1 
 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE    
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
  ) ISCR Case No. 14-00162 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant fell behind on some financial obligations during periods of low wage 
employment. He has started addressing his $20,000 in past-due debt, but it is too soon to 
conclude that his financial problems are behind him. Drug involvement concerns raised by 
his abuse of non-prescribed narcotics from 1999 to 2005 and again from June to September 
2009 are mitigated by the passage of time with no intent of future drug abuse. Clearance is 
denied.  
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On March 7, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the security 
concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, and Guideline H, Drug Involvement, 
and explaining why it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the national interest to 
grant a security clearance for him. The DOD CAF took the action under Executive Order 
10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as 
amended; Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel 
 
 
 2 
Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the 
adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant responded to the SOR allegations on April 4, 2014. He did not indicate 
whether he wanted a hearing before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). On April 14, 2014, the DOD CAF sent an email to 
Applicant asking whether he wanted a hearing or a decision based on the administrative 
record. On April 17, 2014, Applicant indicated that he wanted a judge to review his 
information. 
 
On May 7, 2014, the Government requested a hearing pursuant to paragraph E3.1.7 
of the Directive. By letter dated May 13, 2014, Department Counsel provided discovery of 
the potential Government exhibits (GEs) to Applicant. (Tr. 19.) On May 15, 2014, the case 
was assigned to me to conduct a hearing to determine whether it is clearly consistent with 
the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. On May 27, 
2014, I scheduled a hearing for June 17, 2014. 
 
I convened the hearing as scheduled. Four Government exhibits (GEs 1-4) were 
admitted into evidence without objection. A chart prepared by Department Counsel as a 
supplement to his oral closing argument was marked as a hearing exhibit (HE 1). Applicant 
testified, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on June 27, 2014. At Applicant’s request, 
I held the record open for two weeks for him to submit documentary evidence. On June 30, 
2014, Applicant submitted evidence of debt repayment arrangements. On July 9, 2014, 
Department Counsel indicated that the Government had no objection. Accordingly, 
Applicant’s June 30, 2014 email correspondence was accepted into the record as 
Applicant exhibit (AE) A, and the repayment documents were admitted as AEs B and C. 
 
Summary of SOR Allegations 
 
 The SOR alleges under Guideline F that as of March 7, 2014, Applicant owed 
$19,990 in delinquent debt (SOR 1.a-1.w). About $3,026 of the debt was for medical 
services, and $11,988 was owed on three student loan accounts in collection. Under 
Guideline H, Applicant is alleged to have used controlled narcotics (Percocet, Oxycodone, 
Hydrocodone, and Vicodin) without a prescription from 1999 to 2005 and from June 2009 
to September 2009 (SOR 2.a). When he answered the SOR, Applicant admitted the debts 
and the prescription drug abuse as alleged. He spent many years living from paycheck to 
paycheck, and he had no medical insurance when many of the debts were incurred. 
Applicant added that he was seeking debt consolidation assistance to resolve his credit 
issues quickly, and that he no longer accepts a written prescription for pain medications. At 
his hearing, he testified that he did not recognize the debts alleged in SOR 1.a, 1.d, and 
1.s. He disputed the balances claimed by the creditors in SOR 1.b and 1.u. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I make the following 
findings of fact: 
 
 3 
 
Applicant is a 33-year-old radiographer, who has been working for a defense 
contractor since January 2014. He came to his employer initially as a subcontractor around 
May 2013. (GEs 1, 3; Tr. 23, 26, 48.) Applicant has not previously held a DOD security 
clearance. He cannot progress in his department without a security clearance. (Tr. 24.) 
 
Applicant and his spouse have been together over ten years, although they did not 
marry until April 2013. (Tr. 21, 25.) They have a son, who is now four years old. Applicant’s 
spouse has two other sons ages 13 and 14, whom she raises with Applicant. Her boys’ 
biological father does not pay any child support. (GE 1; Tr. 25, 55.) 
 
In 1999, Applicant was prescribed narcotics to treat pain from a fracture. Over the 
next six years, he sporadically consumed 10 to 15 pills of Oxycodone (including Percocet) 
and Hydrocodone (including Lortab and Vicodin), which had not been prescribed for him, to 
cope with joint pain.
1
 He obtained the narcotics from his spouse, who had a prescription. 
(GE 3.) 
 
Applicant earned his graduate equivalency diploma (GED) in June 2000. It is 
unclear if Applicant was employed before June 2003, when he began working as a service 
assistant at a car dealership. From June 2004 to September 2004, Applicant was 
employed in the warehouse of a furniture outlet. From September 2004 to January 2005, 
he worked as a delivery driver for a company that rents household furnishings. In January 
2005, he took a sales position with an automobile dealer, but he stayed only four months. 
From April 2005 to June 2008, Applicant worked as a vendor for a merchandising 
company. He took a second job on evenings and weekends at an amusement park in June 
2008, and shortly thereafter, he left the merchandising company to work as a security 
supervisor for the amusement park full time. (GEs 1, 3; Tr. 35.) Applicant earned relatively 
low wages in these jobs. He had no health insurance coverage when employed by the 
amusement park, and he incurred medical expenses for physician and emergency room 
treatment. (Tr. 22, 35-36.) Several medical debts went unpaid because providing for his 
family took priority. (GEs 2-4.) 
 
In June 2009, Applicant was injured in a recreational contest. Applicant was 
prescribed Vicodin. After he finished his prescription, he took Percocet, at least two pills a 
day until September 2009, which he obtained from friends at no cost. (GEs 1, 3; Tr. 56-57.) 
Applicant obtained his own prescription for Percocet in September 2011, although on a 
couple of occasions from 2010 to 2011, he may have consumed some narcotics from a 
friend’s prescription to deal with his back pain.
2
 (Tr. 60-61.) 
                                                 
1 
During his October 2013 subject interview, Applicant reportedly indicated that he had abused prescription 
medications between 1999 and 2005, ingesting sporadically 10 to 15 pills of “Percocet, Laura Tabs, 
Oxycodone, Hydrocodone, and Vicodin.” (GE 3.) “Laura Tabs” is likely Lortab, which, like Vicodin, is a 
hydrocodone-combination narcotic. Percocet is an oxycodone drug. 
 
2 
Applicant testified that the last time he used a prescription drug without a valid prescription was “in probably 
2009 to 2010.” He went on to state, “I can recall where a doctor didn’t prescribe and I found out, you know, my 
buddy had some left over and I asked him, hey, can I have them.” (Tr. 60-61.) Applicant gave estimated dates 
of June 2009 to June 2011 for his prescription drug abuse in the last seven years. (GE 1.) When asked about 
 
 4 
 
In addition to being employed full-time at the amusement park, Applicant took online 
courses at a for-profit university, about four hours a week between July 2009 and June 
2010.
3
 In June 2009, he incurred a $245 fee with the educational institution, which was 
paid after being charged off. In July 2009, he opened two federal student loans, of $3,500 
(SOR 1.q) and $6,000 (SOR 1.o). In March 2010, he took on another $3,500 in federal 
student loan debt (SOR 1.p). Applicant testified that he applied for a deferment of his 
student loans some time ago, but he received no response, presumably because he had 
moved. He did not follow up because he could not pay the loans. (Tr. 22, 37-38.) Around 
May 2012, the student loan debts were referred for collection. (GE 2.) 
 
Applicant’s spouse stopped working in 2009, while she was pregnant with the 
couple’s son. Applicant found it difficult to maintain full-time employment as well as his 
online studies, so he stopped taking classes after completing one academic year. (Tr. 22.) 
 
In April 2010, Applicant began working in his present field of industrial radiography. 
(GEs 1, 3; Tr. 23.) He continued to struggle financially on an hourly wage of $15, which 
was not enough to support a family of five and pay all his debts. Around May 2013, 
Applicant’s services were contracted out by his then employer to his current employer. He 
rented a residence while continuing to pay all the household expenses (e.g., groceries, 
utilities, and rent) for his spouse and children, who did not move with him. (Tr. 27.) 
Applicant also incurred transportation costs to visit his family, including two to three trips by 
plane and one by car. (Tr. 28-29.) 
 
On September 5, 2013, Applicant completed and certified to the accuracy of an 
Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP). He responded “Yes” to 
inquiry into whether he had misused any prescription drug in the last seven years. 
Applicant disclosed that he had abused an “UNKNOWN” prescription drug between June 
2009 and June 2011, and added, “I WAS HURT IN A RECREATIONAL CONTEST AND 
USED MANY OF MY FRIENDS PERSCRPTION [sic] PAIN MEDS.” Applicant also 
answered “Yes” to delinquencies involving routine accounts. He listed $3,169 in medical 
bills in collection (SOR 1.g-1.m) with a repayment plan arranged; $1,134 in defaulted 
student loan debt (SOR 1.o-1.q); a $771 credit card debt in collection that he had not 
known about before he obtained his credit report in 2013 (SOR 1.u); and a $1,354 disputed 
cable services debt (SOR 1.b), which he asserted was paid in July 2012. (GE 1.) 
 
                                                                                                                                                             
that drug abuse during his interview, Applicant indicated that after his prescription for Vicodin expired, he 
obtained Percocet from some acquaintances. He took at least two Percocet pills a day from June 2009 to 
about September 2009, but that he had prescriptions for the Percocet from September 2009 to June 2011. 
(GE 3.) Applicant’s abuse of narcotics may well have continued to 2010 or 2011, although the evidence is 
inconclusive. 
 
3 
Applicant indicated that he took the online classes from approximately September 2008 to June 2009. (GEs 
1, 3.) However, available credit information indicates that he took on student loan debt in July and August 
2009. It is likely that he took the classes one year later than he indicated on his e-QIP. He testified at his 
hearing that he was enrolled in classes “right before [his son] was born.” (Tr. 37.) His son was born in October 
2009. (GE 1.) 
 
 5 
As of September 19, 2013, Applicant’s credit record was showing several delinquent 
debts. In addition to the debts Applicant reported on his e-QIP, he reportedly owed a $31 
collection debt (SOR 1.a); a $508 cable services debt from March 2011 (SOR 1.c); a $450 
unidentified medical debt from March 2012 (SOR 1.d); a $370 power company debt from 
December 2007 (SOR 1.e); a $593 medical debt placed for collection in July 2013 (SOR 
1.f); a $308 natural gas debt from December 2006 (SOR 1.n); $147 in gym membership 
fees incurred before 2010 (SOR 1.r); medical debts of $80 (SOR 1.s) and $100 (SOR 1.t) 
in collection; $291 for a television from 2008 (SOR 1.v); and $843 for a washer and dryer 
from 2008 (SOR 1.w.) (GE 2.) 
 
 On October 15, 2013, Applicant was interviewed about his prescription drug abuse 
and his delinquent accounts by an authorized investigator for the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM). Applicant indicated that he had misused prescription drugs in addition 
to that abuse disclosed on his e-QIP. He explained that he had sporadically consumed 10-
15 pills of opiate-based narcotics from 1999 to 2005 from his spouse’s prescription. 
Concerning his more recent drug abuse, he obtained Percocet without a valid prescription 
at times between June 2009 and June 2011 to alleviate pain throughout his body. 
Applicant denied any intent to abuse a prescription drug in the future. He had no current 
contact information for the three “acquaintances” who supplied him with narcotics from their 
prescriptions. (GE 3.) 
 
 About his disclosed financial issues, Applicant indicated that he owed a $3,169 
medical debt in collection to a local hospital for treatment received in June 2005. He 
arranged to repay the debt at $100 a month. The $771 debt on his e-QIP was for consumer 
credit purchases. He planned to resolve the student loan, credit card, and $1,354 cable 
services debts by the end of 2013. When confronted about the additional delinquencies on 
his credit record, Applicant did not dispute the debts identified in SOR 1.a, 1.c-1.d, 1.f, 1.n-
1.p, and 1.s, but he had no information about the debts. He did not dispute the medical 
debts in SOR 1.g-1.m, in that he had listed the aggregate balance of those accounts on his 
e-QIP. Applicant denied knowledge of a collection balance owed the power company in 
SOR 1.e. He indicated that the $1,134 debt listed on his e-QIP was a student loan debt in 
collection, but also that the $1,134 debt was the total of the $291 and $843 collection 
balances alleged in SOR 1.u and 1.v. Applicant attributed his debts to low-paying periods 
of employment, and he expressed his intent to contact all his creditors and bring all debts 
current. (GE 3.) 
 
In January 2014, Applicant became a full-time employee of the defense contractor 
at an hourly wage of $27.04. (Tr. 23-24.) Applicant saw it as an opportunity to better 
himself, provide for his family, and address his debt. (Tr. 23, 26.) In early March 2014, 
Applicant and his family were reunited. Applicant incurred about $800 in U-Haul costs and 
$400 to $500 for fuel to drive his family north. (Tr. 27-29.) They sold what could not fit into 
the U-Haul, so they needed some furnishings for their new residence (“living room place to 
sit, we got a washer and dryer and just some of the boys’ bedroom stuff we had to leave 
behind”). (Tr. 51.) Applicant pays $80 a week for the washer and dryer. (Tr. 52-53.) 
 
 
 6 
On March 7, 2014, the DOD CAF issued an SOR to Applicant alleging delinquent 
debt and prescription drug abuse. On receipt of the SOR, Applicant obtained his credit 
record and began contacting the listed creditors to verify his debts. (Tr. 34.) As of May 13, 
2014, Equifax Information Services was reporting delinquent debt balances totaling 
$17,692, which included the following balances:  SOR 1.b ($1,354), 1.c ($508), 1.d ($450), 
1.e ($370), 1.o ($8,038), 1.p ($149), 1.q ($4,222), 1.u ($803, disputed), 1.v ($291), and 1.w 
($843). Medical balances of $57 and $407 from May 2010 had been placed for collection in 
March 2014. (GE 4.) 
 
 As of his hearing on June 17, 2014, Applicant did not recognize the $31 collection 
debt (SOR 1.a) or the medical debts in SOR 1.d and 1.s. (Tr. 31, 33, 39.) He disputed the 
balance of the cable services debt (SOR 1.b) on the basis that he had returned equipment 
for which he was being charged. (Tr. 32.) He also disputed the credit card delinquency 
(SOR 1.u) in that he had not used the credit card. Applicant claimed that the washer and 
dryer debt (SOR 1.w) had been paid. (Tr. 40.) Applicant admitted that he had not made any 
payments on his delinquent debts, including his acknowledged debts. (Tr. 31.) He was not 
sure about the best means to address his accounts. Applicant and his spouse discussed 
possibly obtained professional assistance from a credit counselor to consolidate his debt. 
He did not consider bankruptcy a viable option because his debt is manageable. (Tr. 22, 
50-51.) He expressed plans to take care of all his delinquencies within the next two years. 
(Tr. 24.) 
 
 On or before June 19, 2014, Applicant contacted the assignee collecting the medical 
debts identified in SOR 1.g-1.m. Applicant was informed that he could not consolidate the 
debt, but rather that he would have to satisfy each debt in full separately. (AE A). The 
assignee agreed to accept two payments of $50 each, due on June 27, 2014, and on July 
27, 2014, to satisfy a $100 debt in collection placed by a hospital (likely SOR 1.j). (AE C.) 
Applicant provided no evidence showing that he made the first payment by the due date. 
On June 30, 2014, he indicated that he was working diligently to improve his credit 
standing. (AE A.) 
 
 Applicant has been working on third shift seven days a week since at least January 
2014. He expects overtime to be “pretty steady for probably the next year or two.” His take-
home pay is $1,700 a week with his overtime earnings. Applicant and his family rent a 
house at $1,800 a month (Tr. 41-42), which is about what he had been paying for two 
residences before his family joined him in March 2014. He testified that his utility costs are 
lower now that he does not have to cover two separate households (Tr. 28), but also that 
the electricity costs of $300 to $320 per month are “killing” him. Applicant is on a budget 
plan for heating where he pays $165 per month for oil. Groceries run about $250 a week 
and gasoline about $60 a week. Applicant and his spouse pay about $120 for cable 
services and $250 for cell phones a month. (Tr. 43-44.) Applicant pays $45 every week for 
car insurance, which is automatically deducted from his wages. (Tr. 46) 
 
 Applicant and his spouse have one car. In January 2014, Applicant purchased a 
2004 model-year vehicle, which he financed through a $10,208 loan. Applicant pays $302 
per month on the loan. Applicant has not missed any payments. (GE 4; Tr. 42-43.) For the 
 
 7 
past year, Applicant’s spouse has been paying $100 per month toward her student loans, 
which are apparently delinquent. Applicant does not know the total of his spouse’s student 
loan debt. (Tr. 44, 56.) A paralegal, she is currently looking for work. She has been out of 
the workforce since 2009. (Tr. 30.) 
 
 Applicant attributes some of his and his spouse’s financial problems to poor 
budgeting on their part. (Tr. 46.) He was behind on their natural gas bill in May 2014. (Tr. 
50.) Applicant has about $450 in checking account deposits and nothing in savings. (Tr. 
47.) 
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  emphasizing 
that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 
U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, 
the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be considered 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 the adjudicative 
process. The administrative judge’s overall 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 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.” In reaching this decision, I have 
drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence 
contained in the record. 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 to obtain a favorable security 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. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk 
that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. 
Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, 
rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of Executive 
 
 8 
Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “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 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern about 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. 
 
 The SOR alleges that Applicant owed on 24 delinquent accounts, totaling $19,990 in 
outstanding debt, as of March 7, 2014. Financial judgment concerns arise under AG ¶ 
19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting 
financial obligations” because of Applicant’s delinquent accounts. Due to interest on the 
credit card debt and the student loans, his total delinquency was approximately $20,000 as 
of May 2014. 
 
When Applicant answered the SOR, he admitted all the delinquent debts. However, 
after reviewing his credit report and contacting some of his creditors, he was unable to 
verify the debts in SOR 1.a, 1.d, and 1.s. He disputes the balance claimed by the cable 
company in SOR 1.b in that he is being charged for cable equipment which he returned. 
Applicant also denies that he owes the credit card delinquency in SOR 1.u, claiming he 
never used the account. In addition, he asserts that he paid off the washer and dryer debt 
covered in SOR 1.w. 
 
AG ¶ 20(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,” 
is satisfied only with respect to SOR 1.a. Neither the $31 debt in SOR 1.a nor the $80 
medical debt in SOR 1.s was on Equifax’s May 2014 report of Applicant’s credit (see GE 
4). While I recognize that a creditor may not list a debt with all three credit bureaus, Equifax 
was the sole credit agency reporting the debt in SOR 1.a on Applicant’s credit as of 
September 2013, and it has been dropped from his credit record by Equifax. The medical 
debt in SOR 1.s was listed as an active collection debt by Trans Union as of September 
2013. The medical debt in SOR 1.d is on his September 2013 and May 2014 credit reports. 
Applicant admits that he incurred several medical debts in the past, which he could not 
pay. The cable debt in SOR 1.b and the credit card debt in SOR 1.u are listed as past due 
 
 9 
on his credit record as of May 2014.
4
 He presented no documentation to corroborate that 
he turned in the cable equipment and that he did not incur the credit card debt. Applicant 
listed the credit card debt on his e-QIP. Without any evidence proving payment of the $843 
debt in SOR 1.w, which was apparently for a washer and dryer, AG ¶ 20(e) is also not 
satisfied as to that debt. The debt is still on his credit record as an outstanding collection 
debt as of May 2014.  
 
 Concerning the other mitigating conditions, AG ¶ 20(a), “the behavior happened so 
long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and 
does not cast doubt on the individual’s current, reliability, or good judgment,” applies only in 
that some of the debts were incurred some time ago. Last activity on the credit card debt 
(SOR 1.u) was in February 2008. The utility debts in SOR 1.e and 1.n are from December 
2007 and December 2006, respectively. Yet his student loan default is relatively recent. 
Medical debts of $407 and $57 (not in SOR) from May 2010 were referred for collection in 
March 2014.
5
 Moreover, he had made no payments on his long overdue accounts as of his 
hearing on June 17, 2014. AG ¶ 20(a) does not mitigate the financial judgment concerns 
raised by unaddressed delinquency. 
 
 Applicant’s financial problems were caused in part by low-paying work and a period 
without health insurance. Applicant provided no detail about his wage earnings with the 
amusement park, but some of the medical debts (e.g., 1.h, 1.i, 1.m) were incurred during 
that employment, when he had no medical coverage. Many of his other debts, including 
some medical accounts, were referred for collection after he switched fields to industrial 
radiography in April 2010. His wage was only $15 an hour, which was insufficient to both 
support his family of five and cover all of his debt obligations, including his student loans. 
AG ¶ 20(b) is implicated with respect to incurring the delinquencies: 
 
(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. 
 
                                                 
4 
In ISCR Case No. 08-12184 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 7, 2010), the Appeal Board explained:  
 
It is well-settled that adverse information from a credit report can normally meet the 
substantial evidence standard and the government’s obligations under [Directive] ¶ E3.1.14 
for pertinent allegations. At that point, the burden shifts to applicant to establish either that 
[he] is not responsible for the debt or that matters in mitigation apply.  
 
(internal citation omitted). 
 
5 
The DOHA Appeal Board has long held that the administrative judge may consider non-alleged conduct to 
assess an applicant’s credibility; to evaluate an applicant’s evidence of extenuation, mitigation, or changed 
circumstances; to consider whether an applicant has demonstrated successful rehabilitation; to decide 
whether a particular provision of the Adjudicative Guidelines is applicable; or to provide evidence for a whole 
person analysis under Section 6.3 of the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-20327 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 
2006); ISCR Case No. 09-07219 (App. Bd. Sep. 27, 2012). 
 
 
 10 
 For AG ¶ 20(b) to fully apply, Applicant must show that he acted responsibly under 
the circumstances. Applicant’s spouse stopped working when she was pregnant with their 
son in 2009, so Applicant became the sole provider for his family. He supported two 
households from May 2013 until March 2014. There is no evidence that Applicant was paid 
more than his $15 hourly wage or that he received temporary duty or hardship pay when he 
worked as a subcontractor for his current employer. Applicant was made aware during his 
October 2013 subject interview that the delinquent debt on his credit record was more 
extensive than he had realized when he completed his e-QIP. However, Applicant could 
not afford to address his debts, at least not before he was hired by his current employer. 
 
 Since Applicant began working directly for his employer in January 2014, he has 
routinely worked seven days a week. On an hourly wage of $27.04, he takes home about 
$1,700 a week. His reported ongoing monthly expenses of $4,617 do not include any costs 
for car maintenance, or clothing, activities, or personal care for himself or his family,
6
 so his 
expenses are likely somewhat higher than his estimate. In March 2014, Applicant spent 
between $1,200 and $1,300 to move his family. His priority was understandably stabilizing 
his family’s finances and living situation over the last six months, but even so, he has over 
$1,000 in reported monthly income for which he cannot account other than to indicate that 
he had to acquire some furnishings for his residence. To the extent that AG ¶ 20(b) 
applies, it does not fully mitigate the financial judgment concerns or the financial pressures 
that arise because of $20,000 in delinquent debt, which includes over $12,000 in defaulted 
federal student loans. 
 
 Applicant told the OPM investigator in October 2013 that he had arranged to make 
payments of $100 per month toward $3,169 in aggregate medical debt held by the 
assignee in SOR 1.g-1.m. He also indicated that he planned to resolve some of his other 
debts (e.g., SOR 1.u) by the year’s end. There is no evidence that he made any of the 
$100 payments or that he resolved any other debt issues by the end of 2013. Nonetheless, 
both 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,” and AG ¶ 
20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise 
resolve debts,” must be considered. After Applicant received the SOR, he began contacting 
his creditors. He indicated in his Answer to the SOR allegations that he was actively 
seeking debt consolidation assistance. As of his June 17, 2014 hearing, Applicant had 
made no payments on the debts, partially because he was not sure about how to resolve 
them. Two days later, Applicant arranged to start repaying the first of several medical 
debts. On June 25, 2014, he enrolled in a student loan rehabilitation program.
7
 Applicant 
                                                 
6 
The $4,617 figure is based on $1,800 for rent, $1,000 for groceries, $320 for a washer and dryer, $165 for oil, 
$240 for gasoline, $320 for electricity, $250 for cell phone service, $120 for cable service, $100 for his 
spouse’s student loans, and $302 for his car loan. (Tr. 45, 52.)  
 
7 
Department Counsel indicated in his closing argument that while he was being careful not to advise Applicant 
of a certain course of action about his debts, it was often the case that one can rehabilitate a student loan in 
six months under a payment agreement. (Tr. 68.) It is unclear whether Applicant considered the option of loan 
rehabilitation before his hearing. He showed some degree of good faith by acting promptly to address some of 
the DOD’s concerns. 
 
 
 11 
showed a willingness to address the DOD’s concerns. Yet it is difficult to fully apply either 
AG ¶ 20(c) or AG ¶ 20(d) with at most two payments ($131 on his student loans and $50 
on a $100 medical debt) on his past-due debts.
8
 The DOHA Appeal Board has indicated 
that the concept of “good faith” under AG ¶ 20(d) requires that a person act in a way that 
shows “reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.” See 
e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-30304 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004). Applicant’s financial difficulties 
may have initially arose, in whole or in part, due to circumstances outside of his control, but 
his very belated efforts to address his debts are not enough to fully overcome the financial 
considerations concerns. 
 
Guideline H, Drug Involvement 
 
The security concern for drug involvement is set out in AG ¶ 24: 
 
Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions 
about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may 
impair judgment and because it raises questions about a person’s ability or 
willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. 
 
Under AG ¶ 24(a), drugs are defined as “mood and behavior altering substances,” 
and include: 
 
(1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified and listed in 
the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended (e.g., marijuana or 
cannabis, depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens),
9
 and 
 
(2) inhalants and other similar substances. 
 
 Under AG ¶ 24(b), drug abuse is defined as “the illegal use of a drug or use of a 
legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical direction.” Disqualifying 
condition AG ¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse,” applies because Applicant used narcotics, which 
had not been prescribed for him, from 1999 to 2005 and from June 2009 to September 
2009, as alleged in the SOR. Furthermore, he indicated on his e-QIP that his abuse of 
prescription narcotics obtained from friends continued to approximately June 2011. He told 
an OPM investigator that he had a prescription for Percocet from September 2009 to June 
2011, and he testified at his hearing that he last misused a prescription narcotic “back in 
probably 2009 to 2010.” (Tr. 60.) His narcotic drug abuse may well have been as recent as 
June 2011, although the evidence is inconclusive. Applicant’s use of a narcotic from 
                                                 
8 
On June 30, 2014, Applicant forwarded a copy of two payment coupons for the first medical debt that he “is 
paying.” The first $50 payment was due June 27, 2014. (AE C.) He provided no evidence that he had made 
that payment on time. 
 
9
Schedules I, II, III, IV, and V, as referred to in the Controlled Substances Act, are contained in 21 U.S.C. § 
812(c). The prescription narcotics Vicodin, Percocet, and Lortab are Schedule II drugs. Schedule II drugs are 
defined as those drugs with a high potential for abuse; have a currently accepted medical use in treatment in 
the United States (or a currently accepted medical use with severe restrictions); and abuse of the drug may 
lead to severe psychological or physical dependence. 
 
 12 
someone else’s prescription is clearly drug abuse, even if it was for pain and not for 
recreational purposes. 
 
  The recurrence of Applicant’s drug abuse in 2009, after apparently four years of no 
abuse, precludes me from applying mitigating condition AG ¶ 26(a): 
 
(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened 
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt 
on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. 
 
 Applicant denies any intent to abuse any prescription drug in the future. Under 
mitigating condition AG ¶ 26(b), “a demonstrated intent not to abuse any drugs in the 
future” may be shown by the following: 
 
(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts; 
 
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; 
 
(3) an appropriate period of abstinence; 
 
(4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for 
any violation. 
 
 Applicant’s candor about his prescription drug abuse on his e-QIP and at his hearing 
leads me to accept that he intends no future drug abuse. Applicant indicated, with no 
evidence to the contrary, that he has no current contact information from those friends who 
provided him some of their prescription narcotics. Applicant is no longer living in the same 
area of the country where his prescription drug abuse occurred. Applicant cannot be said to 
have completely avoided the persons who contributed to his prescription drug abuse 
because he took some of his spouse’s narcotics in the past. While there is no evidence 
that Applicant’s spouse is currently taking any prescribed drugs, AG ¶ 26(b)(1) and AG ¶ 
26(b)(2) are only partially satisfied. 
 
 Applicant last abused a prescription drug in or before June 2011. In deciding 
whether his present three or four years of no abuse qualifies as an appropriate period of 
abstinence under AG ¶ 26(b)(3), Applicant relapsed in 2009 after a similar period of 
abstinence from 2005 to 2009. Yet, the catalyst for his relapse was an injury sustained in a 
recreational contest and not a desire to get high from the drugs. Applicant exercised poor 
judgment when he took narcotics without a valid prescription, but to avoid recurrence of 
such drug abuse, he no longer accepts a prescription for pain medications. AG ¶ 26(b) 
applies in mitigation of his abuse of prescription narcotics. 
 
 13 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the totality 
of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative 
process factors in AG ¶ 2(a).
10
 
 
Applicant’s financial delinquencies include about $3,789 in non-discretionary 
medical debt, but most of his past-due debt was voluntarily incurred. Of his $20,000 in 
delinquent debt, Applicant has paid less than $200. Unresolved debt is not necessarily a 
bar to having access to classified information. As noted by the DOHA Appeal Board, a 
security clearance adjudication is not a proceeding aimed at collecting an applicant’s 
personal debts. See ISCR Case No. 09-02160 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010.) The purpose is to 
determine whether an applicant has the judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness for a 
security clearance consistent with the guidelines in the Directive. 
 
In making the whole-person assessment required under the Directive, an applicant 
is not required, as a matter of law, to establish resolution of every debt alleged in the SOR. 
An applicant need only establish a plan to resolve financial problems and take significant 
actions to implement the plan. See ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 
2008). Applicant’s post-hearing repayment arrangements toward resolving his debts with 
the creditors who hold most of his debt (SOR 1.f-1.m and 1.o-1.q) weigh in his favor, but 
they are too recent to establish a track record of financially responsible behavior toward his 
creditors. Concerns persist about his financial judgment, given he was behind on his 
natural gas bill in May 2014. Applicant and his spouse pay $250 a month for cell phone 
service, which is difficult to justify in light of their past-due obligations, including her 
delinquent student loans. Applicant cannot be said to have a good handle on his household 
finances where he does not know the balance of his spouse’s student loan debt. He 
candidly admitted that poor budgeting by him and his spouse has contributed to their 
financial difficulties (“We’ve been trying to, basically, grow up and budget ourselves, so that 
(a) I can get taken care of what I need to get taken care of and her do the same.”). (Tr. 46.) 
He has not had any financial counseling, even though he could use some assistance in 
budgeting for his expenses. 
 
Applicant presented as very candid and sincere about his desire to rectify his 
financial situation, and to avoid any prescription drug abuse in the future. Even so, it is well 
settled that once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, 
there is a strong presumption against the grant or renewal of a security clearance. See 
Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9
th
 Cir. 1990.). Unmitigated financial 
                                                 
10 
The factors under AG ¶ 2(a) are as follows: 
 
(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. 
 
 14 
considerations concerns lead me to conclude that grant of a security clearance to Applicant 
is not warranted at this time. This decision should not be construed as a determination that 
Applicant cannot or will not attain the state of reform necessary to justify the award of a 
security clearance in the future. Should Applicant be afforded an opportunity to reapply for 
a security clearance, having paid his past-due debts or established compliance with 
repayment plans, he may well be able to demonstrate persuasive evidence of his security 
clearance worthiness. Based on the facts before me and the adjudicative guidelines that I 
am required to consider, I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest 
to grant Applicant security clearance eligibility 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:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 1.a:   For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.b:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.c:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.d:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.e:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.f:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.g:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.h:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.i:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.j:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.k:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.l:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.m:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.n:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.o:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.p:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.q:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.r:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.s:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.t:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.u:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.v:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.w:  Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Drug Involvement:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
   Subparagraph 2.a:  For Applicant 
 
 15 
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. 
 
 
___________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge