1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------------ )       ISCR Case No. 14-02248
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
February 17, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:
On August 1, 2014, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for Applicant. The
action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information
within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive
5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2,
1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), effective within the
Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. 
 
On September 3, 2014, Applicant  replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and she
requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge (AJ). The case was assigned to
this AJ on October 21, 2014. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on October 23, 2014,
and the hearing was held as scheduled on November 14, 2014. The Government
offered Exhibits 1 through 6, which were received without objection. Applicant testified
on her own behalf and submitted Exhibits A through P, which were also admitted
without objection. Applicant’s husband also testified on Applicant’s behalf. At the
hearing, the record was kept open until December 1, 2014, to allow Applicant to submit
additional evidence. The documents that were timely received have been identified and
2
entered into evidence without objection as Exhibits Q through EE. DOHA received the
transcript of the hearing (Tr) on November 25, 2014. Based upon a review of the
pleadings, exhibits, and the testimony of Applicant and her husband, eligibility for
access to classified information is granted.
Findings of Fact
After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, as reviewed
above, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of
fact: 
Applicant is 61 years old.  She is married, and she has two daughters and one
stepson. Applicant is a high school graduate. She has been employed by her current
employer, a defense contractor, for 24 years, and she is seeking a DoD security
clearance in connection with her employment in the defense sector.
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The SOR lists 14 allegations (1.a. through 1.n.) regarding financial difficulties,
specifically overdue debts, under Adjudicative Guideline F. All of the SOR debts will be
discussed below in the same order as they were listed on the SOR:
1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a medical account in the amount of
$143. Applicant denied this allegation on her RSOR.  At the hearing, Applicant testified
that she has disputed this and all of the medical bills listed on the SOR, (1.a., b., j., k., l.,
m., and n.), that were incurred by her husband, because she believes they should have
been covered under her insurance with the remainder to be paid by Medicare. (Tr at 37,
61-63.) On Exhibit Q, Applicant indicated that this debt, together with 1.b., below, was
paid by Applicant in the total amount of $340.45. Based on the record, this debt has
been paid in full. 
1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a medical account in the amount of
$145. Applicant denied this allegation on her RSOR. This overdue debt is cited in the
SOR for a medical account in the amount of $143. Applicant denied this allegation on
her RSOR.  As reviewed above, Applicant indicated that this debt, together with 1.a.,
above, was paid by Applicant in the total amount of $340.45. Based on the record, this
debt has been paid in full. 
1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a collection account in the amount
of $2,968.  Applicant admitted this allegation on her RSOR. At the hearing, Applicant
testified that she is making monthly payments of $113.23. Exhibit R establishes that
Applicant has a payment plan in place with this creditor to pay $113.23 a month and
that by the time of the hearing she had made nine monthly payments in that amount. I
find that this debt is being resolved.
3
1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-off account in the
amount of $5,549. Applicant admitted this allegation on her RSOR, writing that she is
making payments of $131.21. Exhibit S establishes that Applicant has a payment plan
in place with this creditor to pay a minimum of $100 a month and that by the time of the
hearing she had made five monthly payments of $131.21 and one payment of $100. I
find that this debt is being resolved.
1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-off account in the
amount of $1,525. Applicant denied this allegation on her RSOR. Applicant testified that
she could find no documentation to establish that she owes this debt or even where to
write to inquire as to the origin of this debt.  (Tr at 52-53.) In Exhibit T, Applicant
reiterates that she has been unable to locate this creditor, but she is still attempting to
find them. I find that Applicant has been making a good faith effort to resolve this debt. 
1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a charged-off account in the amount
of $4,274.  Applicant denied this allegation on her RSOR. At the hearing, Applicant
testified that she is disputing this medical bill, incurred by her 27 year old daughter, for
which Applicant never was a co-signer. (Tr at 53-56.) Exhibit U consists of a letter sent
to the creditor on November 20, 2014, from Applicant’s daughter, in which she reiterates
that this debt was incurred by the daughter and that the daughter should be the only
one responsible for it, not her mother.  I find that Applicant has a good-faith reason to
dispute this debt and is attempting to do so.
 
1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a past-due account in the amount
of $332. Applicant admitted this allegation on her RSOR, writing that she has paid this
debt in full. Exhibit CC includes a letter from this creditor, establishing that this debt was
settled in full for $149 on July 7, 2013. I find that this debt has been resolved. 
1.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a collection account in the amount
of $736. Applicant admitted this allegation on her RSOR. Applicant testified that she has
paid $575 to settle this case.  (Tr at 57-59.) Exhibit C establishes that this debt has
been settled in full. I find that this debt has been resolved. 
1.i. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a collection account in the amount
of $4,934. Applicant wrote on her RSOR and testified that she believed this was the
same debt as that listed as 1.f., above, which as reviewed above, is the debt of
Applicant’s daughter that Applicant is disputing. She made the contention that this is the
same debt as 1.f., based on the amount being very similar and the account number
being the same on both debts. (Tr at 59-60.) I find that this debt is a duplicate of 1.f.,
above.   
1.j. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a medical account placed in a
collection account in the amount of $265. Applicant denied this allegation on her RSOR.
As reviewed above, Applicant testified that all of the medical bills listed on the SOR
should have been resolved by her health insurance and Medicare. (Tr at 61-63.) (See
1.a., above.)  On Exhibit Y, Applicant indicated that she has been unable to locate this
4
creditor, and it does not appear this account exists. I find that Applicant has been
making a good faith effort to resolve this debt. 
1.k. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a medical account in the amount of
$250. Applicant denied this allegation on her RSOR. As reviewed above, Applicant is
disputing this medical bill because she believed it should have been paid under her
insurance and Medicare. On Exhibit Y, Applicant indicated that she has been unable to
locate this creditor, and it does not appear this account exists. I find that Applicant has
been making a good faith effort to resolve this debt. 
1.l. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a medical account in the amount of
$162. Applicant denied this allegation on her RSOR. The debts listed as SOR
allegations 1.l., m., and n. are to the same creditor. Exhibit EE is a letter from this
creditor, stating that this account to this creditor has been paid in full. I find that this debt
has been resolved.  
1.m.  This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a medical account in the amount
of $95. Applicant denied this allegation on her RSOR. On Exhibit Z, Applicant wrote that
she has paid this debt in full in 2012. I find that this debt has been resolved.  
1.n. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a medical account in the amount of
$54. Applicant denied this allegation on her RSOR. On Exhibit Z, Applicant wrote that
she has paid this debt in full in 2012. I find that this debt has been resolved.  
Applicant testified as to the reasons for her financial difficulties. In 2005, her
family went on a river rafting trip, during which they were involved in a rafting accident.
Their guide lost control of their raft, and the family was all thrown from the raft. Because
of the way her husband fell, his foot had to be amputated. As a result of his injury, in
2006, he was terminated from his employment. The family income was reduced from
two providers to one, and Applicant’s husband has not been employed since 2006.
Beside their income being reduced by more than 50%, since he earned more than she,
they also incurred additional medical bills, as has been reviewed above. (Tr at 64-67.) 
Applicant testified that it took her about three years to begin to get their lives
back on track, and she then began contacting creditors to attempt to resolve her
overdue debts. Aside from working to resolve the debts that are listed on the SOR,
Applicant also resolved additional debts, which were not listed on the SOR. (Tr at 67.)
Exhibits J-P and AA establish that Applicant has settled with six other creditors beside
those listed on the SOR. 
Mitigation
Applicant introduced four extremely laudatory character letters on her behalf.
(Exhibit I.) Individuals described the tremendous challenge Applicant and her family
faced because of her husband’s accident and loss of income. She was described as an
“extremely trustworthy, honest, hardworking, law abiding decent person.” Applicant also
submitted five certificates she has earned during her current employment. (Exhibit H.)
5
Applicant’s husband also testified on Applicant’s behalf. He confirmed that he had
suffered this very serious injury that resulted in him losing his foot. He also confirmed
that they are now current with all of their present bills. (Tr at 82-90.) 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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 over-arching
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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the Applicant is
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate,
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The
Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to 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 the 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
6
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
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. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns and
could potentially apply in this case.  Under AG ¶ 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness to
satisfy debts,” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶  19(c), “a history of not
meeting financial obligations,” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these
disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established
that Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt.  
AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial
difficulties. Under AG ¶  20(b), it may be mitigating where, “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.” As
reviewed above, Applicant’s husband’s serious injury, and subsequent loss of earnings,
were the causes of her family’s financial difficulties and potentially make this condition
applicable in this case. I find that Applicant has acted reasonably and responsibly, in
that not only has she contacted all of the creditors that she could find for the overdue
debts listed on the SOR, and set up payment plans with each, or paid them in full, but
she has also paid those debts that were not listed on the SOR. She also acted
responsibly by disputing debts that she had a good-faith belief were not hers. As the
evidence has shown, Applicant is in the process of resolving those overdue debts that
she could not resolve all at one time. Accordingly, I find that Applicant has acted
responsibly. Therefore, this mitigating condition is applicable in this case. 
Additionally, I find that ¶ 20(d) is applicable, since Applicant has “initiated a good-
faith effort to repay her overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Finally,
Applicant’s current financial situation is stable, with all of her financial obligations being
met in a timely and responsible manner. Therefore, I find Guideline F for Applicant.
7
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 the Applicant’s
conduct and all the 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
access to a classified position must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon
careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Based on all of the reasons cited
above as to why the mitigating conditions are applicable and controlling, I find that the
record evidence leaves me with no significant questions and doubts as to Applicant’s
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance under the whole-person concept. For all
these reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns under the
whole-person concept.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a. -1.n.: For Applicant
8
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.
                                              
Martin H. Mogul
Administrative Judge