1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 14-00357
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray Blank, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s delinquent debts, totaling approximately $82,000, stemmed primarily
from a 2009 marital separation. Since then, he has satisfied approximately half of the
delinquent debt, and has incurred no new debt. Although he still owes in excess of
$75,000, his significant efforts thus far, together with his meticulous management of his
budget, lead me to conclude that he has mitigated the financial considerations security
concern. Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On April 16, 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.
Subparagraphs 1.a and 1.s are duplicates. Subparagraph1.p is a duplicate of subparagraph 1.u, and1
subparagraph 1.w is a duplicate of subparagraph 1.gg.
He incurred the debt because he under-withheld exemptions for those tax years. (Tr. 28) 2
2
 
 On March 10, 2014, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting subparagraphs 1.a,
1.c through 1.r, 1.z, 1.bb 1.cc, and 1.gg, and denying the remainder. He requested a
hearing whereupon the case was assigned to me on June 12, 2014. DOHA issued a
notice of hearing on June 25, 2014, scheduling the hearing for July 21, 2014. The
hearing was held as scheduled. At the hearing, I received four Government exhibits (GE
1-GE 4) and nine Applicant exhibits (AE A - AE I), and considered Applicant’s
testimony.  
At the close of the hearing, I left the record open at Applicant’s request to allow
him to submit additional exhibits. Within the time allotted, Applicant submitted one
additional exhibit that I received as AE J. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on July 31,
2014.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 43-year-old man. He was married from 1993 through 2011. The
marriage ended in divorce. (GE 1 at 15) He is a high school graduate and has earned
approximately two and one half years of college credits. Applicant works in the
information technology field. He is the chief engineer of a division of a company that
provides help desk support to government agencies. He has worked for this company
since 2004 and has held a clearance during the entire time.
In 2009, Applicant’s then wife abruptly left him. Subsequently, he filed for a
divorce. It became final in December 2011. (AE A) When Applicant and his wife
separated, they had a combined income of $200,000 and approximately $150,000 of
unsecured debt, together with two home mortgages totalling approximately $264,000.
(Tr. 26, 35)  None of their bills were delinquent. Also, Applicant’s wife’s salary
accounted for approximately 40 percent of their joint income. After she left him, she
stopped helping him pay the bills. (Tr. 27) Applicant’s debts gradually became
delinquent.
The SOR includes $103,000 of Applicant’s delinquent debt that had become
delinquent in 2009, consisting of the primary mortgage, together with delinquent
consumer loans, credit cards, and medical bills.  Applicant also had incurred1
approximately $31,000 of unlisted delinquent debt including $10,700 in delinquent
personal income taxes from tax years 2007 through 2009,  and $20,475 of credit2
accounts. (Tr. 28, AE B-AE C)
Applicant initially consulted a credit consolidation company and sought a loan
modification. He was unable to afford the credit consolidation company’s repayment
plan, and the bank rejected the loan modification. (Tr. 85)
3
 
Applicant then began working to satisfy his debts. In February 2010, he entered
into an installment agreement with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). (AE B at 2) By
March 2014, he had satisfied the $10,700 tax delinquency. (AE B at 15; Tr. 59)
At or about the time Applicant entered the IRS installment agreement, he
contacted the law firm that represented an unlisted creditor with whom he had opened
three accounts. (Tr. 28-29) He paid the first account, totalling $8,097, by May 2011, the
second account, totalling $3,203, by August 2011, and the third account, totalling
$6,348, by April 2013. (AE C)
In 2010, Applicant began addressing his home mortgage delinquency, totaling
$4,613, as listed in subparagraph 1.aa. Since then, he has satisfied the delinquency
and reduced the principal by $17,000. (Tr. 35; AE H) 
Applicant has a second mortgage on his property. Over the past four years, he
has reduced it from $15,000 to $12,000. (AE H; Tr. 35)
In approximately August 2011, Applicant contacted the creditor of the debt
alleged twice in the SOR as subparagraphs 1.x and 1.hh. Working with this creditor, he
initiated a payment arrangement. By August 2013, he had satisfied the $10,191 debt
through 24 monthly payments. (AE E)
In mid-2012, Applicant contacted a collection agent for the SOR creditors listed in
subparagraphs 1.t, 1.y, and 1.dd. (Tr. 32) These debts totalled approximately $4,100.
By November 2012, Applicant had satisfied them. (AE F, AE J)
At or about the time Applicant was making payments towards the debts listed in
subparagraphs 1.t, 1.y, and 1.dd, he was in the process of satisfying the debt listed in
1.ee. (Tr. 30) He satisfied it in July 2012. (AE D) The delinquency totalled $1,263.
In September 2012, Applicant contacted the creditor listed in subparagraph 1.v
and satisfied the debt. It totalled $708. Applicant paid it in two payments of $354
executed between September and November of 2012. (AE G at 2-3; Tr. 33-34) 
Currently, Applicant is negotiating a settlement with the collection agent for the
creditors listed in subparagraphs 1.q and 1.r. (Tr. 58-59) These debts total
approximately $20,000. 
Applicant disputes subparagraphs 1.b and 1.ff. He has contacted their respective
collection agencies. (Tr. 63) He did not provide documentation of the basis of these
disputes. These alleged debts collectively total approximately $675. The remainder of
Applicant’s SOR debts remain outstanding.
This past year, Applicant’s father moved into an assisted living facility.(Tr. 60)
Since then, Applicant has been helping him with nursing home costs, and paying for the
upkeep of his father’s home, while preparing to sell it. (Tr. 61) 
4
 
Also this past year, Applicant incurred funeral expenses, totalling $5,000, for his
deceased sister. Applicant paid half when she died, and has been paying the other half
in $150 monthly increments. (Tr. 91-92) He anticipates satisfying these expenses by
September 2014. Currently, the upkeep of his father’s home and his sister’s burial
expenses total approximately $550 per month  (AE H)
Applicant maintains a budget. He earns $141,000 annually, and he has $755 of
monthly discretionary income. (Tr. 81, AE I)
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) Between 2009 and 2010, nearly $400,000 of Applicant’s mortgage,
consumer, and income tax debt became delinquent. AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or
unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial
obligations,” apply.
5
 
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:
(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
(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.
Although Applicant’s debt-to-income-ratio has been historically high, none, with
the exception of some non-alleged personal income taxes, became delinquent until his
2009 marital separation. Since 2010, Applicant has satisfied approximately $21,000 of
SOR debt and $29,000 of non-alleged delinquencies. Also, he has reduced the principal
on his home mortgages by $20,000. He has achieved this debt reduction while having
to assume the costs related to his sister’s death and the upkeep of his father’s home
together with his father’s miscellaneous nursing home expenses.
Multiple SOR debts remain outstanding. However, so long as Applicant is
satisfying delinquent debts in an orderly fashion, it does not matter which debts he pays
first. (ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008)) Applicant earns
$141,000 annually and has no children. He has clearly adjusted to the loss of his ex-
wife’s joint income, and I am confident that he will continue to satisfy the delinquencies,
as promised.  AG ¶¶ 20(b) through 20(d) apply.
Applicant did not provide documentary evidence substantiating the basis of his
dispute of two of the SOR debts. AG ¶ 20(e) does not apply. Given their nominal
amount, the meticulous manner in which Applicant has identified the current collection
agents for various debts, and the debt reduction progress he has made thus far, I
conclude that the inapplicability of AG ¶ 20(e) has minimal probative value. 
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.
Applicant lost control of his finances after his marital separation in 2009. 
Since 2010, he has been organizing his finances, contacting creditors, and paying his
his delinquent debts. These facts constitute strong evidence of rehabilitation. 
Applicant maintains a budget and has ample discretionary income to continue
satisfying his delinquent debts. Under these circumstances the likelihood of recurrence
of his financial problems is minimal. Upon considering this case in the context of the
whole-person concept, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concern.
`
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.ii: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge