1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 14-00151
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Fahryn Hoffman, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Although Applicant has made some progress in reducing her delinquent debts, it
is too soon to conclude that she has mitigated the security concern given the amount
that remains outstanding and an absence of a clear plan to address the remaining
debts. Clearance is denied. 
Statement of the Case
On February 28, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing
security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. 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.
Subparagraph 1.b is a duplicate of subparagraph 1.a.1
2
 
 On March 10, 2014, Applicant answered the SOR, denying all of the allegations
except subparagraphs 1.c and 1.h. She requested a hearing whereupon the case was
assigned to me on May 5, 2014. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on May 9, 2014,
scheduling the hearing for June 3, 2014. The hearing was held as scheduled. At the
hearing, I received four Government exhibits (GE 1-GE 4) and eight Applicant exhibits
(AE A - AE H). Also, I took administrative notice of one document (Hearing Exhibit (HE)
I),  and I considered the testimony of Applicant.
At the close of the hearing, I left the record, open at Applicant’s request, to allow
her to submit additional exhibits. Within the time allotted, Applicant submitted nine more
exhibits that I received as AE I through AE Q. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on
June 12, 2014.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 41-year-old single woman with one child, age 17. She is a high
school graduate and has earned some college credits. For the past 13 years, she has
worked as a security guard. She has held a security clearance since 2002. (Tr. 17)
Between 2006 and 2012, Applicant incurred approximately $23,000 of delinquent
debt. These debts include a $311 judgment (subparagraph 1.a; duplicated in
subparagraph 1.b), a delinquent credit card totalling $2,435 (subparagraph 1.c), several
medical accounts totalling approximately $1,000 (subparagraph 1.d through 1.f), two
delinquent phone accounts totalling approximately $475  (subparagraphs 1.g and 1.j),
the deficiency remaining from a foreclosed time share property (subparagraph 1.h),
three delinquent loans totalling approximately $12,000 (subparagraph 1.i, 1.k, and 1.l),
and a delinquent speeding ticket totalling $300. (subparagraph 1.m)
Applicant attributes her financial problems to her separation from her significant
other in 2009. (Tr. 32) They had lived together, and after the separation, Applicant was
saddled with many of his bills. (Tr. 32)
The judgment listed in subparagraph 1.a stems from the breakup of an earlier
romantic relationship.  Applicant’s then-significant other purchased her a $5,000 ring.1
When the relationship ended in 2006,  she sued Applicant for the cost of the ring and for
the cost of a number of bills they incurred jointly while living together. (GE 3 at 13) The
court found in the significant other’s favor, but concluded Applicant did not owe her for
the cost of the ring. Ultimately, the amount of the judgment totalled $311, and Applicant
paid it in January 2007. (AE A)
Subparagraph 1.c is a credit card. Applicant fell behind on this credit card in early
2010.(GE 3) Since then, Applicant has had trouble contacting the creditor because this
debt has been reassigned to several successive collection agencies. (Tr. 50) Most
3
 
recently, in June 2014, Applicant contacted the creditor and was informed that they no
longer had a record of the debt. (AE I at 1)
Applicant satisfied subparagraphs 1.d through 1.f through a series of payments
between August  2013 and January 2014. (AE B) Applicant also satisfied the delinquent
phone accounts listed in subparagraphs 1.g and 1.j. (AE P and AE G, respectively)
In 2011, Applicant’s significant other from whom she separated in 2009,
purchased the time share property listed in subparagraph 1.h in an attempt to get back
together with her. (Tr. 65) Applicant gave him permission to add her name to the
contract. (Tr. 66) Shortly after purchasing the time share property, Applicant’s significant
other lost his job. Applicant was unable to make the payments without his help and the
property went into foreclosure. The property was resold and a deficiency remained of
$9,602. (AE E) In March 2013, Applicant contacted the time share collection specialist
to discuss a settlement. The time share company was willing to settle for approximately
half of the deficiency ($4,800) so long as Applicant paid the sum in 14 days. (AE E)
Applicant could not afford to execute this settlement plan. Currently, Applicant and her
significant other are not together, and he is not helping her resolve the deficiency. 
Applicant contends that she will apply money currently earmarked for paying a
car note towards the deficiency once the car note is satisfied. (Tr. 43) Currently, she is
one month behind on her car note payments. (Tr. 44)
Applicant was forced to short sale her previous home in 2006 after an earlier
relationship ended. Shortly before the short sale, the bank had initiated foreclosure
proceedings. (Tr. 66)
Subparagraph 1.i is an account Applicant opened to purchase an exercise
machine. It totals $2,361. Using money borrowed from a friend, Applicant satisfied this
account. (AE F)
Applicant contends that she negotiated a settlement to satisfy subparagraph 1.k
for $2,300, approximately half the amount listed as delinquent on the SOR. (Tr. 60)
Although Applicant provided evidence that she satisfied a debt owed to the same
creditor as the one listed in subparagraph 1.k, the account numbers do not match.
(Compare GE 2 at 5 with AE L) I find that subparagraph 1.k remains outstanding.
Applicant contends that subparagraph 1.l is a duplicate of subparagraph 1.i, as
discussed above. However, GE 2 indicates that she had two different accounts with the
same creditor. (GE 2 at 13) Applicant contacted the creditor and confirmed that this bill
represents only one debt, and that the second listing on her credit report is erroneous.
(AE J) Currently, she is working to get it removed from her credit report. I find that
subparagraphs 1.i and 1.I are duplicates.
SOR subparagraph 1.m, totalling $300, is a speeding ticket. Applicant paid this
bill in December 2013. (AE H) 
He owes Applicant approximately $13,000 in back child support. (Tr. 34)2
4
 
Applicant does not receive any child support from her son’s father.  This makes it2
difficult for her to balance paying her delinquencies more quickly with keeping current
on unexpected expenses such as unusually high dental bills. (Tr. 43) 
Applicant earns between $68,000 and $70,000 annually. Her income is variable
depending upon how many hours she works on her part-time job. She does not
maintain a written budget, and is living paycheck to paycheck. (Tr. 42-44)
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. 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.” 
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 for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “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.”
(AG ¶ 18) Over the past five years Applicant has incurred approximately $23,000 of
delinquent debt. AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c),
“a history of not meeting financial obligations,” apply.
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:
5
 
(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; and 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
Applicant attributes her financial problems to the 2009 dissolution of her
relationship with her live-in significant other who abdicated his responsibility to help
satisfy bills that were incurred jointly. However, this was not the first time a relationship
ended and led to financial problems. In 2006, the dissolution of a relationship nearly led
to the foreclosure of Applicant’s home. Also, two years after breaking up with her most
recent significant other and experiencing related financial problems, she reconciled with
him and jointly purchased a time share property. Ultimately, the time share property was
foreclosed upon, Applicant and her significant other have separated again, and she is
once again saddled with a debt that they incurred jointly, but that he is failing to help her
pay. The recurrent nature of these problems renders AG ¶¶ 20(a) and 20(b)
inapplicable.
Currently, the only outstanding debts are the credit cards listed in subparagraphs
1.c and 1.k, and the time share property debt listed in subparagraph 1.h. However,
these debts constitute 82% of the total SOR debts. Moreover, Applicant does not
maintain a budget, and she is a month behind on her car note. Although the debt owed
to the creditor with whom she is financing her car was not alleged, it is relevant because
she testified that she will begin satisfying the time share account as soon as she
satisfies the car loan. Also, it demonstrates that her financial situation is not under
control and calls into question whether she is in a position to begin addressing the
remaining delinquent SOR debts. Consequently, Applicant’s payment of $4,100 of her
delinquent debt is sufficient to trigger AG 20(c), but is insufficient to apply AG ¶ 20(d).
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows: 
6
 
(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 recurrence of Applicant’s financial problems together with the absence of a
clear plan to satisfy her remaining debts renders her an unacceptable candidate for a
security clearance at this time.
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
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.d-1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.i - 1.j: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.l-1.m: For 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 a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge
7