1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 14-06244
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:
The security concerns about Applicant’s personal conduct are mitigated by the
passage of time, by the effects of counseling, and by a positive change in Applicant’s
personal and professional circumstances. Applicant’s financial problems are also
mitigated by his proactive response to his debts, by his repayment of most of his past-
due debts, and by a demonstrated ability to responsibly manage his personal finances.
His request for a security clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On March 31, 2014, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (EQIP) to obtain or renew a security clearance required for
his employment at 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).
2
determine that it is clearly consistent with the national interest for Applicant to continue
to hold a security clearance.  1
On January 24, 2015, DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts
which raise security concerns addressed under the adjudicative guidelines  for personal2
conduct (Guideline E) and financial considerations (Guideline F). Applicant timely
responded to the SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing. The case was assigned to
me on May 5, 2015, and  I convened a hearing on May 28, 2015. The parties appeared
as scheduled. Department Counsel presented Government Exhibits (Gx.) 1 - 5.
Applicant testified and presented Applicant’s Exhibit (Ax.) A. These exhibits were
admitted without objection. Additionally, I held the record open after the hearing to
receive from Applicant additional relevant information. The record closed on June 3,
2015, when I received a 78-page exhibit admitted without objection as Ax. B. A
transcript of the hearing (Tr.) was received on June 8, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owed $29,954 for 21
delinquent or past-due debts (SOR 1.a - 1.u). Applicant denied SOR 1.a, 1.d, 1.k, 1.s,
and 1.t. At the hearing, Department Counsel moved to withdraw SOR 1.a, and
acknowledged that the allegations at SOR 1.s and 1.t are duplicates of 1.o and 1.p, and
that SOR 1.r is a duplicate of 1.k. Accordingly, SOR 1.a, 1.r, 1.s, and 1.t are resolved for
Applicant. The total amount in controversy for the remaining 17 debts, to which
Applicant admitted with explanations, is $20,991. (Answer; Tr. 9 - 13, 77)
Under Guideline E, the Government alleged that in November 2009, Applicant
was administratively separated from the U.S. Air Force for a pattern of misconduct
between 2005 and 2009 that included three non-judicial punishments and four letters of
reprimand. (SOR 2.a). It was also alleged that between May 2005 and May 2014,
Applicant was cited for eight traffic offenses, including four speeding or careless driving
offenses, and other failures to comply with laws regarding motor vehicle operation and
insurance. (SOR 2.b - 2.i) Applicant admitted, with explanations, all of these allegations.
In addition to the facts established through Applicant’s admissions, I make the following
findings of fact.
Applicant is a 32-year-old employee of a defense contractor, for whom he has
worked as a plane captain and aircraft mechanic since December 2013. From May
2004 until November 2009, Applicant served in the Air Force, where he was trained as
an aviation mechanic and plane captain, the field in which he still works as a civilian.
Between November 2009 and October 2010, Applicant was unemployed or employed
part-time while studying to receive his Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airframe
3
and power plant (A&P) certification. Since October 2010, Applicant has been steadily
employed with different companies as an aviation mechanic. He is currently a few hours
short of earning an associate’s degree in aeronautical engineering. Applicant has held a
secret security clearance since February 2005. He submitted his EQIP in March 2014 to
renew his clearance eligibility. (Gx. 1; Tr. 6 - 7, 43, 46 - 47)
Applicant and his wife have been married since September 2009. He was
previously married from August 2003 until September 2009, when he and his first wife
finalized a divorce after separating in 2008. Applicant has two sons, ages 11 and 9,
from his first marriage, and a daughter, age 5, with his second wife. As part of his
divorce, Applicant was given sole custody of his sons. Applicant’s younger son is
autistic and has since returned to live with his mother to receive better clinical care and
special education services. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Ax. A; Tr. 36 - 37, 44 - 46)
In his EQIP, Applicant disclosed in detail most of the debts alleged in the SOR,
as well as several debts that he had already resolved. Credit reports obtained during his
current background investigation further documented all of the debts alleged in the
SOR. (Gx. 1; Gx. 3; Gx. 4)
Applicant has paid all but two of the debts alleged in the SOR that were not
withdrawn or shown to be duplicates. Since about June 2014, he has consistently been
making monthly payments on the debts at SOR 1.b and 1.f. SOR 1.b is for a car loan on
which he fell behind while trying to also repay a car loan for his ex-wife after their
divorce. Applicant had co-signed both car loans with the same creditor, who
unexpectedly started applying his payments to his ex-wife’s car loan instead of to his
loan. As of the hearing, he had reduced the remaining balance of that debt by about
$2,000. At the same time, he was nearly finished making payments to resolve SOR 1.f.
(Answer; Ax. A; Ax. B; Tr. 50 - 56)
Applicant initially experienced financial problems because of financial
irresponsibility during his first two years in the Air Force. Some of the debts he disclosed
in his EQIP were accrued during that period, but he had paid them off before submitting
his current application for clearance. However, he has more recently experienced
additional financial problems caused, in large part, by the end of his first marriage
beginning around 2008. Applicant had sole custody of his sons but did not receive any
child support. In exchange for child custody, Applicant became obligated to pay most of
the marital debts, such as his ex-wife’s car loan and other loans and credit cards they
had obtained. The debt at SOR 1.d arose when both he and his ex-wife were
discharged from the Air Force. At the time, they erroneously claimed that provisions of
the Soldiers and Sailors Relief Act (SSRA) allowed them to break their lease when they
had to leave their last duty station. Applicant has since settled this dispute with his
former landlord. Other debts, such as cable television bills and cell phone accounts
became delinquent after Applicant moved several times for employment between 2011
and 2014, and did not receive the last bill. All of those accounts have been paid. (Gx. 1;
Gx. 2; Ax. A; Ax. B; Tr. 37 - 40)
4
Applicant’s current finances are sound. He presented substantial and detailed
information that reflects an organized approach to paying off his debts over the past 18
months, while increasing his savings, meeting all of his regular monthly obligations, and
avoiding additional debt. He has been in regular contact with his creditors since late
2012 and he has received credit counseling from a nationally-known banking institution,
most of whose customers are current or former military members. His work with that
company also includes continuous monitoring of his credit history. (Answer; Gx. 4; Ax.
A; Ax. B; Tr. 57 - 66)
Applicant departure from the Air Force in 2009 was through administrative
separation for a pattern of misconduct. He received a general discharge under
honorable conditions. The misconduct addressed by the Air Force consisted of multiple
violations of the UCMJ for which he either was punished at UCMJ Article 15 (non-
judicial punishment) hearings or received letters of reprimand. 
In January 2005, he was disciplined for not ensuring that an airman not of
drinking age and in Applicant’s charge at an off-duty social event did not consume
alcohol that was being provided to other service members at the event. The underage
airman was later found to be heavily intoxicated, but Applicant claims the airman
obtained alcohol after he left the social event. He was disciplined at an Article 15
hearing. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Ax. A; Ax. B; Tr. 14)
In July 2009, Applicant was disciplined for failing to go to his appointed place of
duty. Applicant had recently been assigned to a supervisory position normally filled by a
more senior non-commissioned officer. Applicant was aware that other supervisors
occasionally used their discretion to allow subordinates a long lunch hour as a reward
for their hard work. However, when Applicant did so he was informed that it was a
violation of command policy and was disciplined at an Article 15 hearing. In September
2015, Applicant also received non-judicial punishment for leaving his child unattended.
Applicant was a single parent and was asleep when his younger son, who has since
been diagnosed with severe autism, unexpectedly wandered out of his house on base
early in the morning. A neighbor saw the boy and called base police. Applicant was
charged with a violation of UCMJ Article 134 (General Article). (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2;
Ax. A; Ax. B)
Applicant also received four letters of reprimand. In October 2007, Applicant
chose not to report for his promotion test because of lack of sleep. He and his wife had
been arguing most of the night before and Applicant felt he was not physically able due
to lack of sleep to take the test. In August 2008, Applicant received another letter of
reprimand for failure to go to his appointed place of duty. He overslept and failed to
attend a military training course as ordered. In August 2009, Applicant, who lived in
base housing, went away on leave for three weeks and did not make arrangements for
lawn care in his absence. Applicant was issued a letter of reprimand for failing to
properly maintain his quarters. Finally, in August 2009, Applicant received a letter of
reprimand for bringing discredit to the Air Force for failing to pay a speeding ticket.
(Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2; Ax. A; Ax. B; Tr. 36)
 See Directive. 6.3.3
5
Between May 2005 and June 2012, Applicant was twice cited for speeding and
once for careless driving. He also was twice cited for failing to comply with seat belt
laws twice, driving on a suspended license, failing to have proof of insurance, and failing
to display proper registration. Applicant’s failure to timely pay the fine for his careless
driving charge resulted in his August 2009 letter of reprimand. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2;
Gx. 5; Ax. A; Ax. B; Tr. 69 - 70)
Applicant also was cited in March 2014 for failing to pay a bridge toll. Although
the bridge photograph showed his car going through the toll, his car was being driven by
his wife. Finally, Applicant was stopped and ticketed for speeding (89 in a 65 mph zone)
in May 2014. Applicant pleaded not guilty, claiming that it was a car that was passing
him and not he that was speeding. Applicant paid the fine but adjudication was withheld
contingent on Applicant’s completion of a safe driving course. (Answer; Gx. 1; Gx. 2;
Gx. 5; Ax. A; Ax. B; Tr. 70)
Applicant has acknowledged responsibility for all of his Air Force misconduct and
traffic violations. As to the latter, all of his fines have been paid and Applicant provided
information showing that he has been in compliance with insurance and registration
requirements for some time. Applicant has acknowledged that he had a problem rushing
to appointments that would result in speeding tickets. His driving infractions, as well as
some of his Air Force misconduct, were tied to the stress of his divorce and being a
single parent. Additionally, Applicant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder
(PTSD) as a result of a deployment to Iraq in 2007. He has addressed all of those
issues through clinical counseling, and he now is on medication to help him deal with
stress and help him with everyday organizational challenges. He also uses an
application on his smart phone that alerts him when he goes more than five miles per
hour over the posted speed limit wherever he is. (Answer; Ax. A; Ax. B; Tr. 41 - 42, 66 -
68, 72 - 73)
Policies
Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,3
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
 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4
 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531.5
 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b).6
6
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 to4
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
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.  5
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.6
Analysis
Financial Considerations
Available information is sufficient to support both of the SOR allegations under
this guideline. The facts established raise a security concern about Applicant’s finances
that is addressed, in relevant part, 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
7
protect classified information. An individual who is financially overextended
is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.
More specifically, this record supports application of the disqualifying conditions
at AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not
meeting financial obligations). Applicant had financial problems due to poor decision
making for the first two years of his Air Force service. Although he paid the debts he
incurred during that period, he once again had financial problems starting around 2008
that resulted in numerous past-due and delinquent debts.
I have also considered the following pertinent AG ¶ 20 mitigating conditions:
(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.
All of these mitigating conditions apply. Applicant’s delinquent debts arose almost
entirely from his divorce and other circumstances beyond his control. The debts at issue
in this case are not the result of irresponsible financial decisions. Applicant acted
responsibly over the past six years to pay or otherwise resolve his debts. Of the 17
debts at issue in this case, Applicant has paid or otherwise resolve all but two. Available
information suggests that at or near the date of this decision, one of those debts will
have been paid in full. Applicant was proactive in contacting his creditors and making
steady payments, while at the same time ensuring he was meeting his ongoing
obligations and not taking on new debt.
Applicant’s current finances are sound. He presented extensive and detailed
information showing that he has a significant monthly cash flow after expenses, that he
8
works from a structured budget, and that he is saving as much as is prudent under the
circumstances. Applicant also sought financial counseling and credit monitoring from a
reputable source, and he has been able to support his challenges to the accuracy of
some of the debts attributed to him. He has remarried and is better able to avoid similar
financial problems in the future. The security concerns raised by the Government’s
information about Applicant’s finances are mitigated.
Personal Conduct
Applicant disclosed in his EQIP some of the misconduct alleged at SOR 2.a - 2.i.
The record evidence as a whole presents a combination of his Air Force misconduct
and multiple traffic violations starting in 2005 that call into question Applicant’s judgment
and his ability or willingness to comply with regulations or procedures. This information
raises a security concern that is articulated at AG ¶ 15, as follows:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions
about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect
classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful
and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other
failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.
More specifically, I have considered the potential applicability of the following AG ¶ 16
disqualifying conditions:
(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is
not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single
guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a
whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness,
unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and
regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not
properly safeguard protected information; and
(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any
other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse
determination, but which, when combined with all available information
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment,
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the
person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes
but is not limited to consideration of: . . (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule
violations.
By contrast, the record also requires application of the following AG ¶ 17
mitigating conditions:
9
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is
so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment; and
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the
stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable,
or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur.
Applicant has acknowledged his misconduct in the Air Force and that he had a
problem complying with traffic laws. However, he presented sufficient information
showing that he has matured since leaving the Air Force; that his personal
circumstances have improved now that he is divorced and remarried; that he has
received clinical as well as financial counseling supportive of stability and organization;
and that the clinical and technological assistance he has received will help him avoid
future traffic violations and financial problems. The record evidence as a whole suggest
that there has been a sufficient passage of time and improvement in Applicant’s
personal and professional circumstances from which to conclude that the security
concerns about his personal conduct are mitigated.
I also have evaluated this record in the context of the whole-person factors listed
in AG ¶ 2(a). Throughout the investigative and adjudicative processes, Applicant has
been candid and forthright about the adverse financial and personal information in his
background. He has held a security clearance since 2005, and he has been fastidious in
his approach to his finances and to other facets of his personal life. A fair and
commonsense assessment of all available information shows Applicant has matured;
that he has sought the necessary help to correct the underlying causes of his
misconduct and financial problems; and that he can be relied on to comply with rules
and procedures governing the protection of classified information. The doubts about
Applicant’s continued suitability for access to classified information raised by his
financial problems and personal conduct have been satisfied.  
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
Subparagraph 1.a: Withdrawn
Subparagraphs 1.b - 1.u: For Applicant
10
Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 2.a - 2.i: For Applicant
Conclusion
In light of all of the foregoing, it is clearly consistent with the national interest for
Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security
clearance is granted.
MATTHEW E. MALONE
Administrative Judge