Department Counsel submitted nine Items in support of the SOR allegations. Items 8 and 9 consist of the1
records of unsworn interviews of Applicant conducted by interviewers from the Office of Personnel
Management on February 21, 2013; and August 3, 2007. They were never adopted by Applicant as his own
statements, or otherwise certified by him to be accurate. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.20, these Reports of
1
                                                             
                             DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
               DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
------------------- )       ISCR Case No. 14-04191
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Eric Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
December 23, 2015
______________
DECISION
______________
ROSS, Wilford H., Administrative Judge:
Applicant submitted his most recent Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations
Processing (e-QIP), on October 19, 2012. (Item 3.) On October 8, 2014, the
Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security
concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) concerning Applicant. (Item 1.)
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)
effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
 
Applicant answered the SOR in writing on October 31, 2014, and requested a
decision by an administrative judge without a hearing. (Item 2.) Department Counsel
submitted the Government’s written case (FORM) to Applicant on May 4, 2015.1
Investigation summaries are inadmissible in the absence of authenticating witnesses. They are also
cumulative given his admissions.
There are no Attachments 1.e or 1.h.2
The page numbers for Item 2 refer to the hand written numbers in the lower right-hand corner of the Item.3
2
Applicant acknowledged receipt of the FORM May 12, 2015. He was given 30 days
from receipt of the FORM to submit any additional documentation. Applicant submitted
additional information consisting of an updated statement notarized June 3, 2015
(Statement), and ten enclosures (Enclosures 1.a - 1.j, Rebuttal to Statement of
Reasons, Budget Enclosure).  The case was assigned to me on August 20, 2015.2
Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified
information is granted.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is 52, married, and has four children ages 26, 24, 23, and 21. He is
employed by a defense contractor and seeks to retain a security clearance in
connection with his employment. He served honorably in the United States Coast Guard
from 1982 through 2002. (Item 3.)
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The Government alleges in this paragraph that Applicant is ineligible for
clearance because he is financially overextended and therefore potentially unreliable,
untrustworthy, or at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant
admitted all the allegations in the SOR under this paragraph. Those admissions are
findings of fact. He also stated that subparagraphs 1.e, 1.h and, 1.j are duplicates of
subparagraphs 1.b and 1.d.
The SOR lists 10 delinquent debts. (Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.j.) In its FORM
at page 6 the Government acknowledges that the debts in subparagraphs 1.b and 1.d
are current, and that the debt alleged in subparagraph 1.i has been resolved. The
Government alleges that the seven remaining delinquent debts total approximately
$40,667. The existence and amount of all the debts is supported by credit reports dated
October 25, 2012; June 2, 2014; and February 19, 2015. (Items 7, 6, and 5.) The
current status of the debts is as follows:
1.a. Applicant admitted owing this past-due mortgage debt in the amount of
$3,232. He submitted documentation showing that this debt is current as of May 2015,
when the record closed.(Item 2 at 2,  13; Statement at 2; Enclosure 1.a.) It is resolved. 3
1.b. Applicant admitted owing this past-due student loan debt in the amount of
$764. The Government acknowledges that this account is current and in good standing.
(Item 2 at 2-3, 14-15; Statement at 2-3; Enclosure 1.b.) This debt is resolved.
3
1.c. Applicant admitted owing this past-due debt for a credit card in the amount of
$5,233. He made an arrangement with the credit card company to make monthly
payments to resolve the debt, and submitted documentary evidence that he has been
making regular payments since January 2015. (Item 2 at 3, 16; Statement at 3-4;
Enclosure 1.c.) This debt is being resolved.
1.d. Applicant admitted owing this past-due student loan debt in the amount of
$453. The Government acknowledges that this student loan account is current and in
good standing. (Item 2 at 3, 17-18; Statement at 5-6; Enclosure 1.d.) This debt is
resolved.
1.e. Applicant admitted owing this past-due student loan debt in the amount of
$558. He submitted documentation showing that this was part of the student loan set
forth under 1.d, above. He submitted evidence that he has a repayment agreement for
this student loan, and it is current as of June 2015. (Item 2 at 4, 19-24; Statement at 6-
7; Enclosure 1.d.) This debt is resolved.
1.f. Applicant admitted owing this past-due student loan debt in the amount of
$6,470. He made an arrangement with the original lender to make monthly payments to
resolve the debt, and submitted documentary evidence that he has been making regular
payments since October 2014. (Item 2 at 4, 25-26; Statement at 7-8; Enclosure 1.f.)
This debt is being resolved.
1.g. Applicant admitted owing a past-due debt to a credit union in the amount of
$6,398. The creditor forgave the debt in 2013 and supplied Applicant with an IRS Form
1099. Applicant supplied documentation showing that he properly reported the
cancellation of debt as income on his 2013 tax return. (Item 2 at 5, 27; Statement at 8-9;
Enclosure 1.g.) This debt is resolved.
1.h. Applicant admitted owing this past-due student loan debt in the amount of
$8,715. However, he further submits that it is a duplicate of the student loan debt set
forth in subparagraphs 1.b and 1.d. After reviewing the documentation submitted by
Applicant in this regard, I agree. This debt is being resolved. 
1.i. Applicant admitted owing this past-due credit card debt in the amount of
$2,042. The Government acknowledges that this debt has been paid and resolved.
(Item 2 at 6, 33; Statement at 10; Enclosure 1.i.)
1.j. Applicant admitted owing this past-due student loan debt in the amount of
$6,986. However, he further submits that it is a duplicate of the student loan debt set
forth in subparagraphs 1.b. and 1.d. After reviewing the documentation submitted by
Applicant in this regard, I agree. This debt is being resolved. 
According to Applicant, this debt situation came about for several reasons over
the past few years. Both Applicant and his wife have had severe medical issues. Both of
his parents passed away within a very short period of time in 2010 and 2011. Applicant
and his wife found themselves paying for the advanced education of their four children
The copy of Applicant’s Statement provided to me did not have a page 13. 4
4
for several years. They also had a house made uninhabitable due to flooding and other
personal issues. However, the voluminous financial and other records he submitted
show that he always was attempting to resolve his debt situation in a straightforward
way. (Item 2 at 7-8; Statement at 12, 14, Rebuttal to Statement of Reasons at 6.)  In4
addition, Applicant and his wife have prepared a budget, which shows that they have
the means and ability to keep up on their regular bills and make payments on the debts
set forth in the SOR. (Budget Enclosure.)
Policies
Security clearance decisions are not made in a vacuum.  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 and
mitigating conditions, which are to be used as appropriate 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
over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. 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.  In addition, the administrative judge may also rely on
his or her own common sense, as well as knowledge of the law, human nature, and the
ways of the world, in making a reasoned decision.
The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b)
requires that, “Any 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, “The 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.”
A person who seeks access to classified information enters 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
5
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it
grants access to classified information. Security clearance decisions include, by
necessity, consideration of the possible risk that 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.
 
Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “Any
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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites
for access to classified or sensitive information).  
Analysis
Paragraph 1 (Guideline F, Financial Considerations)
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set
out in AG & 18:      
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. 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under
AG & 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying.
Similarly under AG & 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise
security concerns. Applicant had over $40,000 in past-due debts, which were due and
owing for several years. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying
conditions.
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security
concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying
conditions may be mitigated where Athe 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.@
While Applicant=s financial difficulties have been in existence for several years, he has
submitted evidence showing that he is current on his mortgage, as well as being current
with payments towards the student loans. One other debt has been paid, he is paying
on a second, and the last was forgiven by the creditor. This mitigating condition has
application in this case.
ISCR Case No. 06-12930 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 17, 2008) (quoting ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2-3 (App. Bd.5
Jul. 6, 2006)).
ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations omitted).6
6
AG ¶ 20(b) states that the disqualifying conditions may be mitigated where “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.” Applicant’s financial situation was affected by personal
issues including his health, that of his wife, the deaths of both of his parents, a house
flood and other incidents. This mitigating condition also has application in this case,
since his responses to these unforeseeable setbacks has been uniformly responsible.
AG ¶ 20(d) states it can be mitigating where, “the individual has initiated a good-
faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Applicant has
submitted voluminous evidence showing that he has always admitted responsibility for
the debts and made efforts to pay them in a responsible manner. He has paid off one of
the debts in the SOR. One has been forgiven by the creditor, and he properly reported
the forgiveness on his taxes. He is making payments on a past-due credit card. Three
others are duplicates. He is current on his mortgage and the student loans, which are
the remaining debts. This mitigating condition has application to this case. 
The Appeal Board has said, “An applicant is not required to show that [he] has
completely paid off [his] indebtedness, only that [he] has established a reasonable plan
to resolve [his] debts and has taken significant actions to implement that plan.”5
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Appeal Board has previously noted that the
concept of “‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of actual debt
reduction through payment of debts.” However, an applicant is not required, as a matter
of law, to establish that he has paid off each and every debt listed in the SOR. All that is
required is that an applicant demonstrates that he has ‘. . . established a plan to resolve
his financial problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.’ The Judge
can reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and his actions
in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for the reduction of his outstanding
indebtedness is credible and realistic. See Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (‘Available, reliable
information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be
considered in reaching a determination.’) There is no requirement that a plan provide for
payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable plan (and
concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such debts one at a time.
Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually paid in furtherance of a
reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the SOR. 6
In conclusion, looking at Applicant’s entire financial situation at the present time, I
find that “there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under
control,” as is required by AG ¶ 20(c). Paragraph 1 is found for Applicant.
7
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 the relevant circumstances. 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. The administrative judge must 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.      
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all
the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. The discussion under
Guideline F, above, applies here as well. Applicant has had financial problems for
several years, which are being resolved. His statements show a knowledge of his
financial situation, and of the importance of remaining financially stable in the future in
order to support retention of his security clearance.
I find that there have been permanent behavioral changes under AG ¶ 2(a)(6).
Accordingly, I also find that there is little to no potential for pressure, coercion,
exploitation, or duress (AG ¶ 2(a)(8)); and that there is little to no likelihood of
continuation or recurrence (AG ¶ 2(a)(9)). 
Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial
situation. Accordingly, the evidence supports granting his request for a security
clearance.
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.j: For Applicant
8
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.
WILFORD H. ROSS
Administrative Judge