1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 14-02137
)
)
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. His
current finances are sound, and the presence of unpaid debt does not present a
security concern that Applicant will commit improper or illegal acts to obtain money. His
request for continued access to classified information is granted.
Statement of the Case
Applicant first received a security clearance while serving on active duty in the
U.S. Army between 2005 and 2007. He has continued to hold a clearance while
employed with a defense contractor since 2009. On December 17, 2013, he submitted
an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (EQIP) to renew his eligibility
for access to classified information. Based on the results of the ensuing background
investigation, Department of Defense (DOD) adjudicators could not determine that it is
  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).
 A list of the Government’s exhibits is included in the record as Hearing Exhibit (Hx.) 1.3
2
clearly consistent with the national interest for Applicant to hold a security clearance.1
On July 18, 2014, DOD adjudicators issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR)
alleging facts which raise security concerns addressed under the adjudicative
guidelines  for financial considerations (Guideline F). 2
Applicant timely responded to the SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing. I was
assigned this case 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 proffered Applicant’s3
Exhibits (Ax.) A and B. I also held the record open after the hearing to receive from
Applicant additional relevant information. The record closed on January 12, 2015, when
I received Ax. C - H. All exhibits were admitted without objection. DOHA received the
hearing transcript (Tr.) on January 7, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that in July 1997, Applicant was
discharged of debts totaling $8,128 in response to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition filed
in September 1996 (SOR 1.a). It was further alleged that Applicant owes $199,687 for
six delinquent or past-due debts (SOR 1.b - 1.g). Applicant admitted, with explanations,
the allegations at SOR 1.a - 1.c, and 1.g. He denied with explanations the remaining
allegations. In addition to the facts established by Applicant’s admissions, I make the
following findings of fact.
Applicant is 46 years old and has been married since June 1998. A previous
marriage ended by divorce in June 1993 after four years of marriage. Applicant and his
first wife had two children, now ages 24 and 20. Applicant has been separated from his
second wife since April 2000. They separated because she is bipolar and was not taking
her medications. She will not agree to a divorce. Applicant’s second marriage produced
one child, now age 19, for whom Applicant has consistently paid $250 each month in
support. He also has two children, ages 8 and 5, by a woman with whom he has been
living in a committed relationship since 2003. (Gx. 1; Gx. 4; Tr. 63, 79)
Applicant attended college between 1987 and 1990 while participating in an Army
National Guard program through which he earned a commission as an Army 2nd
Lieutenant. In 1990, at the start of the first Gulf War, Applicant left school and reported
for infantry officer training in preparation for deployment to Kuwait and Iraq. However,
he was injured during training and never deployed. Applicant left active duty in 1991
with an honorable discharge. However, he was actually still available for recall as a
3
member of the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR). In 2005, he was recalled for active duty
for training and deployment to Iraq as part of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). Applicant
completed a 16-month combat deployment and received an honorable discharge in July
2007. His service as a combat infantry officer and battle captain in Iraq earned him a
Meritorious Service Medal (MSM). In addition to the MSM, Applicant’s Officer Evaluation
Reports (OERs) reflect excellent and dedicated service throughout his active duty
service. (Gx. 1; Gx. 4; Ax. C - E; Tr. 28 - 29, 48 - 52, 81)
After Applicant left active duty in 1991, he worked mainly as a car salesman and
sales manager until he was recalled for OIF in 2005. After a brief period of
unemployment in 2007, he again worked in sales until 2009, when he was hired as a
systems engineer by his current employer. Applicant’s performance since 2009 has
been exemplary. (Gx. 1; Gx. 4; Ax. F)
When Applicant submitted his EQIP in 2013, he disclosed, as required, the debts
alleged at SOR 1.b and SOR 1.c. Subsequent records obtained by Government
investigators also showed that Applicant had filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1996, as
alleged in SOR 1.a, and documented the other debts alleged in the SOR. Applicant
discussed all of those matters with an investigator during a January 2014 subject
interview. (Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Gx. 4)
In Applicant’s 1996 bankruptcy petition, he declared liabilities of $8,128 against
assets of $1,250. Applicant was discharged of his debts; however, in retrospect, he
believes he received bad advice to file the petition subsequent to his divorce. He
believes he could have paid his debts on his own without resorting to bankruptcy.
(Answer; Gx. 4; Tr. 33)
Applicant also disclosed in his EQIP that he was contacted in 2013 by a
collection agency seeking repayment of a delinquent student loan from Applicant’s time
in college up to 1990. Applicant avers he was previously unaware he owed any
outstanding loan payments. Before he could verify its accuracy with the university, his
company received an order to garnish his wages to satisfy a $29,713 debt, alleged at
SOR 1.b, for past-due loan payments. Applicant believes the original amount of his
student loan was $12,000. Through the garnishment, he is paying $198 from each bi-
weekly paycheck. (Answer; Gx. 1 - 4; Ax. A; Tr. 28 - 29, 31 - 33, 35, 40 - 41)
The debt at SOR 1.e is tangentially related to SOR 1.b. When Applicant
contacted the university to inquire about the SOR 1.b debt, he was encouraged to use
his Post-911 GI Bill benefits to finish his degree. Applicant took online courses between
January and August 2012 and was reimbursed for his tuition and fees. However, the
Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) overpaid him. In August 2013,
Applicant paid $650 and thought the account was settled. But he recently learned he
owed an additional $350, which he is able and willing to pay. (Answer; Gx. 1 - 4; Ax. B;
Tr. 43 - 44)
4
The debt alleged at SOR 1.c is for a past-due cable television bill. Applicant has
not used cable television in more than 12 years. He was not aware of such a debt in his
credit history before his January 2014 subject interview. (Answer; Tr. 77)
The debt at SOR 1.f is for a past-due credit card with a balance of $509.
Applicant had the card when he was recalled to active duty in 2005. He submitted a
request to the company to suspend his obligations for the account while he was
deployed. He estimates the card balance when he deployed was about $30 because he
had paid down the balance. Applicant has tried to negotiate a repayment agreement
that does not include interest and penalties added after he deployed. (Answer; Tr. 44 -
46)
Applicant denies the $107 past-due medical account at SOR 1.g is his
responsibility. It is likely for treatment of one of his adult children from his first marriage.
Applicant was diagnosed in 2012 with diabetes and has been hospitalized once for that
condition in 2013. He is aware of all his bills and required payments related to his illness
and knows the SOR 1.g debt is not related. (Answer; Gx. 4; Tr. 46 - 47)
The largest debt attributable to Applicant is the $168,000 child support arrearage
alleged at SOR 1.c. When Applicant and his first wife divorced in 1993, he was ordered
to pay $987 in monthly child support for his two oldest children. He agreed to make
those payments until they were 23 years old because he wanted them to attend college.
Around 1995, during a six-month period of unemployment, Applicant’s ex-wife agreed
he could reduce his monthly payments to about $500 until he was back on his feet.
However, when she learned Applicant had met another woman whom he intended to
marry, she went to court and obtained a judgment in debt for $9,000 in unpaid support.
That amount was added on to Applicant’s original child support obligation. Since 1995,
Applicant has paid $100 each month toward the arrearage plus the original $987
ordered in 1993. Applicant’s payments are taken from his paycheck every two weeks
and he has not missed more than 10 payments over the past 20 years; however, the
amount of the arrearage has been growing over that period because of accruing interest
and penalties. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 4; Ax. A; Ax. G; Tr. 30, 35 - 38, 52 - 63)
Applicant and his first wife have been trying to negotiate a reasonable settlement
of the arrearage. She is interested in resolving the matter because when her youngest
child turns 23 and the order for $987 in monthly payments expires in 2017, Applicant will
only be obligated to pay $100 each month on the arrearage. (Answer; Tr. 64 - 65)
Applicant’s current finances are sound and he lives within his means. He earns
about $70,000 annually. When combined with his partner’s income, the household
finances show about $3,600 remaining each month after paying all expenses, including
garnishments and child support. (Ax. H; Tr. 34, 65 - 71)
 See Directive. 6.3.4
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).5
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.6
5
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,4
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 to5
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.  6
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).7
6
any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the
Government.7
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).
I also conclude that the record supports application of the following AG ¶ 20
mitigating conditions:
(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
(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;
Applicant likely does not owe the debts alleged at SOR 1.d and 1.g. The amount
of the debt at SOR 1.f is in question. Applicant is repaying through garnishment the
7
student loan debt at SOR 1.b, but it does not appear he ever refused to pay the debt.
Rather, the creditor instituted garnishment proceedings before Applicant could verify the
debt or negotiate with the school to repay it. As to his child support debt alleged at SOR
1.c, although it continues to grow through interest and penalties, he has been paying as
ordered for almost 20 years. All available information probative of SOR 1.c shows
Applicant has nearly always paid his child support. As to the DFAS debt at SOR 1.e,
Applicant had already made a good-faith effort to repay the debt in 2013, but he did not
know that the debt was actually higher.
As shown by a recent budget he submitted, Applicant and his partner have
sufficient income with which to repay his debts and avoid future financial problems.
They have a significant positive monthly cash flow after expenses, and they have
incurred no new unpaid debts. It is probable that Applicant will be able to negotiate a
feasible solution to his child support arrearage at or before the end of his base monthly
obligations in 2017. Applicant’s current finances are sound and bear no resemblance to
his financial posture when he filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 1996. 
Applicant’s failure to pay his outstanding debts is not an accurate reflection of his
judgment and reliability, and there is little likelihood he would resort to improper or illegal
conduct to resolve his debts. 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 his financial difficulties
in a way that reflects positively on his judgment and reliability. The information about his
work performance and his military service 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.g: For Applicant
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