1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)         ISCR Case No. 14-00325
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Philip J. Katauskas, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MASON Paul J., Administrative Judge:
In the 14-year-period that Applicant was married to her first husband, she and three
of her four children had to endure steady physical and mental abuse. A 2010 criminal
investigation led to her husband’s conviction for very serious sexual crimes and at least a
20-year sentence in September 2012. During the criminal investigation, the state’s district
attorney informed Applicant that the examinations and treatment caused by the abuse
would be paid by the state’s witness protection program. Twelve of the 17 listed delinquent
accounts are connected to the examinations she received during the investigation. While
an applicant’s promises to resolve debts in the future are generally not mitigating, under
the unique circumstances of this case, I am confident that Applicant will be proactive and
aggressively address the twelve delinquent medical accounts and five other obligations in
a responsible manner. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
2
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and signed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP), Government’s exhibit (GE) 1, on August 26, 2013. She was
interviewed by an investigator from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on
September 19, 2013. (GE 2) 
On March 4, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under the financial considerations guideline
(Guideline F). The action was taken pursuant to 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 Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant’s answer to the SOR was notarized on April 2, 2014. The Defense Office
of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on May 13, 2014, for a hearing
on June 6, 2014. The hearing was held as scheduled. GE 1-GE 4 and Applicant’s exhibits
(AE A and B) were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified. Her two post-
hearing submissions were admitted into the record without objection. AE C represents her
closing statement. AE D is a character statement from a friend and former coworker. The
transcript (Tr.) was received on June 16, 2014. The record closed on June 23, 2014.
Findings of Fact
Twelve of the seventeen accounts alleged in the SOR are medical bills. Four of the
12 medical accounts became judgments between 2010 and March 2013. The other five
accounts represent a judgment for unpaid rent totaling $1,600 (SOR 1.e), a charged-off
auto installment loan in the amount of $13,892 (SOR 1.f), a credit card account ($99) that
was past due by 30 days (1.g), an auto insurance premium ($348) in collection (1.k), and
a delinquent cable account ($338) in collection (SOR 1.l). Applicant admitted all accounts
except SOR 1.h, 1.i, and 1.j. She subsequently learned that the three accounts totaling
$752 are additional medical accounts that she believes will be paid by the state’s witness
protection program. (AE C) The entire list of accounts, which total $19,620, became
delinquent between 2009 and 2013. The installment loan (SOR 1.f) represents more than
50% of Applicant’s total debt. She intends to make the necessary arrangements to satisfy
all delinquent accounts. 
Applicant is 39 years old. She was married to her first husband from September
1996 to July 2013. She has four children, two sons and two daughters, from that marriage.
Their ages range from 16 to five. She remarried in August 2013 and is seven months
pregnant. 
3
Applicant’s associates degree in June 2002 and bachelor’s degree in September
2008, were both in computer information systems. In December 2010, she obtained a
master’s degree in business administration. (GE 1 at 12; Tr. 56) 
From March 1999 to April 2007, Applicant was employed as a project planner by a
defense contractor. Following an 11-month layoff, she returned to work for her employer
as a program manager from November 2008 to May 2013, when she was laid off again.
From August 2013 to the present, Applicant has been employed as a program scheduler
by her employer. During her three periods of unemployment, Applicant supported her family
with her severance pay while searching for employment. Applicant has no criminal record
and has never been involved in an offense involving alcohol or drugs. (GE 1 at 13-16, 27-
30; GE 2 at 1) 
Background for Financial Problems
Throughout Applicant’s first marriage, her husband was physically and mentally
abusive to the family. He was an alcoholic who did not like rules. The primary reasons for
the family’s financial problems were her husband’s refusal to let Applicant participate in
managing the family finances and his resistance to paying family debts. Applicant was
denied a security clearance in approximately February 2001 because of the family’s
financial problems. The December 2010 judgment for unpaid rent (SOR 1.e) was filed
against Applicant because of her husband’s refusal to comply with the rental association’s
rule against keeping live chickens on rental property. She noted in her e-QIP that she had
made an unspecified number of monthly payments of $100 to the landlord, though copies
of canceled checks were no longer available. (GE 1 at 30, 32-33; GE 2 at 2-19; AE C; Tr.
22, 27-29)
In 2010, the state launched a criminal investigation against Applicant’s husband for
the continuing physical and mental abuse. Being a state witness as well as a victim of the
crimes, e.g., forcible sodomy, object penetration, Applicant underwent physical and mental
examinations and tests to determine the extent of damage to her body and mind. She
received treatment. At the beginning of the investigation, she was advised by the state’s
attorney that her medical bills would be paid by the state’s witness protection program. The
medical bills cited at SOR 1.a-1.d, 1.h-1.j, and 1.m-1.q, have not been paid. SOR 1.a-1.d
became judgments because the state’s witness protection program accepts only original
bills generated by the hospitals where Applicant was examined or treated. She resolved
an unlisted medical account after collection. (GE 2 at 2-19; GE 3 at 10; AE B; Tr. 21-22, 25,
36-37)
In July 2011, when Applicant’s former husband moved the family into a trailer with
no utilities, the physical and mental abuse continued. Applicant recalled sustaining facial
bruises after she was hurled from one side of the trailer to the other. When her coworkers
4
saw her bruises the next day, their offers of support influenced her to escape with her
children two days later. She had not attempted to flee the abusive relationship earlier
because of her intense belief that her husband would find her, regardless of where she
sought safety. Her friends and coworkers helped her escape and go into hiding at a motel.
In August 2011, her husband was arrested for assaulting another woman whom Applicant
knew. On September 20, 2012, her husband plead guilty to forcible sodomy, malicious
wounding, abducting a person with intent to defile, and object penetration. He received
suspended sentences for all the offenses except for the intent to defile offense, which he
received a 20-year sentence (60-year sentence with 40 years suspended). On July 24,
2014, he is scheduled to appear in court for continuing to contact the victim (Applicant), a
violation of one of the terms of his September 2014 suspended sentences. (AE B; Tr. 37-
39, 41, 46-47)
The family’s escape was beneficial to Applicant’s children because they were freed
from the husband’s inadequate attempt to home school them. After he was arrested,
Applicant enrolled the children in public school. (Tr. 42-43) Concerning the effect of the
abuse on Applicant’s children, the three oldest had extensive counseling. Her 16-year-old
son attended a military school where he received focused counseling and therapy. The cost
was paid by the state’s witness protection program. The son completed the military school
and is currently doing very well in public school. Her 12-year-old-daughter, who had trust
issues with males, has received counseling and is demonstrating considerable
improvement. Applicant’s eight-year-old son had communication problems when the family
escaped. Afterwards, he received speech and language therapy. He continues to receive
extensive speech therapy so that he can proceed into his appropriate grade level.
Applicant’s five-year-old daughter was too young to remember the ordeal and is doing fine.
(Tr. 40-43)
Because she needed better transportation for her children, Applicant purchased a
reliable used car (SOR 1.f) in early 2013, and made four monthly payments on the car. She
was unaware that she would be laid off in May 2013. After the lay off, she could not
continue installment payments and returned the car to the dealer. She intends to make
payment arrangements to satisfy the debt. (GE 3 at 11; Tr. 23, 30-31, 49-51)
Character Evidence
Applicant submitted two character statements. A manager of the sustainment
support division of her employer wrote on June 3, 2014, that Applicant joined his team in
early 2000 as an office manager and administrator. She provided valuable services to the
government customer. She received additional responsibility as a budget analyst and
program manager on an expanding project. However, the project expired when the
government contract ended. As soon as a position opened within the manager’s current
program, he brought Applicant back to work on facets of the program. (AE A)
5
In an undated character endorsement, a former worker and friend indicated that he
has known Applicant for 14 years. She has always demonstrated her security
consciousness. The friend recalled Applicant receiving a company award for her job
performance while assigned as a program manager. The friend considers Applicant to be
a trustworthy person. (AE D) 
In her closing statement, Applicant reiterated the abuse and violence she endured
for more than 14 years. She also mentioned her accomplishments since she started
working for her employer in 1999. She intends to contact a financial counselor to tackle her
outstanding debt. She also can rely on her course work in accounting to help her regain
control over her finances. (AE C; Tr. 56)
Policies
When evaluating an applicant's suitability for a security clearance, the administrative
judge must consider the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions of the AG. These
conditions should be evaluated in the context of nine general factors known as the whole-
person concept to bring together all available, reliable information about the person, past
and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision regarding security clearance
eligibility. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant
may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to 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. . . ." An applicant
has the ultimate burden of persuasion of establishing that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him a security clearance. 
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
6
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.
The applicable disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19 are: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Applicant is unable to satisfy 17 medical and commercial debts totaling $19,620,
which became delinquent between 2009 and 2013. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) apply. 
The mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 that are potentially pertinent are: 
(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; and 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts. 
Two medical accounts became delinquent in 2009 and four medical accounts
became judgments between 2010 and 2013. While all the delinquent accounts are still
outstanding, the accumulation of these debts occurred under circumstances that are
unlikely to be repeated. With the help of coworkers, Applicant and her family finally escaped
from her husband in July 2011. He was incarcerated in August 2011. She officially divorced
him in July 2013. With treatment, she and three of her children are slowly putting their lives
back in order. Applicant receives limited mitigation under AG ¶ 20(a).
As Applicant stated several times in her interview summary which she reiterated at
the hearing, her former husband inflicted continuous physical and mental abuse on her
during their 14-year-marriage. I find her testimony credible. The husband refused to give
7
Applicant financial responsibilities, was averse to paying bills, and did not like following
rules. The constant abuse prevented Applicant from acting responsibly under the
circumstances until she and her family got away from her husband in July 2011. Applicant
receives limited mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b).
AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) do not apply because Applicant does not have control over
her financial problems since she has not taken any action to resolve the listed debts. 
Whole-Person Concept 
I have examined the evidence under the disqualifying and mitigating conditions of
the financial considerations guideline. I have also weighed the circumstances 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:
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.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be a commonsense judgment based on careful consideration of
the guidelines and the whole-person concept.
Applicant is 39 years old and has four children, ages 16 to five. She is expecting the
birth of her fifth child. Between 2002 and 2011, she received two degrees in computer
information systems and a master’s degree in business administration. Based on
Applicant’s commendable job performance record, the manager of the sustainment support
division of her employer rehired her to develop key components of his current program.
Applicant’s friend and former coworker considers Applicant to be a trustworthy person.  
Between 2009 and 2013, Applicant incurred $19,620 in listed delinquent debts.
Twelve of those debts are medical bills for physical and mental abuse that Applicant had
to endure for more than 14 years. Almost three years after she and her children escaped
in July 2011,  Applicant and three of her four children are still recovering from the abuse.
The state’s attorney advised Applicant that the bills would be paid by the state’s witness
protection program. She must intensify her efforts to ensure the providers submit the proper
documentation for payment.  
8
It is fair to conclude that Applicant demonstrated irresponsibility and poor judgment
when she purchased a car in early 2013, rather than addressing other delinquent
obligations that she knew she had. On the other hand, she testified credibly that she
needed a more reliable car that could accommodate her four children. She exercised some
good judgment by purchasing a used rather than a new car. She returned the car when she
could no longer afford the payments, and, as she had done during two previous layoffs,
used the severance pay to support her children while searching for employment. Having
weighed and balanced the entire record, I am confident Applicant will implement the same
good judgment in resolving her financial delinquencies that she has demonstrated in her
job performance since 2000. Considering the specific disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in the context of the general factors of the whole-person concept, Applicant
mitigated the security concerns triggered by the financial considerations guideline. 
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-q: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance.
Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
Paul J. Mason
Administrative Judge