Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government exhibits (GE) 1-6, and Applicant exhibit (AE) A. AE A was1
timely received post hearing. The record in this case closed 23 July 2014, when Department Counsel indicated
no objection to AE A.
DoD acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20,2
1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DoD on
1 September 2006. 
1
           
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXX, Xxxxx Xxxxxxx )       ISCR Case No. 14-00428
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: David F. Hayes, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
              
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  I deny Applicant’s clearance.1
On 11 March 2014, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial
Considerations.  Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a hearing before the2
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). DOHA assigned the case to me 3
June 2014, and I convened a hearing 3 July 2014. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.)
14 July 2014.
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations, except for SOR 1.a, which he denied as
not belonging to him. He is a 33-year-old senior communications specialist employed by
a defense contractor since June 2013. He has not previously held a security clearance,
although he held a public trust position in 2007.
             
The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits establish, eight delinquent debts
totaling just over $24,000. Applicant denied SOR debt 1.a for $19,252, claiming it
belonged to his father. AE A documents that the debt was removed from his credit file in
June 2014. Applicant admitted the remaining debts, but documented that he had paid
three debts totaling $475 (SOR 1.e, 1.f, and 1.h) in September 2013. Consequently, the
debts at issue total $4,500.
Applicant attributes his delinquent debts to periods of unemployment from August
2011 to October 2011, October 2012 to March 2013, and March 2013 to July 2013.
From March 2013 to May 2013, he was only employed part time by his current employer
(GE 4). His current employment is less than full time because his lack of a clearance
limits some of his work assignments.
  Applicant is currently $3,799 past due on his child support payments (SOR
1.b)(AE A). At the time of the SOR, his child support payments were $3,279 past due
(GE 2), based on the credit report being used to draft the SOR. However, his most
recent credit report shows that he was $3,799 past due when the SOR was issued,
having made a lump-sum payment of $3,430 on 1 March 2014. This lump-sum payment
was made when his state and federal income tax refunds were intercepted and seized
by the local jurisdiction. Since he became re-employed in July 2013, Applicant made his
required monthly payment only once between August 2013 and March 2014, when he
paid $500 in August 2013. His most recent credit report reflects subsequent monthly
payments: September 2013, $250; October 2013, $0; November 2013, $150; December
2013, $0; January 2014, $0; February 2014, $150; March 2014, $3,430; April 2014, $0;
and May 2014, $150. This payment record belies Applicant’s claim that he has been
paying his monthly $500 child support and $150 arrears since becoming employed (Tr.
31-32).
Applicant has made no payments on the debt at SOR 1.c. He claims, without
corroboration, to have a settlement offer from the creditor—one that he is unable to take
advantage of. He also claims, again without corroboration, to be making regular
payments on the two insurance company debts at SOR 1.d and 1.g.
Applicant has no retirement account at work, and has no savings. He is living at
home with his parents to conserve funds. He has received no credit or financial
counseling. He provided no work or character references.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
¶19 (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;4
¶ 20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that5
it is  unlikely to recur . . . ;
3
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors to evaluate a person’s suitability for
access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also show a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). The applicability of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is
not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific guidelines should be followed when a case
can be measured against them, as they are policy guidance governing the grant or
denial of a clearance. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, disputed facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, the
burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the required judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels deciding any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.3
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has $4,500 in delinquent debt
that he voluntarily incurred, has yet to resolve, and seems unlikely to be able to resolve
in the foreseeable future.4
In addition, the mitigating conditions for financial considerations provide Applicant
little help. His financial difficulties are recent and not infrequent, and may be likely to
recur.  While the circumstances that caused Applicant’s indebtedness were certainly5
beyond his control, he cannot be considered to have acted responsibly in addressing
his debts under the circumstances. Resolving the debt (1.a) improperly attributed to him
¶ 20 (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and6
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶ 20 (d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;7
¶ 20 (c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications8
that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
4
aside, Applicant has managed to pay only three small debts totaling $500.  The child6
support payments he has made are inadequate to keep his account current, much less
address his arrears, and the only reason he is not further behind on those payments is
because the local jurisdiction seized his 2013 state and federal tax refunds. He has not
documented any claimed payments on his insurance debts, and has taken no action on
the remaining debt. Further, his limited child support payments are insufficient to show
good faith in attempting to resolve that debt, much less the other debts, in the
reasonably foreseeable future.  7
The concern with Applicant is that while he credibly stated his intent to resolve
these debts, the length of time realistically projected to accomplish this task raises
doubts about Applicant’s ability to resolve these debts. Applicant has submitted no
budget detailing how he might address his delinquent child support payments, much
less his other debts. He has not received any credit or financial counseling. He certainly
has not demonstrated that these delinquent debts are being resolved in an expeditious
manner.  Further, he has no favorable character and work references to establish a8
“whole-person” analysis supporting a favorable clearance action. I conclude Guideline F
against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraph a: For Applicant
Subparagraphs b-d: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs e-f: For Applicant
Subparagraph g: Against Applicant
Subparagraph h: For Applicant
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge