
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge