1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 12-06684
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s financial problems were caused by circumstances beyond her control.
She timely addressed most of the debts alleged in the SOR and her personal finances
are improved. Her financial problems do not indicate poor judgment or a lack of
trustworthiness, and she is not likely to incur such financial problems in the future. Her
request for continued access to classified information is granted.
Statement of the Case
On February 13, 2012, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (EQIP) to obtain or renew eligibility for a security clearance
required for her work as a defense contractor. Based on the results of the ensuing
background investigation, which included Applicant’s responses to interrogatories from
  Authorized by DOD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), Section E3.1.2.2.1
  Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DOD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.2
 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. These3
guidelines were published in the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006).
 Hearing Exhibit (Hx.) 3 is an email from Department Counsel forwarding Ax. E - G, and waiving objection4
to their admission. Ax. E is a letter from a mortgage lender regarding disposition of the remainder after
foreclosure of Applicant’s mortgage. Ax. F consists of annual evaluations and other information about
Applicant’s work performance. Ax. G contains information about Applicant’s charitable work in the community.
2
Department of Defense (DOD) adjudicators,  it could not be determined that it was1
clearly consistent with the national interest for Applicant to continue to hold a security
clearance.2
On December 18, 2013, DOD adjudicators issued to Applicant a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which raise security concerns addressed under the
adjudicative guideline  for financial considerations (Guideline F). On January 31, 2014,3
Applicant responded to the SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing.
The case was assigned to me on May 13, 2014, and I convened a hearing on
June 17, 2014. Department Counsel for the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA) presented Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 5. Applicant testified and presented
Applicant’s Exhibits (Ax.) A - D. All exhibits were admitted without objection. I left the
record open after the hearing to receive from Applicant additional relevant information.
The record closed on July 7, 2014, when I received Applicant’s post-hearing
submissions, identified as Ax. E - G.  DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on4
June 23, 2014.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that in October 2005, Applicant filed
a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition that resulted in a discharge of her debts on January 19,
2006 (SOR 1.a); and that she owed $64,674 through 13 past-due or delinquent debts
(SOR 1.b - 1.n). Applicant admitted, with explanations, the allegations at SOR 1.b - 1.k.
She denied, with explanations, the SOR 1.l - 1.n allegations. Based on all available
information, I make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is a 48-year-old multi-media specialist for a defense contractor, where
she has worked since June 2002. Before that, she worked for a different company at the
same location for 15 years. Applicant has an excellent reputation at work, and as a
volunteer in her community, for integrity, reliability, honesty, and hard work. She first
received a security clearance in October 1991. She is also two courses shy of earning a
bachelor’s degree in organizational management. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Ax. D; Ax. F; Ax. G; Tr.
36 - 37, 47 - 49)
3
Applicant was married between August 1997 and January 2010. She and her ex-
husband separated in 2005, when Applicant moved out with their two children, then
ages 5 and 7. She filed for divorce in 2006. In the four years it took to finalize their
divorce, Applicant received no child support. Since 2010, her ex-husband has paid
court-ordered support of $705 each month. When they separated, Applicant’s ex-
husband stayed in the marital residence, and Applicant was left to pay most of the
marital debt. Because she was not receiving any support after they separated, Applicant
filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition in October 2005, through which she was
discharged of marital debts totaling nearly $37,000. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Gx. 3; Gx. 5;
Tr. 39 - 40, 70 - 74)
Applicant has a degenerative bone disorder that has impacted her spine and
knees. Treatment has been ongoing for several years and includes multiple MRI and X-
Ray examinations and periodic corrective surgeries. She also takes medications every
day and sees medical specialists every month. Her medical insurance covers a
substantial part of these services; however, co-payments, deductibles, and medications
for specialized treatments exceed her medical insurance by several thousand dollars
annually. (Answer; Ax. B; Tr. 34 - 35, 44 - 47)
Applicant also has adult attention deficit disorder (ADD). For Applicant, the
effects of ADD include a diminished capacity for organization and memory. In particular,
Applicant has difficulty keeping track of time and deadlines  She was diagnosed about
ten years ago and was prescribed Cymbalta. (Answer; Gx. 2; Ax. B; Tr. 34 - 36)
In July 2012, Applicant became responsible for caring for her grandmother, who
was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. Applicant incurred expenses through direct and
indirect financial support, as well as from lost wages when Applicant had to take her
grandmother to receive medical care in an adjoining state where her grandmother’s
doctors were located. Applicant’s grandmother eventually moved in with her and stayed
until passing away in November 2013. Applicant also bore most of the cost of her
grandmother’s funeral. (Answer; Ax. A; Ax. C; Tr. 41 - 42)
In January 2013, Applicant assumed care for her nephew, who was recovering at
home from injuries suffered in an accident. Surgeries and infections from those
surgeries complicated his recovery and required professional in-home care, which the
boys parents could not afford. Applicant was asked to take him in because she is a
qualified emergency medical services technician, able to manage intravenous care,
including PIC lines and medication injections. Her nephew stayed with Applicant until
May 2013. Applicant had difficulty meeting the additional expenses associated with her
nephew’s care because of reduced income from unplanned time off from work. (Answer;
Gx. 2; Ax. A; Tr. 42 - 44, 75 - 76)
In 2006, Applicant’s car was stolen. At the time, Applicant was current on her car
loan and still owed about $17,600. This debt is alleged at SOR 1.n, and still appears on
her credit report. Her car insurance policy covered theft but would not pay before 30
days had elapsed. The car was found in another state on the 30  day and was taken toth
4
a garage but never returned to Applicant. She stopped paying her car loan because she
thought the insurance would pay off the loan. However, the loan finance company
began demanding repayment. Applicant has not yet resolved this matter and denies she
has any remaining obligation for the car loan. The listing of this account in a February
2012 credit report includes a notation that she was disputing this debt. Applicant
indicated at hearing she would renew her dispute and try to resolve this obligation.
(Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Ax. A; Tr. 56 - 60)
All of the forgoing caused financial difficulties for Applicant between 2006 and
2013. When she submitted her EQIP in February 2012, she disclosed her Chapter 7
bankruptcy, alleged at SOR 1.a, the car loan debt alleged at SOR 1.n, and a delinquent
cell phone account alleged at SOR 1.l. As to SOR 1.l and 1.m, another past-due debt
owed to the same cell phone company, Applicant credibly testified that the creditor has
no information about either account that would show she owes them any money. SOR
1.l is likely a cell phone account owed by her ex-husband. Applicant also disclosed
several other accounts not alleged in the SOR that she had paid off or was in the
process of resolving. (Gx. 1; Tr. 30, 55 - 56)
In the ensuing background investigation and preliminary adjudication, credit
reports and Applicant’s responses to interrogatories documented all of the SOR
allegations. However, Applicant established that she has paid or is resolving the debts
alleged at SOR 1.b, and 1.d - 1.j. At hearing, the Government acknowledged that SOR
1.k addresses the same debt as in SOR 1.e. Applicant represented in her Answer and
at hearing that she is repaying some of her debts. However, she did not provide
documentation of those payments. Nonetheless, her testimony is consistent with
actions she took to resolve debts listed in her EQIP that her background investigation
showed had, in fact, been resolved. I have accepted her testimony on this issue as
credible and sufficient to support her claims that she is working to resolve all of her
debts. (Answer; Gx. 1 - 5; Ax. A; Tr. 30 - 31, 49 - 56)
In May 2013, the mortgage on Applicant’s home was foreclosed because she
had missed several payments while caring for her grandmother and nephew. As alleged
in SOR 1.f, she had also fallen behind on her student loan payments in 2013. Applicant
was able to consolidate her student loans after being granted a hardship forbearance.
She is once again current on her student loans after having renewed payments in
January 2014. As to her mortgage, she was 120 days past due when she was
interviewed for her clearance in 2012. Initially, she retained a firm that claimed to
specialize in resolving past-due mortgages, only to get no results after paying them
several thousand dollars. Subsequently, Applicant’s attempt to obtain a hardship loan
from her retirement account failed due to a technicality, and she lost the home in May
2013. The home was sold at auction, but Applicant owes no debt for any remaining loan
deficiency. (Answer; Gx. 1 - 3; Ax. A; Ax. C; Ax. E; Tr. 31 - 33, 37 - 38, 60 - 62)
Applicant’s current finances are sound. In addition to repaying her old debts, she
meets all of her current obligations. She has incurred no new unpayable debts, and her
monthly income exceeds all of her monthly expenditures by more than $300. Although
Applicant has not received any financial counseling, she appeared to have a good
 See Directive. 6.3.5
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).6
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.7
5
command of her personal finances. She is mindful of using a written budget because of
her ADD and the organizational challenges it presents. (Gx. 2; Tr. 62 - 69)
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,5
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the adjudicative
guidelines (AG). Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(a)
of the guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept, those factors
are:
(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. 
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not
determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant. However, specific applicable
guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them as they
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified
information.
A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent with the national interest  for an applicant to either receive or continue to6
have access to classified information. The Government bears the initial burden of
producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or
revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able
to prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it
then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a “right” to a security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy
burden of persuasion.  7
A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government
has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgment,
reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or her
own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).8
6
any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the
Government.8
Analysis
Financial Considerations
Available information is sufficient to support all of the SOR allegations. The facts
established raise a security concern about Applicant’s finances that is addressed at AG
¶ 18, as follows:
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.
More specifically, available information requires application of the disqualifying
conditions at AG ¶¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and 19(c) (a
history of not meeting financial obligations). As to AG ¶ 19(a), the record shows
Applicant was unable, not unwilling, to repay her past-due debts.
I have also considered the following pertinent AG ¶ 20 mitigating conditions:
(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; 
(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;
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
7
(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.
Applicant’s financial problems first started when her marriage ended in 2005.
Through a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, she resolved the marital debts with which she
was burdened when she left her ex-husband. Lack of child support for four years, as
well as unexpected events such as the theft of her car, having to care for two relatives
at her own expense, and her own chronic health issues caused her further financial
stress until 2013. Her difficulties culminated in the May 2013 foreclosure of her home.
However, the record shows that in response to her financial problems, Applicant did not
wait to take corrective action. She tried, albeit unsuccessfully, to resolve her mortgage
debt through retention of a mortgage resolution firm and through a loan from her
retirement fund. Although she lost the house, she owes no deficiency remainder and
she has been paying her rent on time for the past year. Applicant also obtained a
hardship forbearance and consolidation of her student loans, for which she is once
again in good standing. Even before the current background investigation, Applicant
had acted to resolve numerous past-due debts that are not alleged in this case. As to
her delinquent car loan, Applicant reasonably disputed its legitimacy because of the
failure of her car insurance to cover the loss. Applicant’s current finances are sound and
she has not incurred any new unpayable debts.
All of the foregoing supports application of the mitigating conditions listed above.
On balance, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns raised by the
Government’s information.
Whole-Person Concept
I have evaluated the facts and have applied the appropriate adjudicative factors
under Guideline F. I also have reviewed the record before me in the context of the
whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant is 48 years old and presumed to be a
mature, responsible adult. She has raised two children despite her chronic medical
conditions. She also cared for her grandmother and a nephew despite the resulting
financial burdens. Applicant has an excellent record on the job at a site where she has
worked for more than 20 years. She also is well-regarded for volunteer work in her
community. Applicant has worked through her financial setbacks in a way that shows
good judgment and reliability in fulfilling her responsibilities. There is little likelihood her
financial problems will recur. A fair and commonsense assessment of all available
information shows that Applicant’s finances no longer present an unacceptable security
risk.
Formal Findings
Formal findings on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section
E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
8
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.n: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is clearly consistent with the national interest for
Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security
clearance is granted.
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge