1Item 4.
1
                                                                     
                               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
                DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-04278
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
October 27, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge:
Applicant was indebted to 7 creditors in the total approximate amount of $84,306.
She recently paid one of them, for $212. Additionally, her wages have been garnished
five times for her failure to pay her local and Federal tax obligations. Resulting security
concerns were not mitigated. Based on a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility
for access to classified information is denied.
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on September 21, 2009.1 On
November 12, 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
2 Item 2.
3Item 4.
4Items 3 through 9.
2
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended
(Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines that came into effect in the Department of
Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted a written response to the SOR, dated December 10, 2014,
and requested that her case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record
without a hearing.2 Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on
June 17, 2015, containing five Items. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material
(FORM) was provided to Applicant, and she was afforded an opportunity to file
objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of
her receipt of the FORM. 
Applicant signed the document acknowledging receipt of her copy of the FORM
on June 27, 2015. She submitted a 17-page response to the FORM (Response).
Department Counsel had no objections to Applicant’s Response and it was admitted. I
received the case assignment on August 20, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 46 years old, and has worked for a defense contractor since 2009.
She served in the Army from 1987 to 1990 and received an honorable discharge. She is
divorced, and identified no children. She has an associate’s degree.3 
The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a clearance because she
made financial decisions that indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which raise questions about her
reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. The SOR alleged
that Applicant is delinquent on seven debts in the total amount of $84,306 in SOR ¶¶
1.a through 1.g. Additionally, Applicant’s wages were garnished by local and Federal
taxation authorities five times between 2010 to 2013 to resolve unpaid taxes. In Item 2,
Applicant admitted all of the delinquent debts and garnishments as set forth in SOR ¶¶
1.a through 1.l. Applicant’s delinquent accounts appeared on her notices of Federal,
State and Local liens; and her credit reports dated February 19, 2015; October 7, 2014;
April 9, 2014; March 4, 2013; and March 23, 2013.4 
Applicant attributed her delinquent debts to a number of causes. She indicated
she experienced fluctuations in her pay due to sequestration. She noted that her work
schedule fluctuated and this caused her to prioritize payments to her creditors. She
attributed some of her debts to a period when she was laid-off from work, but she failed
5Item 2.
6Response.
7Item 5.
8Response.
9Item 5.
10Response.
11Response.
3
to explain the duration or financial impact of that layoff. She also noted problems with a
“bad check” her former landlord wrote to her and an April 2012 car accident.5
Applicant is indebted on a state tax lien in the amount of $959, as alleged in SOR
¶ 1.a. In Item 2, Applicant claimed that this debt was paid as of “12/10/14" and that the
lien will be released by the end of the month. However, in her Response Applicant
produced a document from her state taxation authority showing she made a $553.23
payment on February 9, 2015. That document does not show whether that payment
resolved this debt or if a remainder is still due. Applicant failed to produce sufficient
documentation to show this debt is resolved.6
Applicant is indebted on a delinquent collections account in the amount of $483,
as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b. This debt has been delinquent since December 2012.7 In Item
2, she promised to resolve this debt by the end of January 2015. In her Response, she
presented a letter from this creditor, which indicated Applicant has set up an automated
payment plan to pay $216.30 on July 17, 2015, and July 31, 2015, to resolve this debt.
She failed to show proof that she followed through with that agreement and made the
payments. This debt is unresolved. 8
Applicant is indebted on a delinquent utility account in the amount of $302, as
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.c. This debt has been delinquent since 2009.9 In Applicant’s
Response, she indicated she had made arrangements with this creditor to make a
payment of $152.49 on July 14, 2015, and a payment of $150 on July 31, 2015, to
satisfy this debt. Applicant failed to provide documentation showing proof she made any
payments under this agreement. This debt is not resolved.10
Applicant is indebted on a delinquent collection account in the amount of $482,
as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d. She provided documentation from this creditor showing she
had agreed to make two electronic payments of $296.26 each, to satisfy this debt.
However, Applicant failed to include proof she made any payments under that
agreement. This debt is unresolved.11
Applicant is indebted on an overpayment from an agency of the Federal
government in the amount of $47,476, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e. She produced
12Response.
13Response.
14Response.
15Item 2; Item 3.
16Item 2.
17Item 2; Item 3.
18Item 2; Item 3.
19Item 2.
4
documentation of a payment agreement to repay this debt through monthly installments
of $250. However, Applicant failed to include proof she made any payments under that
agreement. This debt is unresolved.12
Applicant is indebted on a delinquent collection account in the amount of $212,
as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f. Applicant submitted a July 24, 2015 letter from this creditor
showing that this debt was paid. This debt is resolved.13
Applicant is indebted on a delinquent student loan in the amount of $34,392, as
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g. Applicant presented documentation to show she made an
agreement to pay $50 per month on this debt. The balance was listed as $47,604.05.
She failed to document payments under this agreement. This debt is unresolved.14
Applicant was indebted on a Federal tax lien in the amount of $950.91, as
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.h. Her wages were involuntarily garnished in July 2010 to satisfy this
debt. Documentation from the IRS shows she had unpaid balances from the 2007,
2008, and 2010 tax years.15
Applicant was indebted on a Federal tax lien in the amount of $7,070.39 for three
different tax years, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.i. Her wages were involuntarily garnished in
November 2012 to satisfy this debt.16
Applicant was indebted on county tax lien in the amount of $718.39, as alleged in
SOR ¶ 1.j. Her wages were involuntarily garnished in January 2013 to satisfy this debt.17
Applicant was indebted on county property tax lien in the amount of $300.76, as
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.k. Her wages were involuntarily garnished in August 2013 to satisfy
this debt.18
Applicant was indebted on a Federal tax lien in the amount of $7,016.52, as
alleged in SOR ¶ 1.l. Her wages were involuntarily garnished in December 2013 to
satisfy this debt.19 
5
The record lacks evidence concerning the quality of Applicant’s professional
performance, the level of responsibility her duties entail, or her track record with respect
to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. No character
witnesses provided statements describing her judgment, trustworthiness, integrity, or
reliability. I was unable to evaluate her credibility, demeanor, or character in person
since she elected to have her case decided without a hearing. 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially
disqualifying conditions (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be used in
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.
These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According
to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable
guidelines in the context 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 the national security.” In reaching this
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based
on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences
grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant is
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7
of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an
applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”
A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter into a
fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of
the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or
6
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of
classified information.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concerns under the guideline for financial considerations are set out
in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:      
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.
Department Counsel asserted, and the record evidence established, security
concerns under two Guideline F DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19: 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.
Applicant has a long history of delinquent debt. From 2009 to present, she
accumulated numerous unresolved delinquent accounts. Her wages have been
involuntarily garnished to resolve local, state, and Federal tax obligations dating back to
2007. Her ongoing pattern of delinquent debt and history of inability or unwillingness to
pay her lawful debts raises security concerns under DCs 19(a) and (c), and shifts the
burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those concerns. 
The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:
(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;
20ISCR Case No. 07-13041 at 4 (App. Bd. Sept. 19, 2008) (citing ISCR Case No. 99-0012 at 3 (App. Bd.
Dec. 1, 1999)).
7
(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.
Applicant failed to produce sufficient evidence that she has addressed her
delinquencies. She offered little evidence from which to establish a track record of debt
resolution. While she voluntarily resolved one debt, alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f, and the tax
delinquencies described in SOR ¶¶ 1.h through 1.l were resolved involuntarily through
garnishment, she failed to demonstrate good judgment under the circumstances.
Financial problems are likely to recur and continue to cast doubt on Applicant’s
reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. Mitigation under AG ¶ 20 (a) is not
established.
While Applicant claimed that conditions beyond her control contributed to her
financial problems, she failed to present evidence to substantiate that she followed
through on her promises to her creditors. While she may have experienced a period of
unemployment and a vehicle accident, the duration and impact of those events was not
apparent from the record. Her under-employment during sequestration may also have
hindered her ability to repay her debts, but she failed to show what she has done since
then to responsibly address them. Mitigation under AG ¶ 20 (b) is not established.
Applicant did not produce evidence that she received financial counseling. While
she has recently made agreements to pay her remaining delinquencies, she did not
document that she followed through with those agreements. The Appeal Board has
indicated that promises to pay off delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a
track record of paying debts in a timely manner and otherwise acting in a financially
responsible manner.20 She has not demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve her
debts. Mitigation under AG ¶¶ 20 (c) or 20 (d) is not established.
MC 20(e) requires documented proof to substantiate the basis of a dispute
concerning an alleged debt. Applicant did not dispute any of the alleged debts.
Accordingly, the record is insufficient to establish mitigation under any of the foregoing
provisions.
8
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s 
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):
 (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. 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.   
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is an accountable
adult, who is responsible for her voluntary choices and conduct that underlie the
security concerns expressed in the SOR. Her SOR-listed delinquent debts arose over
the past six years and appear to remain unresolved despite her employment during the
period involved. She offered insufficient evidence of financial counseling, rehabilitation,
better judgment, or responsible conduct in other areas of her life to offset resulting
security concerns. The potential for pressure, coercion, and duress from her financial
situation remains undiminished. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with substantial
doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. She did
not meet her burden to mitigate the security concerns arising from her financial
considerations.
Formal Findings
Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR,
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:
Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.e: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs 1.f: For Applicant
 Subparagraphs 1.g through 1.l: Against Applicant
9
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.
                                              
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Administrative Judge