1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-02444
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline Heintzelman, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se  
______________
Decision
______________
HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, Applicant’s
eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Statement of the Case
Applicant completed and certified an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP) on January 14, 2014. The Department of Defense (DOD)
Consolidated Adjudications Facility, Division A, (CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) on July 11, 2014, 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;
DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines
For Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG), implemented on
September 1, 2006. 
 
Tr. 66-69.1
GE 1; Tr. 23-25, 29-31.2
GE 1; Tr. 22.3
2
Applicant received the SOR on July 17, 2014, and he answered it on July 29,
2014. Applicant requested a hearing before an administrative judge with the Defense
Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). Department Counsel was prepared to proceed
on August 29, 2014, and I received the case assignment on September 2, 2014. DOHA
issued a Notice of Hearing on September 5, 2014, and I convened the hearing as
scheduled on September 30, 2014. The Government offered five exhibits (GE) marked
as GE 1 through GE 5, which were received and admitted into evidence without
objection. Applicant and three witnesses testified. He submitted one exhibit (AE)
marked as AE A, which was received and admitted into evidence without objection. I
held the record open until October 14, 2014, for Applicant to submit additional matters.
Applicant timely submitted AE B - AE E, which were received and admitted without
objection. The record closed on October 14, 2014. DOHA received the hearing
transcript (Tr.) on October 16, 2014.
Findings of Fact
In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all the factual allegations in the
SOR. His admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. He also provided
additional information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance. After
a complete and thorough review of the evidence of record, I make the following findings
of fact.  
 
Applicant, who is 40 years old, works as an electronics technician for a DOD
contractor. He began his current employment in January 2014. The facility security
officer (FSO) for Applicant’s employer testified. He trusts Applicant, whom he described
as dependable, reliable, and forthright. Applicant discussed the issues in the SOR with
him. The FSO spoke with Applicant’s supervisors and coworkers, who advised that
Applicant was an asset to the company and who supported his being granted a security
clearance.1
Applicant graduated from high school in 1993. He served on active duty in the
United States Army from October 1993 until March 1997 and again from January 1999
until March 2003. He received an honorable discharge both times. At the time of his
second discharge, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) reviewed his documentation
and gave him a 50% disability rating.2
Applicant married his first wife in January 1996 and divorced her in April 2007.
He has four children from this marriage. His two sons are ages 18 and 17. His two
daughters are ages 16 and 13. Except for one son, his children live with their mother in
State A. He pays child support for his children. He remarried in April 2014.3
GE 1; Tr. 23, 25-27.4
Company 1 declined to place him on workers compensation. Tr. 34.5
Response to SOR; GE 1; GE 2; Tr. 28-35.6
Response to SOR; Tr. 31-33.7
GE 3 - GE 5; Tr. 37.8
3
When he was not serving in the Army, Applicant lived in State A with his first
wife, children, and mother-in-law. After his discharge from the Army in 2003, Applicant
obtained low-paying and sporadic jobs in State A, making it difficult for him to support
his family and necessitating a reliance on welfare. In 2004, he moved to State B, where
his parents lived and obtained a full-time job with Company 1. He lived with his parents
and paid $700 to $800 a month in child support to his wife, who refused to move to
State B.4
Applicant worked for Company 1 in its plant from July 2004 until March 2007. He
initially earned $11.50 an hour. In 2007, he sustained a serious injury to his back, which
was a second injury to his back. Applicant pulled his back, creating problems with rising
up from a sitting or lying down position and with standing. He sought medical treatment.
His physician advised him that he had four herniated discs and referred him for physical
therapy. Applicant could not work for six months. The physical therapy helped improve
his condition. However, his physician told him that if he returned to his construction job,
he would likely injure himself more severely and recommended that he find other work.
Applicant sought a second opinion from VA physicians, who also recommended that he
not return to his construction job for the same reason. The VA increased his disability
rating to 60% because of this injury. During this time, Applicant received long-term
disability payments through Company 1.  These payments lasted about two years.5 6
The VA recommended that Applicant return to school for additional training. The
VA placed him in a Chapter 31, vocational rehabilitation program. He enrolled in a state
university in the fall 2009. He completed the requirements of a laser optics program in
December 2013, but the university closed the program before he could complete his
bachelor’s degree. Applicant has approximately 84 credits towards a bachelor’s degree,
but he does not have any definite plans to complete his degree at this time. Applicant
received $1,200 a month in income from the VA while he attended school.7
In 2005, while in the process of divorcing his first wife, Applicant contacted an
attorney in State B about filing a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. Upon the
recommendation of the attorney, Applicant filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, which
resulted in the discharge of his debts in 2005. Except for the two debts listed in the
SOR, Applicant has not incurred any additional unpaid debts since the completion of his
bankruptcy case.  8
Response to SOR; Tr. 42-48.9
Response to SOR; Tr. 40-41, 48-49.10
AE A - AE E; Tr. 60-63.11
4
Under his divorce decree, Applicant pays $750 a month in child support to his
former wife. Between June 2006 and February 2008, he paid the required monthly
amount of his child support with the income from his job or with his long-term disability
income. When his long-term disability income ceased, he experienced difficulty meeting
his monthly child support payments. He made smaller monthly payments and his
income tax refunds were applied to reduce his arrearage. When he started college, he
tried to negotiate a smaller monthly child support payment as his VA benefits did not
provide him with sufficient income each month to pay his necessary living expenses and
his child support. State A declined to work with him initially. State A demanded that he
quit school and take a low-paying job to pay his child support payments. He declined.
He did not work during the summers while attending school on the advice of the VA
counselor because if he had worked, State A would have insisted that he continue work
and abandon school. Applicant eventually negotiated a reduced monthly payment of
$200 with State A, and he obtained education loans to help pay his monthly expenses.
His support payment history reflects that any tax refunds to which he was entitled were
applied to his child support arrearage.   9
The SOR identified two debts, both related to his child support arrearage.
Applicant’s 17-year-old son received Social Security disability payments. State A listed
the child support arrearage for this child are separately. When Applicant started his
current job in February 2014, he contacted State A and made arrangements for his pay
to be garnished for his monthly child support payments of $750. He also agreed to pay
$50 a month towards his arrearage. Some problems arose initially with how his
company paid the garnishment because the company averaged the total yearly
payment over 26 pay periods, making it appear as if he failed to pay the full monthly
amount. To correct the problem, he increased his payment by $12.50 a month, which is
also being applied to his arrearage. In addition, any future income tax refunds and the
child support deductions from the two extra paychecks per year will be applied to his
arrearage. Applicant has complied with this plan.10
Applicant earns $4,155 in gross income from his job, and he receives a VA
disability benefit of $1,198 a month. His second wife earns approximately $1,000 a
month in income for a total household income of $6,353. Their total monthly expenses
are $5,891 and include rent, food, taxes, insurance, phones, gasoline, medical, and
miscellaneous expenses. These expenses include $812.50 for child support and
arrearage payments and $260 for his education loan, which is $50 a month above the
required payment. He also included savings of $400 a month to buy a new car. His wife
owns a 1996 car, and he does not have a car. After paying the household monthly
expenses, his SOR debts, and his education loan, and saving for a car, he has a
surplus of approximately $300 for unexpected expenses.11
5
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used in evaluating an
applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. 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.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an 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 for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of
the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
The Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a “good faith” effort to repay overdue creditors12
or otherwise resolve debts:
In order to qualify for application of [the “good faith” m itigating condition], an applicant must
6
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out 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 to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. 
AG ¶ 19 describes the disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns.
I have considered all the conditions, and the following are potentially applicable: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
After a financial fresh start afforded him by a bankruptcy discharge in 2005,
Applicant fell behind in his child support payments after he injured his back and his long-
term disability income ceased. The debts in SOR allegation 1.b and 1.c have not been
fully resolved. These two disqualifying conditions apply.
The Financial Considerations guideline also includes examples of conditions that
can mitigate security concerns. I have considered mitigating factors AG ¶ 20(a) through
¶ 20(f), and the following 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; and
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts.12
present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or some other
good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does not define the
term ‘good-faith.’ However, the Board has indicated that the concept ofgood-faith “requires
a showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and
adherence to duty or obligation.’ Accordingly, an applicant must do more than merely show
that he or she relied on a legally available option (such as bankruptcy [or statute of
limitations]) in order to claim the benefit of [the “good faith” mitigation condition].
(Internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No.02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr.20, 2004) (quoting ISCR
Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)).
7
Applicant’s financial problems initially resulted from low income and
unemployment when he worked in State A. After securing steady employment in 2004,
Applicant sustained two injuries to his back. After his second injury, two physicians
recommended that he not return to construction work. Unemployment and the injury to
his back are factors beyond his control. In addition, he and his first wife divorced,
causing increased financial pressures for Applicant. While on disability, Applicant paid
his child support. At the recommendation of the VA, Applicant returned to school to
improve his ability to obtain employment. As a student, his only income was his monthly
VA benefit, which was insufficient to pay his living expenses and child support. He
obtained school loans, part of which he used to pay his child support obligation. His
actions were reasonable under the circumstances. After school ended and he obtained
a full-time job, he immediately contacted State A and made arrangements to pay his full
monthly child support payments and his arrearage through wage deduction. He
continues to make these payments. This conduct reflects a good-faith effort to resolve
his child support arrearage and to comply with his child support obligations. He pays his
monthly bills and has sufficient income each month to pay his expenses and save for a
car. His finances are under control. AG ¶¶ 20(b)-20(d) apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of an applicant’s
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at 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 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. 
8
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. The decision to grant or
deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both
favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the
evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is
established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility
for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct,
but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a
nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
The evidence in support of granting a security clearance to Applicant under the
whole-person concept is more substantial than the evidence in support of denial.
Applicant financial problems resulted from unemployment or underemployment. His
divorce and subsequent serious back injury further compromised his financial problems.
During his recuperation from his back injury, he continued to pay his full monthly child
support payment. Upon the advice of the VA and with its assistance, Applicant started
college in 2009 to acquire new skills and enhance his ability to find employment at a
wage sufficient to support for his family. While he was in college, he could not pay his
full monthly child support. After many conversations with State A officials, they agreed
to a monthly payment of $200 and the application of any future tax refunds to his child
support obligation. As soon as he obtained gainful employment, Applicant contacted
State A and made arrangements to resume his child support payments and start paying
his arrearage. These payments are made directly from his pay checks.
A combination of circumstances created the financial situation in which Applicant
found himself. He never ignored his obligation to support his children, he simply lacked
sufficient income to pay. He resisted State A’s pressure to abandon school and accept
another low-paying job. He now earns a good salary, and he has taken control of his
debts. He has sufficient income each month to pay his usual and customary expenses.
Because he is paying his child support and arrearage, there is little likelihood that he
can be pressured or coerced to release classified information to a foreign national.
Applicant is a dependable and reliable individual who can be counted upon to act in the
best interests of the United States.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising from his finances under
Guideline F.
9
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.c: 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.
                                                              
MARY E. HENRY
Administrative Judge