1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 12-06258
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Robert Kilmartin, 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 30, 2012. The Department of Defense (DOD) issued
Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on July 29, 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. 
 
GE 1; AE L; AE M; Tr. 24.1
2
Applicant received the SOR on August 6, 2014, and he answered it on August
20, 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 October 9, 2014, and I received the case assignment on October 20, 2014.
DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on November 26, 2014, and an amended Notice of
Hearing (location change) on December 3, 2014. I convened the hearing as scheduled
on December 9, 2014. The Government offered exhibits (GE) marked as GE 1 through
GE 5, which were received and admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant
testified. He submitted exhibits (AE) marked as AE A through AE M, which were
received and admitted into evidence without objection. DOHA received the hearing
transcript (Tr.) on December 18, 2014. I held the record open until January 9, 2015, for
Applicant to submit additional matters. Applicant timely submitted AE N through AE CC,
which were received and admitted without objection. The record closed on January 9,
2015.
Procedural Ruling
Notice
Applicant received the notice of the date, time and place of the hearing less than
15 days before the hearing. I advised Applicant of his right under ¶ E3.1.8. of the
Directive to receive the notice at least 15 days before the hearing. Applicant
affirmatively waived this right under the Directive. (Tr. 7)
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 36 years old, works as a security officer for a National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) contractor. He began his current
employment in April 2007. He began working for NASA contractors as a security officer
in 2002. During these years, Applicant has received favorable performance reviews and
group achievement awards.1
Applicant graduated from high school in 1997. He has attended college
periodically and continues to work towards his associate of arts degree. He graduated
from police training programs in 2003 and 2005. Applicant married in 2008. He and his
wife separated in December 2013. They have two sons, ages 7 and 6. His wife has a
son from a previous relationship, who is 13 years old. His spouse does not receive child
support for her son. During their marriage, Applicant provided financial support for her
GE 1; GE 2; AE K; Tr. 25.2
In his budget, Applicant reflected the difference between his income without overtime and his income with3
overtime. AE N.
AE N; AE O; Tr. 39-40.4
AE J; AE N; Tr. 50.5
AE BB; Tr. 29-35.6
3
son and continues to do so. His wife did not work during the marriage and does not
currently work.2
Applicant earns $27 an hour as a security officer. His gross income for a 40-hour
week is $1,080 and his gross income for a month is $4,320. Applicant provided a copy
of his earnings statements from October 2014 through December 2014. His earnings
statements indicate that his average hours for a two-week pay period range between 93
and 111 hours, depending upon various forms of wages earned and include overtime.
His income fluctuates each pay period. Based on the documents provided, I conclude
that Applicant’s monthly gross income averages $5,522.  In December 2014, he3
received an additional $795 in income when he cashed out his unused leave. His net
monthly income averages $3,984 plus an additional one-time payment of approximately
$665 net for his cashed out leave.4
Applicant contacted a financial service in October 2014, There is no evidence he
hired this service, but with the information provided by them, he developed a budget to
help him resolve his debts. Applicant’s budget shows monthly expenses of $1,600 for
rent on the family home, $100 for water and garbage, $60 for gas and electric, $70 for
cable and internet, $100 for car insurance, $345 for a car loan, $400 for food, $300 for
gasoline, $30 for home supplies, and $21 for a gym membership. Applicant pays $1,200
a month in child support and $600 a month in temporary spousal support, which covers
the $1,600 of rent for the family home and $200 towards the utilities. His basic monthly
expenses total $3,106. Applicant currently lives with his parents. Applicant has an
average $875 a month to pay debts and unanticipated expenses.5
Applicant’s financial problems began after he married. His wife generally refused
to work although she held two part-time jobs for a short period of time during the
marriage. Although he has been steadily employed, Applicant experienced a reduction
in his work hours from 40.5 hours a week to 32.5 hours a week in 2008 for a significant
time and in 2013 for about six months. In October 2013, he was furloughed along with
federal workers, which impacted his ability to pay his bills. His employer paid him for the
furlough time in January 2014. The reduction in hours impacted the amount he received
from the union towards paying his medical, dental, vision, and other miscellaneous
deductions. The amount he paid towards these benefits increased as his work hours
decreased because the payment from the union is based on the hours he worked.  6
AE CC; Tr. 32, 50, 59.7
AE S - AE Z; Tr. 33.8
GE 2 - GE 5; AE A; Tr. 35.9
GE 2; GE 3; AE B; AE N; Tr. 38-39.10
GE 2; AE C; AE N; Tr. 40-41.11
4
Early in his marriage, Applicant worked a second job for awhile to help with
expenses. At the hearing, Applicant stated that he had been applying for a second job in
security. After the hearing, he received an offer for a part-time security position. He will
work up to 20 hours a week. His salary is not specified in the offer letter. This job will
provide additional income to pay his debts.7
Applicant provided a copy of his tax returns from the tax years 2006 through
2013. His tax returns reflect that he earned approximately $46,700 in 2006, $42,300 in
2007 plus $3,250 in unemployment benefits, $39,000 in 2008, $46,000 in 2009, $54,400
in 2010, $54,000 in 2011, $53,502 in 2012, and $52,000 in 2013. Except for the tax year
2008, he received a tax refund between $660 and $3,000 (once). He owed $560 in
2008, which has been paid. His 2008 tax return shows a $6,000 loss of income from
2007 and supports his testimony about a reduction in income in 2008. His income in
2009 was $7,000 higher than 2008. He incurred a slight reduction in income in 2013.8
The SOR lists eight debts, totaling $16,737. These debts are contained in at least
one of the credit reports dated February 8, 2012, July 8, 2014, and October 9, 2014.
SOR allegation 1.a ($195) is for an unpaid medical bill. Applicant paid this debt at $50 a
month over four months with the last payment on April 16, 2014.9
SOR allegation 1.b ($3,178) concerns a rental agreement for a residence. The
original amount owed, according to the February 2012 credit report, was $6,357. On
March 6, 2014, the attorneys representing the creditor offered to settle the debt for
$3,178 through three monthly payments of $1,059. Applicant was unable to comply with
the terms of the agreement as he did not have sufficient funds. He has not paid this
debt, but plans to contact the creditor when he has the funds. His budget reflects that he
plans to pay $50 a month on this debt.10
The debt in SOR allegation 1.c ($1,849) concerns a collection account arising out
of a credit card debt. Applicant initally negotiated a settlement for $1,093, then
renegotiated a settlement on this debt for $911 and agreed to a payment plan. As of
November 2014, Applicant has paid $215 on this debt. His budget reflects he plans to
pay $132 a month on this debt until paid.11
SOR allegation 1.d ($133) relates to a $366 collection debt. The July 2014 credit
report indicated that Applicant disputed this debt as listed because a new collection
GE 2 - GE 5, p. 2; AE D; AE AA;Tr. 42.12
GE 2; GE 3; AE E; AE N; Tr. 43-44.13
GE 2; AE F; AE N; AE P; Tr. 44-45.14
GE 4; GE 5; AE G; AE N; AE Q; Tr. 45-46.15
AE H; AE N; AE R; Tr.46-47.16
AE N; Tr. 59.17
GE 2.18
5
creditor now owned the debt. Applicant paid the debt as part of a settlement on August
8, 2014.12
SOR allegation 1.e ($4,500) relates to a $5,348 collection account for jewelry.
After an initial contact from Applicant, the creditor offered to settle the debt for $4,500.
The creditor later offered to settle the case for $5,000 in a letter dated October 17,
2014. Applicant was unable to pay this amount, and the debt remains unpaid. In his
budget, Applicant indicates that he would pay $50 a month on this debt.13
The debt in SOR 1.f ($4,260) concerns an insurance debt. Applicant negotiated a
$50 a month payment plan on this debt. As of October 2014, he had paid $110 on this
debt. He paid $50 on December 29, 2014. He included this $50 payment in his budget.14
SOR allegation 1.g ($1,922) relates to a collection account. Applicant negotiated
a payment plan for $54 a month in October 2014. He made his first payment in this
amount on October 29, 2014, and he made a $50 payment on December 29, 2014. His
budget reflects that he plans to pay $160 a month on this debt.  15
The last SOR debt is allegation 1.h ($700). Applicant negotiated a payment plan,
which required him to pay $116.66 a month for six months. As of December 29, 2014,
Applicant had made three payments. His budget includes this payment and the debt
should be paid by March 2015.  16
Applicant has $875 a month available to pay the agreements he negotiated. His
budget indicated that he plans to pay $558 a month to his remaining creditors. At the
hearing, Applicant stated that his plan to resolve his debt was to pay his smaller debts
first, then work on his larger debts. The second part of his payment plan included
obtaining a second job, which he has done.17
The Government mailed interrogatories to Applicant, which he answered on
March 18, 2014. The interrogatories identified a number of debts not listed in the SOR.
In his answers, Applicant provided documentation showing that he paid and resolved
eight debts, totaling $4,278 and that he negotiated a payment plan for two other debts,
totaling $1,952.18
6
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 par amount 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).  
7
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. 
Applicant developed significant financial problems during his marriage, as he
provided the sole support for his family of five. His wife did not work and contributed to
the financial problems. Most of the debts have not been paid. 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.
Applicant’s employer reduced his work hours for a significant period of time in
2008, which impacted his monthly income, his payments on his health benefits, and his
ability to pay his bills. In 2013, his employer again reduced his work hours. Although his
work hours returned to normal by September 2013, his employer furloughed him in
8
October 2013 when the federal government employees were furloughed. Both events
impacted his income and his ability to pay his bills. Applicant is in the process of a
divorce and has heavy child support and spousal support responsibilities, which also
impacted his income and ability to pay his debts. Applicant acted responsibly under the
circumstances because he contacted his creditors and began to resolve his debts, eight
of which he resolved before the issuance of the SOR. AG ¶ 26(b) applies.
Although he did not receive financial counseling, Applicant contacted a financial
services company that provided him with some information. Applicant used this
information to develop a budget. He developed a payment plan to resolve his remaining
unpaid debts after contacting his creditors. Applicant paid two SOR debts (¶¶ 1.a and
1.d), has been making payments on four SOR debts (¶¶ 1.c, 1.f, 1.g, and 1.h), and paid
10 non-SOR debts. His actions were done in good faith. His actions resulted in the
resolution of 12 debts over the last two years. He will pay his smaller debts first, then he
will work to resolve his larger debts, specifically the last two SOR debts. AG ¶¶ 26(c)
and 26(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. 
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. 
9
In assessing whether an applicant has established mitigation under Guideline F,
the Appeal Board provided the following guidance in ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 3
(App. Bd. May 21, 2008):
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the
concept of “‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of
actual debt reduction through payment of debts.” See, e.g., ISCR Case
No. 05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2007). However, an applicant is not
required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and
every debt listed in the SOR. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-25499 at 2
(App. Bd. Jun. 5, 2006). All that is required is that an applicant
demonstrate that he has “. . . established a plan to resolve his financial
problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.” See, e.g.,
ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 6, 2006). The Judge can
reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and
his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for the
reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. See
Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (“Available, reliable information about the person, past
and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching
a determination.”) There is no requirement that a plan provide for
payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable
plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such
debts one at a time. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-25584 at 4 (App. Bd.
Apr. 4, 2008). Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually
paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the
SOR.
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. In
reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant’s
financial problems arose in his marriage when his wife refused to work to help with
family finances. His works hours were reduced twice, and he was furloughed once.
These events contributed to his inability to pay his bills. He and his wife are now in the
process of a divorce. His $1,800 in child and spousal support pays the rent on the family
home and much of the utility bills. He makes sure that he is providing for his family. 
 Most significantly, he has taken affirmative action to pay or resolve most of the
delinquent debts raising security concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(6).) Applicant has shown a
meaningful track record for resolution of his debt. Prior to the issuance of the SOR, he
paid and resolved 10 debts, and he has resolved two more debts since the issuance of
the SOR. He has an established  payment plan for four SOR debts, and he will add the
last two SOR debts as other debts are paid. He has the financial ability to comply with
the terms of his payment plan. He obtained a second job to increase his income and
speed up the repayment of his remaining debts. He has not ignored his debts; rather, he
has a plan to resolve his debts. Of course, the issue is not simply whether all his debts
10
are paid: it is whether his financial circumstances raise concerns about his fitness to
hold a security clearance. While some debts remain unpaid, they are insufficient to raise
security concerns. (See AG & 2(a)(1).)
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.
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
Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.e: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant
Subparagraph 1.h: 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