1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 14-00152
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Richard Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised by his failure to address
his financial problems, despite having adequate resources after the circumstances that
caused his financial problems had been resolved for more than six years. He did not
support his claims that he is financially stable, and he has been willfully ignorant of the
need to resolve the debts attributed to him. His request for a security clearance eligibility
is denied.
Statement of the Case
On August 13, 2013, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (EQIP) to obtain a security clearance required for his work as
a defense contractor. Based on the results of the ensuing background investigation,
Department of Defense (DOD) adjudicators could not determine that it was clearly
  Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DOD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended.1
 The adjudicative guidelines were implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. These2
guidelines were published in the Federal Register and codified through 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006).
2
consistent with the national interest for Applicant to continue to hold a security
clearance.  1
On February 27, 2014, DOD issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
alleging facts which raise security concerns addressed under the adjudicative guideline2
for financial considerations (Guideline F). Applicant timely responded to the SOR
(Answer) and requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me on August 5, 2014,
and I convened a hearing on September 10, 2014. Department Counsel presented
Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 4, which were admitted without objection. Applicant
testified in his own behalf. DOHA received the transcript of hearing (Tr.) on September
25, 2014.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owed $31,491 for 12
delinquent or past-due debts (SOR 1.a - 1.l). In response, Applicant stated that he was
aware of the debts alleged at SOR 1.b, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.i, because at one time he had
accounts with those creditors. As to the remaining allegations, Applicant stated that he
had no knowledge of any outstanding debts owed to those creditors. (Answer) I have
interpreted his responses to be a general denial of any outstanding indebtedness
whether he had an account with the creditors or not. (Tr. 10 - 12)
Having reviewed the entire record, I make the following findings of fact:
Applicant is 52 years old and works for an international business software
corporation whose products are being used by DOD contractors in classified
environments. He has worked for that company since 2008 and requires a clearance for
access to job sites for customer support and marketing efforts. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 30)
Applicant and his wife have been married since April 1984. They have three adult
children, ages 29, 23, and 21. The younger two still reside with Applicant and his wife at
the home they have owned for about 15 years. Applicant’s wife is a county employee
and earns about $18,000 annually. (Gx. 1; Tr. 35, 52) 
In April 2008, their oldest child moved into her own apartment. However, she
soon lost her job and was unemployed for about four months. Applicant supported her
until she again found work. He estimates that he expended about $1,500 each month
for his daughter, who has been self-sufficient since about October 2008. (Answer; Gx.
1; Gx. 2; Tr. 31, 35)
3
In June 2008, Applicant’s wife had emergency surgery and was out of work for
about three months. Their medical insurance at the time did not fully cover the
expenses for her operation, and she lost about $5,000 in income because she had
already used all of her sick leave. Among the remaining debts is a $2,408 civil judgment
obtained by a collection agency against Applicant in September 2011. It is the debt
alleged at SOR 1.a. (Gx. 2; Gx. 3; Gx. 4; Tr. 32, 36 - 37)
Applicant also had to replace or repair his roof in 2008, at a cost of about $5,000.
To meet these unexpected expenses, which totaled about $13,000, Applicant resorted
to using credit cards, but claims he could not keep up with the minimum payments.
Applicant’s wife returned to work later in 2008, and he estimates that in 2009 their
collective annual income was at least $130,000. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Tr. 31 - 33)
When Applicant submitted his EQIP, he disclosed the debts alleged at SOR 1.b,
1.d, 1.e, and 1.i. He also explained the circumstances described, above, regarding his
daughter, his wife, and the roof repairs. He further stated that he had been unable to
make any affordable repayment arrangements with any of the creditors listed. (Gx. 1)
Applicant was interviewed in September 2013 by a Government investigator.
When discussing Applicant’s finances, the investigator presented information about
numerous other debts reflected in an August 2013 credit report. Several of the creditors
listed were collection agencies that Applicant either did not recognize or with whom he
later testified he “had no affiliation.” (Gx. 2; Tr. 32 - 33) During the interview, Applicant
stated that he would contact some of the listed collection agencies to verify the
accounts. He also stated that, because many of the debts had been charged off as
business losses and there were no current demands for payment, he did not intend to
pay them. As to the debts he disclosed in his EQIP, Applicant cited the fact that they
would not work with him to set up reasonable repayment plans as the basis for his
failure to pay off those accounts. (Gx. 2)
Applicant was also confronted in the September 2013 interview with the civil
judgments alleged in SOR 1.a and 1.b. Those judgments are filed in the court for the
county where Applicant has lived for 15 years. (Gx. 2) At hearing, he testified since the
interview that he has not inquired about those judgments. He also has not followed
through on his stated intentions to contact any of the creditors discussed in his
interview. (Tr. 54)
Since 2009, Applicant’s pay has increased. In 2013, he and his wife earned
about $190,000. Applicant claims no new debts and only one credit card, but could not
explain a balance of $31,228 for a credit card as reflected in his August 2013 credit
report. A more recent credit report shows a $39,000 balance for a credit card from the
same company. In September 2013, Applicant estimated he has about $500 remaining
each month after expenses. (Gx. 2 - 4; Tr. 33, 44 - 48) 
 See Directive. 6.3.3
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.5
4
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,3
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the adjudicative
guidelines (AG). Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(a)
of the guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept, those factors
are:
(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. 
The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not
determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant. However, specific applicable
guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them as they
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified
information.
A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly
consistent with the national interest  for an applicant to either receive or continue to4
have access to classified information. The Government bears the initial burden of
producing admissible information on which it based the preliminary decision to deny or
revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able
to prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it
then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a “right” to a security clearance, an applicant bears a heavy
burden of persuasion.  5
A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government
has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgment,
reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or her
own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).6
5
any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the
Government.6
Analysis
Financial Considerations
Available information is sufficient to support all of the SOR allegations. The facts
established raise a security concern about Applicant’s finances that is addressed, in
relevant part, at AG ¶ 18, as follows:
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.
Since 2008, Applicant has owed between $11,000, the total of the debts he
disclosed in his EQIP, and $31,491, the total of all of the delinquent debts attributed to
him in the Government’s credit reports. It is possible that some of the debts alleged may
be duplicate entries generated by collection agencies as the debts are passed from one
party to the next. But the total owed, in this case, is secondary to the fact that Applicant
has been capable of repaying some or all of his original debt over the past six years, but
has not tried to do so. Even after he was made aware of all of the debts attributable to
him, he did nothing. Instead, he has taken the position that because a debt has been
charged off, and unless someone is actively trying to collect from him, he will not repay
such a debt. As to two civil judgments about which he was made aware by a
Government investigator, Applicant has been willfully ignorant by not going to the local
courthouse to inquire about those matters. The same can be said of his response to
debts that he incurred but are now held by collection agencies. Rather than act with due
diligence to determine what he owes, he has simply chosen to ignore his obligations. All
of the foregoing supports application of the disqualifying conditions at AG ¶ 19(a)
(inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting
financial obligations). 
I have also considered the following pertinent AG ¶ 20 mitigating conditions:
(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 current reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment; 
6
(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.
None of these mitigating conditions apply. As to AG ¶ 20(a), Applicant’s financial
problems are ongoing in view of his failure to take any action to resolve his debts.
Although his financial problems arose through unexpected circumstances that are not
likely to recur, his failure to act in response to his debts for the past six years, and
decision that he will not pay debts because they have been charged off, preclude
application of AG ¶ 20(b). For the same reasons, AG ¶¶ 20(c) and (d) do not apply as
there has been no effort, in good faith or otherwise, to resolve his past-due obligations.
Also, Applicant has chosen not to inquire about his civil judgments or several other
debts attributable to him. He cannot now dispute their legitimacy. AG 20(e) does not
apply. Finally, Applicant claimed his finances are sound but gave no information
explaining a large credit card balance on his most recent credit report, or why he has
only $500 remaining each month despite earning nearly $200,000 annually. AG ¶ 20(e)
does not apply.
In summary, Applicant’s failure to address his indebtedness, and the lack of
information supporting his claims of financial well-being, sustain the Government’s
security concerns under this guideline. 
I also have evaluated this record in the context of the whole-person factors listed
in AG ¶ 2(a). I conclude that doubts remain about Applicant’s suitability for access to
classified information. Because protection of the national interest is the principal goal of
these adjudications, those doubts must be resolved against the Applicant.
7
Formal Findings
Formal findings 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
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.l: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest
for Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security
clearance is denied.
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge