1
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 14-03929
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Caroline E. Heintzelman, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Appellant failed to provide documentation supporting his contention that he was
satisfying his delinquent debts through payment plans. Clearance is denied. 
Statement of the Case
On November 8, 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.
 On November 18, 2014, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting subparagraph
1.c and denying the remainder. On February 26, 2015, Department Counsel prepared a
File of Relevant Material (FORM) consisting of documents supporting the Government’s
allegations. Applicant received the FORM on April 6, 2015, and was informed that he
2
 
had until May 6, 2015 to submit a response. Applicant did not submit one, whereupon
the case was assigned to me on May 21, 2015. 
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 38-year-old married man with one child.  He has been married
since 2003 and has been a homeowner since 2004. (Item 2 at 7, 14) He is a high school
graduate and is currently working towards a bachelor’s degree. (Item 1 at 9; Item 3 at 5)
He has been working for a defense contractor since 2001. His current position is in the
field of production control. (Item 1 at 10)
Appellant has 11 past-due debts totalling $31,760. (Item 5) He admits
subparagraph 1.c, but provided no information about any payment plan. He denies
subparagraph 1.d on the basis that it is not his debt, and he denies the remainder of the
debts on the basis that he has contacted the creditors and is now paying them on time.
These contentions are not supported by any documentary evidence.                               
                                
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.
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.”
3
 
(AG ¶ 18) Applicant has incurred approximately $31,760 of delinquent debt. AG ¶ 19(a),
“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting
financial obligations,” apply.
The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable.
(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;
(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.
Appellant failed to provide documentary evidence supporting his contention that
he has developed payment plans for any of his delinquent debts. He provided no
evidence supporting the basis of his dispute of the debt listed in subparagraph 1.d.
Under these circumstances, none of the mitigating conditions apply.
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.
4
 
The length of time that Appellant has been married, held the same job, and
owned a home is indicative of a stable, secure life. He also deserves credit for trying to
improve his career opportunities by attending college. However, these positive facts are
not sufficient to overcome the security risk generated by his excessive delinquent debts,
absent supporting documentation that he is taking steps to satisfy them.
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: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.k: Against Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge