1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 14-02756
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant has either satisfied his delinquent debts, or he is paying them through
payment plans.  He has mitigated the financial considerations security concern.
Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On November 21, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing
security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. 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) implemented by the DOD on
September 1, 2006.
Applicant’s answer was undated.1
2
 
 Applicant answered the SOR, admitting all of the allegations and requesting a
hearing.  The case was assigned to me on March 20, 2015. On April 1, 2015 the1
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a notice of hearing scheduling the case
for April 20, 2015.
At the hearing, I received four Government exhibits marked and identified as
Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 4, and I received five Applicant exhibits that I
marked and identified as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A through E. Also, I considered the
testimony of Applicant. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on April 27, 2015. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 35-year-old married man with two children, ages eight and ten.  He
was married in 2007 and has been separated since 2012. (Tr. 68) His youngest child is
from his marriage and his oldest child is from a previous relationship. (Tr. 45) 
Applicant graduated from high school in 1997, and earned an associates degree
in 1998. (Tr. 19) In 1999, he joined the U.S. Marine Corps where he served honorably
through his discharge in 2003. Currently, he is both working and attending college full-
time. He is majoring in forensic science. (Tr. 18)
While in the military, Applicant was a combat photographer. (GE 1 at 17) After
leaving the military, he worked various odd jobs for a year before getting a job as a
latent print photographer in 2004. (Tr. 44) Latent print photography is part of the larger
field of battlefield forensics. (Tr. 20) He has worked for various employers in this field
since then. (Tr. 20, GE 1 at 15)  For the past year, he has worked for a government
contractor as an intermediate latent print technician. (Tr. 20) In this position, he
supervises other technicians. He has held a security clearance since 2003. (Tr. 42)
Applicant is highly respected on the job. According to his supervisor, he is “a
solid performer” who has demonstrated trustworthiness and reliability. (GE A)
In May 2012, Applicant and his wife separated.  (Tr. 54) Between June and July,
Applicant purchased two cars. The first car loan was in his name only, and he cosigned
the second car loan with his estranged wife. (Tr. 55, 58) He purchased her a car
because “he didn’t want her to be left without a vehicle.” (Tr. 55) Together the loans
totalled approximately $20,000. Applicant traded in two cars to facilitate the purchase.
(Tr. 53)
In October 2012, Applicant lost his job. Although he found a new job with minimal
interruption in employment, it paid approximately $30,000 less than his previous job.
(Tr. 60) Subsequently, Applicant began to have trouble making ends meet. By August
2013, both cars had been repossessed and resold. Applicant owed deficiencies of
3
 
$12,814 (subparagraph 1.b) and $7,294 (subparagraph 1.c), as listed in SOR
subparagraphs 1.b and 1.c. Also by August 2013, the creditor of a debt consolidation
loan had obtained a $2,443 judgment against him (subparagraph 1.a), and a credit card
account was delinquent in the amount of $672 (subparagraph 1.d). (Tr. 49, 60-62)
Applicant has been promoted three times since switching jobs in October 2012.
As he has been promoted, his salary has gradually increased, enabling him to begin
satisfying his delinquencies. (Tr. 21) He has been making $143 towards the satisfaction
of the debt listed in subparagraph 1.a since August 2013. (AE B at 16) The current
balance is approximately $1,300. In November 2013, he satisfied the debt listed in
subparagraph 1.d in its entirety.  (Answer at 5) In December 2014, he began satisfying
the car loan listed in subparagraph 1.c with $150 monthly payments. In March 2015, he
contacted the assignee of the car loan listed in subparagraph 1.b, and arranged a
payment plan under which he is to make an initial $1,000 downpayment followed by bi-
monthly $175 payments. (Tr. 50) Applicant made the downpayment that month, as
agreed, and has made the first $175 payment. (AE B at 2; Tr. 51)
Applicant satisfied approximately $500 of debt owed to two creditors that were
not listed in the SOR. Specifically, he satisfied a $250 debt owed to one of these
creditors by October 2013, and a $250 debt owed to the other unlisted creditor by July
2014. (AE B at 18-21)
Applicant currently earns $85,000 per year. (Tr. 60) He meticulously tracks his
spending. He has approximately $350 of monthly discretionary income. (AE E at 1; Tr.
67) He is currently seeking a credit counselor. Applicant met with a representative of a
credit counseling company in March 2015, but decided not to retain him because the
initiation fee was too high. (AE D at 1; Tr. 65)
From approximately May 2012 to August 2012, Applicant abused his company
travel card. Specifically, after using the card for business expenses, he submitted travel
expense receipts to his company for cash reimbursements to be applied to the credit
card, but instead, used the reimbursements to pay personal expenses.  (Tr. 39) He
misappropriated company funds in this manner for three months. After receiving a
company credit card bill that he was unable to pay, Applicant reported the problem to
his company who made him satisfy the debt by garnishing his wages for three
consecutive pay periods. (Tr. 39-41)
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. 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.
4
 
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.” 
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 for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
Under this guideline, “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.”
(AG ¶ 18) Between 2012 and 2013, Applicant incurred approximately $23,000 of
delinquent debt. AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c),
“a history of not meeting financial obligations,” apply. For a three-month period in 2012,
Applicant used cash reimbursements for company travel to pay his personal bills. AG ¶
19(d), “deceptive or illegal financial practices such as embezzlement, employee theft,
check fraud, income tax evasion, expense fraud, filing deceptive loan statements, and
other intentional financial breaches of trust,” also applies.
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:
(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  
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts. 
Applicant attributes his financial problems to his marital separation in May 2012
and the loss of his job in October 2012. Any circumstance beyond his control that may
have contributed to his marital separation is outweighed by the bad judgment of
purchasing a car with his wife after they separated. Moreover, assuming that his marital
separation caused his financial problems, he did not act responsibly, as he used
5
 
company expense reimbursement income to pay personal bills instead of his travel
credit card.  
Nevertheless, Applicant deserves some credit for acting responsibly after the
significant income loss resulting from the loss of his job in October 2012. Specifically, he
began paying some of his debts, and making payment plans for others as his salary on
the new job gradually increased. Currently, all of his debts are either satisfied, or are
being satisfied through payment plans. Applicant keeps a budget and meticulously
tracks his spending. AG ¶ 20(b) partially applies, and AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) apply in
their totality.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows: 
(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.
Applicant’s abuse of his travel credit card was serious. However, he self-reported
the infraction and repaid the money. Moreover, as his salary increased over the years,
he has correspondingly been paying more of his delinquent debts. Currently, Applicant
has either satisfied his delinquencies, including two that were not listed in the SOR, or
has been paying them through payment plans. His finances are meticulously organized.
Upon consideration of the strong presence of rehabilitation and the amount of time that
elapsed since the travel credit card-related infraction, together with Applicant’s favorable
work record, and the length of time that he has held a security clearance, I conclude
that he has mitigated the security concerns. 
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
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.e: For Applicant
6
 
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.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge