1Item 3.
2Item 1.
1
                                                                     
                              DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)       ISCR Case No. 14-02764
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Ray T. Blank, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
December 18, 2015
______________
Decision
______________
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge:
Applicant has resolved five debts totaling $3,978. She is making payments on
eight other delinquent accounts. Applicant’s financial difficulties were a result of
conditions beyond her control and she is acting responsibly with respect to her
delinquencies. Security concerns were mitigated. Based on a review of the pleadings
and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
Statement of the Case 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application on February 28, 2013.1 On
September 17, 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).2 The action was taken under
3Item 2.
4Items 5 and 6.
2
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 that came into effect in the Department of
Defense on September 1, 2006. 
Applicant submitted a written response to the SOR, dated November 3, 2014,
and requested that her case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record
without a hearing.3 Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on
August 21, 2015, containing seven 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 September 3, 2015. She submitted additional material in response to the FORM on
September 30, 2015 (Response). Department Counsel had no objections to the material
submitted by the Applicant, and it was included in the file. I received the case
assignment on October 13, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 66 years old, and has worked for a defense contractor since 2002.
She is a widow and has seven adult children. She provides for her disabled adult son.
(Response; Item 4.)
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 14 debts in the total amount of $15,766. In Item 2,
Applicant admitted the delinquent debts as set forth in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.g, 1.k
through 1.n. She denied the delinquent debts as set forth in SOR ¶¶ 1.h, 1.i, and 1.j.
Applicant’s delinquent accounts appeared on her credit reports dated February 21,
2013; and March 5, 2014.4 
Applicant admitted she is indebted on a medical collection account in the
approximate amount of $154, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. In Applicant’s Response, she
claimed that she is “paying” this debt. However, the account number identified in the
credit report dared March 5, 2014, does not appear to match with any of the
documentation provided in her Response. (Response.)
3
Applicant admitted she is indebted on a medical collection account in the
approximate amount of $52, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b. In Applicant’s Response, she
claimed that she is “paying” this debt. However, the account number identified in the
credit report dared March 5, 2014, does not appear to match with any of the
documentation provided in her Response. (Response.)
Applicant admitted she is indebted on a collection account in the approximate
amount of $175, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.c. Applicant’s bank statement reflects she made
a $50 payment to this creditor on September 11, 2015. This debt is being resolved.
(Response.)
Applicant admitted she is indebted on a medical collection account in the
approximate amount of $43, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d. In Applicant’s Response, she
claimed that she is “paying” this debt. However, the account number identified in the
credit report dared March 5, 2014, does not appear to match with any of the
documentation provided in her Response. (Response.)
Applicant admitted she is indebted on a collection account in the approximate
amount of $1,356, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e. Applicant provided documentation from this
creditor requesting a minimum monthly payment of $50 on this debt. Applicant provided
a copy of her bank statement as proof she remitted this payment. This debt is being
resolved. (Response.)
Applicant admitted she is indebted on a collection account in the approximate
amount of $4,134, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.f. In her response, Applicant provided a letter
from this creditor documenting a payment plan. Applicant agreed to remit $50 per month
until this debt is resolved. Applicant is resolving this debt. (Response.)
Applicant admitted she is indebted on a collection account in the approximate
amount of $4,876, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g. In her Response, Applicant indicated she is
“in negotiation” with this creditor. (Response.)
Applicant denied she was indebted on a collection account in the approximate
amount of $2,196, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.h. She claimed that this debt was paid in full.
In her Response, she provided a letter from this creditor that stated, “the account is
paid.” This debt is resolved. (Response.)
Applicant denied she was indebted on a collection account in the approximate
amount of $183, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.i. Applicant presented a copy of her bank
statement that shows this debt was paid in full on September 10, 2015. It is resolved.
(Response.)
Applicant denied she was indebted on a collection account in the approximate
amount of $1,998, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.j. She claimed in her Answer that this debt
was paid in full. In her Response, she provided an offer from a collection agent
representing this creditor to settle this debt for $1,347. She also provided a letter
4
showing she submitted a check in that amount to the collection agent, and a copy of the
cancelled check. This debt is resolved. (Answer; Response.)
Applicant admitted she is indebted on a collection account in the approximate
amount of $296, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.k. In Applicant’s Response, she claimed that she
is “paying” this debt. However, the account number identified in the credit report dated
February 21, 2013, does not appear to match with any of the documentation provided in
her Response. (Response.)
Applicant admitted she is indebted on a collection account in the approximate
amount of $214, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.l. In her Response, Applicant provided
documentation that she has resolved this debt with the original creditor. This debt is
resolved. (Response.)
Applicant admitted she is indebted on a collection account in the approximate
amount of $52, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.m. In Applicant’s Response, she claimed that she
is “paying” this debt. However, the account number identified in the credit report dated
February 21, 2013, does not appear to match with any of the documentation provided in
her Response. (Response.)
Applicant admitted she was indebted on a collection account in the approximate
amount of $38, as alleged in SOR ¶ 1.n, but claimed that she paid this debt. In her
Response, she provided a copy of a receipt that shows she paid this debt in full. It is
resolved. (Response.)
Applicant’s response failed to document specifically that she is making payments
on the medical accounts identified in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.d, 1.k, and 1.m. They are held
by an unidentified creditor or creditors. However, she did provide documentation relating
to a group of medical debts, which were not itemized, that total $1,955. She
documented that she has a payment plan to resolve these debts through $50 monthly
payments. She made a payment under this plan on September 10, 2015. She credibly
averred that she is resolving SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.d, 1.k, and 1.m. through payments to
this single creditor. (Response.) 
Applicant provided her budget, which shows she has sufficient funds to fulfill her
current financial obligations, including her payments on her delinquent debts. She
attributed her delinquent debts to an unexpected illness in 2009, costly home repairs,
and car repairs. (Item 4; Response.) She is committed to satisfying all of her financial
obligations. She is current on her income tax filings. She does not gamble, use alcohol,
or drugs. (Response.)  
5
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
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.
6
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 history of delinquent debt. From 2009 to present, she
accumulated 14 debts in the total amount of $15,766. 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 conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties. Three are fully 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’s financial problems resulted from an unexpected illness in 2009, costly
home repairs, and car repairs. These were conditions beyond her control. However, she
is acting responsibly and in good faith with respect to her debts. She has been in
contact with all of her creditors. She documented that she has resolved five debts
7
totaling $3,978. She is making payments on at least three other delinquent accounts,
totaling $5,665. While she failed to document payments to her medical creditors in SOR
¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.d, 1.k, and 1.m, she credibly averred that she is making payments on
those accounts and provided documentation relating to medical debts held by a single
creditor, which were not itemized, that total $1,955. She is in negotiations with her
remaining creditor to establish a payment plan, so that she can resolve SOR ¶ 1.g as
well. Applicant presented sufficient documentation to show her financial difficulties are
under control. She has promised to continue making payments on her debts until they
are all resolved. She has the funds to continue to fulfill her financial obligations. AG ¶¶
20 (b), 20 (c), and 20 (d) are established.
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 incurred substantial
debt as a result of an illness, and costly home and vehicle repairs. Applicant acted
responsibly by addressing her debts, as her funds would allow. While she has not fully
resolved them all, she has established a recent track record of responsible actions.
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility
and suitability for a security clearance. She met her burden to mitigate the security
concerns arising under the guideline for financial considerations.
8
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.n For Applicant
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.
                                              
Jennifer I. Goldstein
Administrative Judge