1 
          DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
                     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  ) ISCR Case No: 14-00946 
  ) 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
 
 
For Government: Caroline Heintzelman, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
DAM, Shari, Administrative Judge: 
 
 Applicant accumulated two delinquent debts in 2011 that totaled less than 
$20,000. Circumstances beyond his control contributed to the financial problems. He 
has made monthly payments on both debts since May 2014. Resulting financial security 
concerns were mitigated. Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and 
testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.  
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On September 20, 2013, Applicant submitted an electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) as part of a re-investigation for his security clearance. 
On June 7, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD 
CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under 
Guideline F, financial considerations.1 The action was taken under Executive Order 
                                            
1 The SOR initially issued on May 1, 2014, but was re-issued on June 7, 2014, because the May 2014 
SOR was not signed. (Tr. 28.)   
 
 
 
 
2 
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 for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified 
Information effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.  
 
 Applicant answered the SOR in writing (Answer) on July 8, 2014, and requested 
a hearing before an administrative judge. On December 16, 2014, the Defense Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) assigned the case to me. On January 2, 2015, DOHA 
issued a Notice of Hearing, setting the case for January 21, 2015. The case proceeded 
as scheduled. Department Counsel offered Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 4 into 
evidence without objection. Applicant testified. He offered Applicant Exhibits (AE) 1 
through 4 into evidence without objection. The record remained open until February 12, 
2015, in order to provide Applicant time to submit additional documents. I received the 
hearing transcript (Tr.) on February 24, 2015. Applicant timely submitted three exhibits 
that I marked as AE 5 through 7, and admitted into the record without objection.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted both allegations. The admissions 
are incorporated herein. 
 
 Applicant is 47 years old. He was married to his first wife from October 1992 to 
November 2007. They have two children, ages 17 and 19. One child attends college 
and the other is a high school senior living with his former wife. He married his second 
wife in June 2011. She has three children, one of whom lives with them. Another child is 
attending high school, and one is trying to enter college. (Tr. 39.) Applicant earned an 
associate’s degree from an Air Force community college, and over 200 credit hours 
from different universities. (Tr. 18.) 
 
 Applicant enlisted in the Air National Guard after completing high school in 1985. 
He activated for deployment in December 1990 and deactivated in August 1991.  From 
October 1994 until May 1999, he served on active duty at the National Guard Bureau. 
He was a program manager, at the rank of master sergeant. After leaving active duty, 
he went back to Reserve status until January 2002. He then moved from his home state 
to State 2, and transferred to that state’s Air National Guard in November 2002. 
Subsequently, he moved to State 3, and transferred to that state’s Air National Guard 
where he served until 2005, at which time he moved again and transferred to State 4’s 
Air National Guard. He remained in State 4 until 2007, when he returned to his home 
state. He served until 2008 and retired with 20 years of credited service and 23 years of 
service in the Air National Guard. At the time of retirement with the rank of Master 
Sergeant, E-7, he was the supervisor of all operations for enlisted personnel. (Tr. 21.) 
 
 In February 2004, Applicant began working as a program manager for his current 
employer, a defense contractor. He now works in marketing and sales. He has held a 
Secret security clearance since 1985 when he enlisted. (Tr. 23.)  
 
 
 
 
3 
 Applicant attributed his financial problems to his divorce in 2007, costs related to 
two subsequent relocations, purchase of household items, and an inability to sell a 
home, resulting in two mortgage payments. As part of his divorce decree, he assumed 
two-thirds of the marital debts. In 2011 his monthly child support payments increased 
from $426 to $1,083. He also pays many of his work related costs and travel expenses 
to see his children twice a month. Those total between $850 and $1,000 a month. (Tr. 
26-28.)  
 
 In October 2013, a Government investigator interviewed Applicant about his 
finances, including two delinquent credit cards. During his testimony, Applicant said that 
he was financially unable to address the debts at the time of the interview. (Tr. 30.)  
 
 Based on credit bureau reports (CBR) dated November 2002, September 2013, 
and January 2015, the SOR alleged two delinquent debts totaling $17,632 that began 
accumulating in 2011. (Tr. 24.) The status of each debt is as follows: 
 
SOR ¶ 1.a. The $14,596 debt owed to a bank for a credit card debt is being 
resolved.2 Since May 2014 Applicant has been paying $100 per month on the 
debt. (AE 4.)   
   
SOR ¶ 1.b. The $3,036 judgment owed to a bank for a credit card debt is being 
resolved. On April 3, 2014, an order was entered in which Applicant agreed to 
begin making monthly payments of $70, which he has done since May 2014. (AE 
2, 4.)  
 
 Applicant submitted a family budget. He and his wife have a net monthly income 
of $10,500. Their monthly expenses total $10,489, and include two mortgage payments, 
child support for one child, college payments for another, payments on the above credit 
card debts, and other items. Applicant intends to pay the delinquent credit card debts 
until they are resolved, and anticipates increasing the payments in May or June 2015 
when he completes child support payments for one child and payments on a 401(k) loan 
for $11,000 that he made in 2011 or 2012. (Tr. 31: AE 6.) He has two open credit cards 
which are current and have a total balance of $1,900. (Tr. 32.) Other than the two 
delinquent SOR-listed debts, his other debts are current. (Tr. 34.) He intends to place 
his previous home on the real estate market this spring. If he sells it, he will have 
additional money to use resolving debt. (Tr. 40.) He has not participated in credit or 
financial counseling. (Tr. 35.) 
 
 Applicant testified candidly and honestly. He said he is a “patriot” and has served 
this country for 23 years. (Tr. 41.) He took full responsibility for the financial problems. 
(Tr. 40.) He acknowledged that it is in his best interests to resolve the two debts. (Tr. 
41.)  
                                            
2 The balance on this debt was $18,696 in May 2014, when Applicant began making payments. As of 
January 2015, the balance was $17,896. (AE 3.) 
 
 
 
 
4 
 Applicant’s employer is aware that his financial problems created security 
clearance concerns. His employer, who has known him for 10 years, wrote that 
Applicant “is one of the top performers” for the company. (AE 7.) He stated that 
Applicant is “a person of high moral character.” (AE 7.) 
 
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 (AG) list 
potentially disqualifying 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 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences 
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 
 
According to 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, 
and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance 
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. 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that an adverse decision shall be 
“in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the 
loyalty of the applicant concerned.”  
  
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concerns relating to the guideline for financial considerations are 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 notes two disqualifying conditions that could potentially raise security 
concerns in this case: 
 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
As documented by CBRs, Applicant began accumulating delinquent debts in 
2011 that he has been unable to resolve until recently. The evidence is sufficient to 
raise both disqualifying conditions. 
 
After the Government produced substantial evidence of those two disqualifying 
conditions, the burden shifted to Applicant to produce evidence and prove mitigation of 
the security concerns. AG ¶ 20 sets forth conditions that could potentially mitigate 
financial security concerns: 
(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; 
(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; 
 
 
 
 
6 
(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; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts; 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 has two delinquent debts, which arose in 2011, over four years ago, 
and total less than $20,000. Given that amount of money and his current payment 
arrangements, those debts do not cast doubt on his current reliability, or 
trustworthiness. AG ¶ 20(a) has some application. The delinquent debts arose as a 
consequence of a divorce, child support payments, relocations, and the inability to sell a 
piece of property. Those were circumstances beyond his control. Because he did not 
present sufficient evidence demonstrating that he attempted to responsibly manage 
debts when they began accumulating in 2011, only a partial application of AG ¶ 20(b) is 
warranted. Applicant did not provide evidence that he has participated in credit or 
financial counseling; however, he did supply his budget, which included payments on 
the debt, and a plan to pay off the two delinquent debts when more money becomes 
available. Hence, his finances are coming under control, and AG ¶ 20(c) has some 
application. He is making monthly payments on the two debts, exhibiting a good-faith 
effort to resolve them, and supporting the application of AG ¶ 20(d). He does not 
dispute either debt, so AG ¶ 20(e) is not relevant.  
 
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 relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the 
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They include the following:  
 
(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) 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. 
 
 
 
 
 
7 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security 
clearance must include 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 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a 47-year-old man, who 
honorably served in the military for over 20 years, and has successfully worked for a 
defense contractor for the past 11 years. He has held a security clearance during most 
of those years. Subsequent to a divorce in 2007, he incurred numerous expenses 
related to child support, establishing his household, and relocations. In 2011 two debts 
became delinquent. Those debts total less than $20,000 and are being repaid. He is 
current on other monthly financial obligations. Given his acceptance of responsibility for 
those debts, his long history of military service, and his understanding of the importance 
of resolving the debts, it is unlikely that similar problems will arise in the future. There is 
no evidence in the record from which to conclude that he will not honor his financial 
commitment regarding the two debts.  
  
The record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s 
eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For these reasons, I conclude Applicant 
mitigated the security concerns arising under the financial considerations guideline.  
 
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 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Applicant’s eligibility for a 
security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
                                               
_________________ 
SHARI DAM 
Administrative Judge