DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
--------------------------------- )      ISCR Case No. 14-00507
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
September 17, 2014
______________
Decision
______________
LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing
(E-QIP) on July 31, 2013.  (Government Exhibit 1.)  On March 7, 2014, the Department
of Defense (DoD), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense
Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as amended), issued a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed reasons why DoD could not make
the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant and
recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance
should be denied or revoked.
The Applicant responded to the SOR on a date uncertain, and she requested an
administrative hearing before a Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals Administrative
Judge.  This case was assigned to the undersigned Administrative Judge on June 27,
2014.  A notice of hearing was issued on July 25, 2014, and the hearing was scheduled
for August 8, 2014.  At the hearing the Government presented five exhibits, referred to
as Government Exhibits 1 through 5, which were admitted without objection. The
Applicant called four witnesses and presented two exhibits, referred to as Applicant’s
Exhibits A and B, which were also admitted into evidence without objection.  She also
testified on her own behalf.  The official transcript (Tr.) was received on August 19,
2
2014.  Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for
access to classified information is granted.
 FINDINGS OF FACT
The Applicant is 54 years old and divorced with three children.  She has a two
master’s degrees, one in English, as a second language; and the other in English, with
a specialty in written communication.  She holds the position of Senior Training
Development Specialist for a defense contractor.  She is seeking to obtain a security
clearance in connection with her employment.   
The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the
basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR).  The following findings
of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations)  The Government alleges that the
Applicant is ineligible for clearance because she is financially overextended and at risk
of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.      
The Applicant admitted allegations 1(c), and 1(d), set forth in the SOR under this
guideline.  She denied allegations 1(a), 1(b), and 1(e).  In regard to allegation 1(f), she
neither admitted or denied the allegation but she provided documentation showing that
she has paid the debt.  (See Applicant’s Answer to SOR.)  Credit Reports of the
Applicant dated August 29, 2013 and June 23, 2014, reflect that Applicant is indebted
for each of the debts set forth in the SOR, of which the vast majority are mortgage-
related in an amount totaling in excess of $700,000.  (Government Exhibits 3 and 4.) 
Applicant met her husband when she was 19 years old.  He was her first
boyfriend, and they married in 1987.  (Tr. p. 30.)  They had three children.  For many
years, it was an abusive marriage, but  Applicant tried to hold on long enough to allow
her children to grow up and get into college.  During the marriage, Applicant worked and
put her husband through school, allowing him to finish his engineering degree.
Throughout the marriage, her husband was controlling and handled all of the finances.
In April 2010 Applicant and her husband separated, but the agreement was that she
would give him $2,500 each month, which was her share, so that he could pay the bills,
including the mortgage.  In June 2010 a sheriff knocked on the front door of her house
and told her that she had three days to leave the house, in essence she was being
evicted.  Unbeknownst to the Applicant, since he intercepted the mail, her husband had
not been paying the mortgage, or any of their bills with her money.  He was having an
affair, and he had cleared out their bank accounts.  Applicant and her children were
immediately left homeless and without his financial support.
In October 2010, Applicant was hired by a defense contractor.  She applied for
and obtained a security clearance shortly thereafter.  She knew that the job would
require her to travel and work overseas, and in a combat zone, but in order to support
3
her children she chose to do it.  Applicant has served on two overseas tours, in Iraq
from 2010 to 2011, and in Afghanistan from 2013 to 2014.  
Two of her three children testified to their mother’s remarkable character.  In their
opinion, she is extremely reliable and trustworthy, and that the financial indebtedness
she is confronted with is all a result of their father and his personal problems.  (Tr. pp.
64-71.)
Applicant stated that the financial indebtedness set forth in the SOR was incurred
either without her knowledge or, with regards to the mortgages, allowed to lapse into
default without her knowledge or consent.  She further stated that she did not realize the
extent of her ex husband’s financial deception until she received the SOR that listed the
number of debts he had incurred in their marital names or through forgeries.  Most of
the debts were incurred while they were separated and she was working on an
overseas assignment.  She claims that she is not responsible for financial debt incurred
during the marriage since her ex-spouse forged her signature and committed identity
fraud by using a stolen driver’s license of hers.  Applicant has discussed with an
attorney and private investigator about pursuing a civil suit against her ex-husband for
theft, identity fraud, forgery and a number of other transgressions.  She is also
considering filing a police report and a criminal complaint with the state.  She has
opened disputes with the three main credit agencies.  She has also hired a credit
monitoring service and has notified various institutions that the liens and financial
obligations are presently in dispute.  (See Applicant’s Answer to SOR.)   
Testimony from two of the Applicant’s adult children, her supervisor, and a past
coworker corroborated her testimony about her situation.  Specifically, the financial
situation she is in because of her husband’s abusive ways and fraudulent misconduct.
All of them are aware of the Applicant’s abusive marriage, and contentious separation
and divorce, and attribute her financial difficulties to her ex-husband.  (Tr. pp. 57-71.)
Applicant filed for divorce in December 2012, which is now finalized.  Applicant
provided a copy of the Marital Settlement and Mutual Release Agreement that indicates
that Applicant’s husband shall assume and hold Applicant free and harmless from any
and all debts and obligations incurred by Applicant’s husband prior to the marriage and
after April 6, 2010, the date of the parties separation and any and all debts standing in
his name whenever incurred.  (Applicant’s Exhibit B.)           
Allegation 1(a) is a tax lien against her in April 2008 in the amount of $1,391.
Applicant had no knowledge of the tax lien since her husband withheld information from
her and hid the bills.  Applicant believes that it was for unpaid homeowner’s association
fees on a rental property that was foreclosed upon and resold.  (Tr. pp. 34-35.)  
Allegation 1(b) is a debt to a bank on an account that was charged off in the
approximate amount of $60,051.  Applicant’s ex-spouse took out a home equity loan
and forged the Applicant’s signature while she was working out of the country.  She
4
never had access to the money, nor does she know what he did with it.  (See
Applicant’s Answer to SOR.)
Allegation 1(c) is a debt owed to a lender on a mortgage account for Applicant’s
primary residence that became past due in the approximate amount of $81,316 without
her knowledge.  The account was in foreclosure status with a total loan balance of
$645,000.  Applicant was an initial obligor when the loan was signed, but was not aware
that the money she gave her husband each month for her share of the payment during
their separation was not given to the bank but pocketed and placed in a personal
account of his.  Applicant’s ex-husband lied to her and led her to believe that he was
making the payments.  Applicant was shocked when they lost their home, as she was
given three days to vacate the property.  (See Applicant’s Answer to SOR.)
Allegation 1(d) is a debt owed to a lender on a mortgage account that is in
foreclosure status with a total loan balance of $445,900.  Applicant explained that this
was a rental property that was foreclosed upon because her former spouse did not
make the payments.  (Tr. p. 43.)
Allegation 1(e) is a debt owed to a lender on an account that has been charged
off in the approximate amount of $121,640.  This was a home-equity loan her ex-
husband took out against the rental property that was foreclosed upon discussed above.
He told the Applicant that he was making the payments when he was not.  (See
Applicant’s Answer to SOR.) 
Allegation 1(f) is a debt owed for a medical account placed for collection in the
approximate amount of $81.  This was paid by the Applicant.  She was out of the
country when the bill was received.  (Tr.p. 48-49.)
Applicant’s supervisor on her overseas assignments, a retired Marine/Army
veteran testified to Applicant’s trustworthiness, honesty, responsible nature, great
character and work habits.  He considers her to be the strongest member of his team,
always volunteering for the most difficult jobs, when others are trying to do the least.
She is well respected.  (Tr. pp. 57-61.)  He also submitted a letter of recommendation
that indicates that Applicant attended weekly, sensitive, but unclassified security
briefings with her colleagues, while overseas, and consistently and properly protected
sensitive information, never demonstrating poor judgment or an unwillingness to abide
by rules or regulations.  She is highly recommended for a security clearance.
(Applicant’s Exhibit A, page 2.) 
  
A coworker of the Applicant testified that she is a good friend who is an
outstanding person.  She is very reliable and trustworthy, and recommended for a
security clearance.  (Tr. pp. 61-64.)
Two of the Applicant’s children testified that their mother is responsible, hard
working and trustworthy.  They are both of the opinion that the financial problems in the
5
family were brought on by their father, who among other things has a drinking problem,
and who left them homeless and without his financial support.  (Tr. pp. 64-67.)
A letter of recommendation from the Principal Training and Development
Specialist indicates that in his opinion, Applicant is a person of impeccable character
and professionalism.  She is most reliable, hardworking, and trustworthy.  She can be
counted on to maintain solid bearing and to use good judgment and to be clear-headed
and purposeful in difficult situations in a hazardous foreign environment and tough living
conditions.  She is the most intelligent member of his team, someone who demonstrates
full awareness of the need to maintain security and confidentiality.  She is
recommended for a security clearance.  (Applicant’s Exhibit A, page 1.)
A letter from a priest, who is a Community College teacher, and a frequent guest
lecturer where the Applicant taught English, states that Applicant is held in high esteem
by all who know her.  He is well aware of the plight she is experiencing with her ex-
husband and the financial problems he created for her.  He states that he would be very
hard-pressed to find anyone who exemplifies a higher example of remarkable character.
He has supported and stood by Applicant as she endured the most difficult marital
dissolution he has ever seen.  He states that in his opinion, her ex-husband is a very
disturbed individual who inflicted a great deal of abuse upon the Applicant both
emotionally and financially.  (Applicant’s Exhibit A, page 3.)     
Since her separation, Applicant has been working hard to support herself and her
children.  She recently purchased a house for her and her children to live in.  She is
current with all of her monthly expenses.  She has only one credit card that is used for
emergency purposes only.
POLICIES
Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into
"Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors."  The following Disqualifying Factors
and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in ther case:
Guideline F (Financial Considerations)
18.  The Concern.  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. 
Conditions that could raise a security concern:
19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
6
19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:
20.(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;
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 
20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.
In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 18-19, in
evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should
consider the following general factors:
a. The nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding
circumstances;
    b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable
participation;
c.  The frequency and recency of the conduct;
d.  The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct;
e.  The extent to which participation is voluntary;
f.  The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavior
changes;
g.  The motivation for the conduct; 
h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress; and
 i.  The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.
The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal
characteristics and conduct, which are reasonably related to the ultimate question,
posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the
national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.
7
The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a
sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is
an acceptable security risk.  Eligibility for access to classified information is predicated
upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines.  The adjudicative
process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole-person
concept.  Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable
and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative
Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical
basis in the evidence of record.  The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions
based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature.  Finally, as emphasized
by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination under ther
order . . . shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the Applicant concerned.”
CONCLUSIONS
In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to
civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information
twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week.  The Government is therefore
appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for
clearance may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility, which demonstrates
poor judgment or unreliability.
It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support
the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the
holding of a security clearance.  If such a case has been established, the burden then
shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation,
which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case.  The Applicant
bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant him or her a security clearance.
In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the
Applicant’s credit reports indicate that she has been financially irresponsible (Guideline
F).  This evidence indicates poor judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the
part of the Applicant.  Because of the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I
conclude there is a nexus or connection with her security clearance eligibility.
Although the Applicant failed to provide documentation to support the fact that
her husband left her and her children homeless, without financial support, and with
debts that he incurred fraudulently, the testimony from her witnesses is most
compelling.  Under the unique circumstances of this case, a close look at the evidence
shows that the Applicant has not been financially irresponsible.  Her only fault is that
she allowed her abusive marriage to continue for as long as she did.  With short notice,
Applicant was placed in a horrible situation, left homeless with two children to support
without any assistance from her husband.   Applicant has shown remarkable resilience
8
by obtaining employment with the defense industry, serving her country overseas in a
combat zone, and sacrificing convenience for the sake of her children.  Her testimony is
credible.  Her character is honorable, she has shown integrity, good judgement, high
morals and responsibility.  The Marital Settlement and Mutual Release Agreement
further indicates that she most likely is not responsible for the delinquent debts set forth
in the SOR.  But for the delinquent debts incurred by her husband under fraudulent
actions, she is current with all of her bills.  She has purchased a house and is current on
those payments.  She is currently disputing the delinquent debts on her credit reports
that should not be there.  She is also pursuing legal action against her ex-husband for
ruining her credit.  She has acted responsibly under the circumstances and the problem
is being resolved.  She has done, and is doing, everything that can be expected under
the circumstances.  
Applicant understands that she must remain fiscally responsible if she is to hold a
security clearance.  She has made a good-faith effort to resolve her past due
indebtedness.  She has not incurred any new debt that she cannot afford to pay.  She
has learned from her mistakes, and demonstrated that she can properly manage her
financial affairs.  There is clear evidence of financial rehabilitation.  Considering all of
the evidence, the Applicant has introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation
or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the Government's case. 
Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a)
inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial
obligations, apply.  However, Mitigating Conditions 20.(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; 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 20.(d) the
individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts also apply.  Accordingly, I find for the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial
Considerations).    
I have particularly considered the “whole-person concept” in evaluating the
Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.  Under the particular facts of
the case, the totality of the conduct set forth above, when viewed under all of the
guidelines as a whole, support a whole-person assessment of good judgement,
trustworthiness, reliability, candor, and a willingness to comply with rules and
regulations, and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may properly
safeguard classified information.
  I have considered all of the evidence presented, including her favorable and
compelling witnesses, laudatory letters of recommendation, and excellent history of
dedicated service to our country on her overseas assignments.  It mitigates the negative
effects of her financial indebtedness and the effects that it can have on her ability to
safeguard classified information.  On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has
9
overcome the Government's case opposing her request for a security clearance.
Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding for the Applicant as to the factual and
conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.   
     FORMAL FINDINGS
Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as
required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:
Paragraph 1: For the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.a.: For the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.b.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.c.: For the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.d.: For the Applicant.
        Subpara.  1.e.: For the Applicant.
    Subpara.  1.f.: For the Applicant.
 DECISION
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in ther case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the
Applicant.
Darlene Lokey Anderson
Administrative Judge