The record  consists of the transcript (Tr.), Government exhibits (GE) 1-2, and Applicant exhibits (AE) A-I.1
DoD acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20,2
1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DoD on
1 September 2006. 
1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
      )
XXXXXX, Xxxxxxxx Xxxx        )      ISCR Case No. 14-04691
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah A. Minster, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Jacob Ranish, Esquire
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  I deny Applicant’s clearance.1
On 9 December 2014, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial
Considerations.  Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a hearing before the2
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). DOHA assigned the case to me 27
March 2015, and I convened a hearing 22 April 2015. DOHA received the transcript
(Tr.) 29 April 2015.
2
 
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR allegations. He is a 42-year-old senior software
developer employed as a defense contractor since February 2012. He has been
similarly employed with five other companies since August 2000, each time in a
progressively more responsible position. He has been continuously employed since at
least January 1998. His current salary is nearly $125,000 per year, and has been at that
level for several years. He seeks to retain the clearance he obtained in approximately
July 2002.
The SOR alleges, Government exhibits (GE 1-2) establish, and Applicant admits
six delinquent collection accounts totaling nearly $56,000. Applicant paid two accounts
totaling $450 [SOR 1.b (AE G) and 1.d (AE D)] in February 2015. He paid $5,000 to
settle the judgment for SOR debt 1.a (a 42% discount; AE A) with payments in February
and March 2015. He borrowed, or was gifted, the $5,000 from his fiancee. He paid
$7,500 to settle SOR debt 1.c (a 75% discount; AE B, C) in February 2015. He
borrowed from his retirement plan to make that payment (Tr. 37). In March 2015, he
contacted the Internal Revenue Service to make payment arrangements for his
delinquent Federal taxes for 2011 and 2012 (AE E). Presumably, his $17,000 tax debt
[now grown to $28,000 (Tr. 30)] will be reduced by the seizure of his expected 2014 IRS
refund of $6,800 (AE F). Although Applicant has not heard back from the IRS, he has
budgeted a $560 monthly payment for his back taxes (AE H). In April 2015, Applicant
began an online course in personal finance (AE I). Applicant reports $1,175 positive
monthly cash flow (AE H).
       In addition to the debts alleged in the SOR, Applicant’s credit report (GE 2)
reflects three additional accounts which he settled for less than full value: a delinquent
credit card account, a repossessed automobile, and a short sale of his house.
Applicant’s October 2013 clearance application (GE 1) reported significant financial
problems, specifically the short sale of his house, his automobile repossession, his
delinquent taxes for 2011 and 2012, and the two large debts he later settled in February
and March 2015. In all, he reported the debts underlying SOR allegations 1.a, 1.c, 1.e,
and 1.f.
Applicant married in December 2000. He and his wife have three children, ages
13, 10, and 6. Applicant left his wife in September 2010, because he did not love her
and was uncomfortable remaining in the marriage. He and his wife reached a
separation agreement which specifies Applicant’s child support and alimony obligations
(Tr. 42). Applicant is now engaged to be married, and has lived with his fiancee since
September 2014 (Tr. 39, 56). Applicant expects to divorce his wife in the next year or so
(Tr. 44).
Applicant had no history of financial difficulties until he separated from his wife in
September 2010. He was making $100,000 per year when they separated (Tr. 24).
Applicant moved into an apartment. His wife was supposed to make the $2,128 monthly
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
3
 
mortgage payment (GE 2), but she did not. Consequently, the mortgage became past
due, but had not been foreclosed upon. The debt was resolved through a short sale of
the property.
Applicant attributed his financial problems to the unanticipated, but necessary,
expenses of his separation: the costs of leaving the marital home and the costs of
supporting his wife through alimony and his children through child support. The
settlement agreement required him to pay $2,700 monthly child support and $500
monthly alimony. Applicant’s wife had worked part time during the marriage, but her
salary was not a significant contributor to family finances. She lost that part-time job in
early 2011. 
Applicant provided no work or character references aside from his fiancee, who
considers him honest and trustworthy. Outside of the recently-begun financial planning
course, Applicant has not previously had any credit for financial counseling.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors to evaluate a person’s suitability for
access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also show a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). The applicability of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is
not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific guidelines should be followed when a case
can be measured against them, as they are policy guidance governing the grant or
denial of a clearance. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, disputed facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, the
burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the required judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels deciding any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.3
¶19 (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;4
¶ 20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that5
it is  unlikely to recur . . . ;
¶ 20 (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and6
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶ 20 (d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;7
4
 
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Between at least September 2010 and
February 2015, Applicant failed to keep up with his financial obligations or to resolve
them when his accounts became delinquent, despite possessing the apparent means to
do so.  That Applicant reached a settlement agreement with his wife regarding child4
support and alimony outside a judicial proceeding does not obviate the fact that these
are legal obligations of his no less than the SOR debts. However, Applicant has not
documented how the alimony and child support payments limited his ability to keep
current on the SOR debts or to reach repayment agreements with the original creditors.
Nor has he demonstrated any efforts to communicate with his creditors to make
repayment arrangements before he received the SOR in January 2015. The settlement
agreements he reach on the two large debts were with successors-in-interest to the
original creditors.
The mitigating factors for financial considerations provide little help to Applicant.
His financial difficulties are recent and not infrequent, even if the stated cause is unlikely
to recur.  Applicant’s separation from his wife, albeit at his instigation, can still be5
considered a circumstance beyond his control. However, Applicant has not shown that
he was responsible in dealing with his debts, either in his efforts to keep the accounts
current or his efforts to negotiate repayment terms once the accounts fell delinquent.
For example, nothing prohibited Applicant from making regular payments on his IRS
accounts pending any application for, and approval of, an installment payment plan.
Moreover, he took no meaningful action to address the SOR debts until several weeks
before the hearing.6
Further, the payments he made on the eve of the hearing cannot be considered
good-faith payments, coming as they did late in a response to financial problems that
he acknowledged in October 2013, when he listed most of them on his clearance
application, and that he was fully aware were raising concerns for his clearance once he
received the SOR in early January 2015.7
Applicant’s willingness to enter into a separation agreement with his wife, to
address his legal obligations to her and their children short of divorce proceedings, is
commendable. But, it does not absolve him of his legal obligations to his other creditors.
¶ 20 (c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications8
that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
5
 
Moreover, he has not demonstrated that his changed circumstances prevented him
from making any arrangement at all with his creditors.
  
Applicant’s actions since he received the SOR bespeak more an effort to check
off as many of the mitigating conditions as possible than a good-faith effort to address
his indebtedness. Applicant is a well-educated man. The things he claimed to be
learning in his personal finance course are things he almost certainly already knew.
Further, that course was only undertaken in the month before this hearing.8
The concern with Applicant is that while he may credibly state his intent to avoid
financial problems in the future, and he may have the means overall to do so, he does
not actually have any track record of doing so after he and his wife separated. In
addition, the funds to settle one of the delinquent accounts came from a gift/loan from
his fiancee. The other funds came from a loan from his retirement account. Moreover,
although Applicant achieved a separation agreement with his wife with reasonable
amicability, unless the terms of that agreement contemplate incorporation into a final
divorce settlement, there is no guarantee that the divorce proceedings will be as
amicable. Further, Applicant has provided no character and employment evidence upon
which I could reasonably support a “whole person” analysis in favor of granting his
clearance. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-f: Against Applicant
Conclusion  
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge