1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 14-03474
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s financial problems arose from circumstances beyond his control and
are not indicative of his judgment and reliability. Although he is still repaying his debts,
he has not incurred any new liabilities, he has made payments as his means have
allowed, and he is now engaged in a structured repayment of his total debt through a
recently-approved Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. He has sufficient income to complete
the Chapter 13 plan with enough remaining each month to avoid such financial
difficulties in the future. His request for a security clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On March 7, 2014, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (EQIP) to obtain eligibility for access to classified information
required for her work as a defense contractor. Based on the results of the ensuing
background investigation, Department of Defense (DOD) adjudicators could not
  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
determine that it is clearly consistent with the national interest for Applicant to hold a
security clearance.  On October 7, 2014, DOD adjudicators issued to Applicant a1
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 initially asked for a
determination without a hearing. However, on November 19, 2014, he asked that his
case be processed for hearing, and it was assigned to me the next day. I convened a
hearing on December 16, 2014. Department Counsel for the Defense Office of Hearings
and Appeals (DOHA) presented Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 3.  Applicant testified3
and proffered Applicant’s Exhibits (Ax.) A - AA, and I  held the record open after the
hearing to receive from Applicant additional relevant information. The record closed on
February 18, 2015, when I received Ax. CC - EE. All exhibits were admitted without
objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on January 2, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owes $46,527 for four
delinquent or past-due debts (SOR 1.a - 1.d). Applicant admitted each of the allegations
and provided detailed information about his finances and the status of each debt at the
time of his response. In addition to the facts established by Applicant’s admissions, I
make the following findings of fact.
Applicant is 41 years old and is employed as an information systems architect
and consultant. In 1998, he earned a bachelor’s degree in finance. In 2002, he earned a
master’s degree in information systems management. Since 2006, he has worked
exclusively with an internationally-known business solutions product being employed by
various Government agencies, including most recently a defense contractor for whom
he has worked since December 2013. Applicant also served on active duty in the U.S.
Army from June 1991 until June 1997, and was in the Army Reserve until June 1999,
when he was honorably discharged. He held a security clearance in the Army, and has
held either an industrial clearance or position of trust since about 2002. (Gx. 1; Ax. R -
S; Tr. 9, 59 - 60)
Applicant married in September 1999, but the marriage ended by divorce in April
2003. He has one child, now age 14, for whom he was ordered to pay $560 a month in
support. He also was required to provide health care for his ex-wife and his child at a
rate of at least $500 a month. During periods of unemployment, health care costs
increased to around $1,000 through continued coverage programs. In 2004, he fathered
3
another child, for whom he has also been providing monthly support payments and
health care. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 3; Ax. A; Ax. Y; Tr. 65 - 66)
Applicant was steadily employed until 2011, when he was laid off from a job he
had held for over five years. For the next two years, he was employed through a series
of temporary contract positions that paid well but offered no employer-sponsored
benefits. He was also unemployed at least four times for two and three months at a
time. As a result, he struggled to pay his mortgage, child support, and health care
premiums. At times, he used credit cards to meet his regular obligations. The debt at
SOR 1.a is for a $20,000 signature loan he used to pay off a credit card. However, he
fell behind and missed three monthly payments. The debt was referred to a law firm for
collection and is now the subject of a civil judgment against Applicant. He has made
irregular payments to the current creditor as his means permit. (Answer; Gx. 1 - 3; Ax.
BB; Ax. DD; Tr. 60 - 65)
The debts at SOR 1.c  - 1.d are for other credit cards Applicant used between
2011 and 2013. He also made payments, albeit irregularly, on those accounts before he
was hired for his current job. (Answer; Gx. 2; Gx. 3; Tr. 18, 70, 74)
In 2012, Applicant filed a civil suit against his ex-wife over the status of their child
visitation agreement. He also sought to adjust his child support obligations to conform to
state guidelines based on his reduced income. His legal fees were substantial and
prevented him from making any significant progress on his credit card debts.
Additionally, the suit resulted in a significant increase in his child support obligations.
Applicant is adamant that his attorney did not represent his interests properly, and that
he had no choice but to agree to the new payment plan. (Answer; Gx. 3; Ax. A; Ax. H -
O; Ax. Z)
In March 2013, Applicant was hit by a motor vehicle while crossing the street. His
medical benefits at the time covered only 80% of his hospitalization, orthopedic surgery,
and subsequent rehabilitation. Applicant was able to pay the remaining costs of his
medical treatments, but, again, was hindered in repaying his other debts. His medical
costs rose in July 2013, when Applicant again became unemployed. Applicant’s
attorney negotiated a $25,000 settlement with the driver’s insurance company, but
Applicant has yet to receive any of those funds. (Answer; Gx. 3; Ax. A; Ax. P; Ax. Y; Tr.
74 - 82)
Applicant’s gross monthly income from his current job is almost $11,000. After
deductions for taxes, Social Security, Medicare, medical insurance, and child support,
Applicant takes home about $6,300 each month. From that is deducted about $4,200 in
regular monthly expenses (rent, utilities, car expenses, food, etc.), leaving an average
net monthly remainder of $2,100. Through a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition he filed on
December 5, 2014, Applicant is now paying $1,620 each month to satisfy in full the
debts listed in the SOR, as well as other smaller accounts that were not delinquent and
were not alleged in the SOR. Applicant made his first bi-monthly payment to the trustee
 See Directive. 6.3.4
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).5
4
on December 15, 2014. The Chapter 13 plan was approved on February 11, 2015.
(Answer; Ax. A; Ax. G; Ax. W; Ax. AA; Ax. CC; Ax. DD; Tr. 70 - 73, 84 - 88) 
Applicant has not incurred any new unpaid debts since he was hired by his
current employer. He files and pays his taxes on time. Despite falling behind on his
mortgage and other accounts while unemployed, he has resolved those debts in a
timely manner as his circumstances have allowed. Before he lost his job in 2011, his
credit score was excellent and he had no history of unresolved indebtedness. (Answer;
Ax. A; Ax. Q)
Applicant has a superb professional reputation. Three witnesses from his
workplace testified to his reliability, trustworthiness, and integrity. (Ax. B - F; Ax. T; Ax.
U; Tr. 95 - 112)
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
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.6
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).7
5
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
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). As to AG ¶ 19(a), the record clearly
requires an emphasis on Applicant’s inability to pay rather than any suggestion of her
unwillingness to resolve his debts.
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
6
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 experienced financial problems beginning in 2011, when he underwent
a two-year period of unemployment or underemployment. Before then, his credit was
good and he was meeting all of his obligations, including monthly support payments for
his two children. Between 2011 and December 2013, when Applicant was hired for his
current job, he continued to meet his mortgage and other obligations, but relied on
credit cards at times to make ends meet. In response to the Government’s information,
Applicant documented reasonable efforts to resolve his debts as they arose. However,
his 2012 legal fees and his 2013 medical expenses combined with his erratic income to
hinder his ability to correct his financial problems. Under these circumstances, it was
prudent for Applicant to seek protection from, and to repay, his creditors through a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition. He now has the means with which to meet his
obligations under that petition, and to avoid future financial difficulties. 
Applicant’s financial problems are not indicative of his judgment and reliability,
and there is little likelihood he will 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. His positive reputation in the workplace 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.d: For Applicant
7
Conclusion
It is clearly consistent with the national interest for Applicant to be eligible for
access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security clearance is granted.
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge