1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 12-07211
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s debts do not indicate poor judgment or a lack of trustworthiness. He
has been proactive in resolving his financial problems, and has established a
meaningful track record of repayment since 2011. His current finances are sound and
do not present a security concern. His request for continued access to classified
information is granted.
Statement of the Case
On March 1, 2012, 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,
  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
Department of Defense (DOD) adjudicators could not determine that it is clearly
consistent with the national interest for Applicant to hold a security clearance.1
On July 30, 2014, DOD adjudicators issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons
(SOR) alleging facts which raise security concerns addressed under the adjudicative
guideline  for financial considerations (Guideline F). Applicant timely responded to the2
SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing.
The case was assigned to me on November 18, 2014, and I convened a hearing
on December 17, 2014. Department Counsel for the Defense Office of Hearings and
Appeals (DOHA) presented Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 4. Applicant testified and
presented Applicant’s Exhibits (Ax.) A - E. All exhibits were admitted without objection.
DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on January 5, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owes $82,207 for six
delinquent or past-due debts (SOR 1.a - 1.f). Applicant admitted, with explanations, all
of the allegations. In addition to the facts established by Applicant’s admissions, I make
the following findings of fact.
Applicant is 44 years old and was married for 18 years before he and his ex-wife
divorced in November 2011. They have three children, ages 17, 14, and 12, who live
with their mother. Applicant pays his ex-wife about $1,000 each month in child support.
Applicant earned a bachelor’s degree in computer science in 1997. Since about
1990, he has worked in jobs requiring a security clearance. (Gx. 1; Tr. 5, 8)
In about 2006, Applicant started a collection of antique firearms and other historic
collectibles. To finance his purchases, he responded to credit card offers he received in
the mail. The accounts alleged in SOR 1.a - 1.d are four of the credit accounts he
opened. Although Applicant accrued high balances on each card, he was able to stay
current in his monthly payments until sometime in 2010, when the combined principal
and interest of each account surpassed his ability to pay. He started working with the
creditors listed in SOR 1.a - 1.d. Since Between January 2011 and September 2011, he
reached agreements with each creditor and has been making monthly payments of
between $200 and $700 on those accounts to date. (Answer; Ax. A - D)
Applicant also owes two past-due medical bills for $459 (SOR 1.e) and $25 (SOR
1.f). He has the means to pay each one, but he has been unable to determine who
 See Directive. 6.3.3
3
holds each account. He was unaware of those debts until he received the Government’s
information in advance of hearing. (Answer; Tr. 40 - 41)
Applicant’s current finances are sound. He earns about $102,000 annually and
estimates that after all of his monthly expenses, including his child support and debt
payments, he has about $1,500 remaining. He also has about $60,000 in a retirement
savings account. Applicant has been candid and forthcoming about his finances. In his
EQIP, he disclosed the debts alleged in SOR 1.a - 1.d, as well as other debts that were
already resolved. At hearing, Applicant disclosed that because of his divorce, he was
unable to pay his taxes in 2011 and 2012. However, he filed his returns on time and
immediately established repayment plans with the IRS whereby he pays $150 each
month to satisfy a total of $14,000 in unpaid taxes for those two years. Those debts
were never delinquent. (Gx. 1; Tr. 44 - 45)
Applicant has a good reputation in the community for volunteer work at his
church. He also works with a local boy scout troop, and his reputation at work is solid.
(Ax. E)
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.
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.5
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).6
4
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
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 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. Compulsive
gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including
espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of
income is also a security concern. It may indicate proceeds from
financially profitable criminal acts.
More specifically, available information requires application of the disqualifying
conditions at AG ¶¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and 19(c) (a
history of not meeting financial obligations).
5
I have also concluded that the following AG ¶ 20 mitigating conditions apply:
(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; 
(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.
Applicant became overextended on four credit cards he used to fund his
collecting hobby. After staying current for a few years, he started falling behind on his
monthly payments and his accounts were closed for non-payment. In late 2010 and
early 2011, Applicant negotiated with the creditors listed in SOR 1.a - 1.d and was able
to establish agreements for monthly payments. He has been repaying all four accounts
in a substantial way and is likely to continue those efforts. As to SOR 1.e and 1.f,
Applicant has the means to quickly pay them. Based on his record of debt resolution, he
likely will do so when he obtains accurate information about who owns the debts.
Applicant exhibited good judgment in his proactive response to his financial problems.
His current finances are sound, as shown by a significant positive monthly cash flow
after paying his debts and his regular expenses. Applicant has not incurred any new
delinquent debts, and his current circumstances show his financial problems are not
likely to recur. 
In addition to evaluating the facts presented, and having applied the appropriate
adjudicative factors under Guideline F, I have reviewed the record before me in the
context of the whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant has been candid about
his debts, and he has dealt with those difficulties in a way that reflects positively on his
judgment and reliability. The information about his work in the community also supports
a conclusion that Applicant is a mature, responsible individual who can be trusted with
sensitive information. On balance, he has mitigated the security concerns raised by the
Government’s information.
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.f: For Applicant
6
Conclusion
It is clearly consistent with the national interest for Applicant to have access to
classified information. Applicant’s request for a security clearance is granted.
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge