DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
)
----------------------------------                   )       ISCR Case No. 15-00092
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
 Decision
______________
WESLEY, Roger C., Administrative Judge:
Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, I conclude that Applicant did
not mitigate security concerns regarding her finances. Eligibility for access to classified
information is denied. 
 
History of the Case
On August 17, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated
Adjudication Facility (CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing reasons
why DOD adjudicators could not make the preliminary affirmative determination of
eligibility for granting a security clearance, and recommended referral to an
administrative judge to determine whether a security clearance should be granted,
continued, denied, or revoked. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865,
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended;
DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines
(AGs) implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006.
2
Applicant responded to the SOR on August 31, 2015, and elected to have her
case decided on the basis of the written record. Applicant received the Government’s
File of Relevant Material (FORM), which contained five attachments (Items 1-5), on
September 25, 2015, and responded to the FORM within the time permitted. She
submitted a statement elaborating on her attempts to pay off her debts, citing various
options she explored, including personal loans and payment plans, without success.
She cited her chronic disorder that required immediate attention from time to time when
she had either no insurance or poor insurance coverage. She attached two small
checks made to creditors the past year to medical creditors. Applicant’s submission is
admitted as Item 6. The case was assigned to me on November 10, 2015. 
Summary of Pleadings
 
Under Guideline F, Applicant allegedly accumulated 26 delinquent debts
exceeding  exceeding $14,000. Allegedly all of these debts remain outstanding.
In her response to the FORM, Applicant admitted most of the alleged debts, all
but one of which are medical accounts. She denied several of the listed debts, disputing
them on various grounds. She claimined she is working on her admitted debts which
are medically related and linked to one hospital facility that separated the bills amongst
the different treating entities.  
Findings of Fact
 Applicant is a 40-year-old security officer for a defense contractor who seeks a
security clearance. The allegations covered in the SOR and admitted by Applicant are
adopted as relevant and material findings. Additional findings follow.
Background
                                  
Applicant married her first husband in December 1998 and divorced him in
March 2010. (Item 3) She has two children from this marriage. She remarried in
February 2011 and has no children from this marriage. (Item 3)
Between August 1993 and May 1995, Applicant attended a local community
college and earned an associate’s degree. (Item 3) She has been employed as a
security officer since August 2014. (Item 3) She served in the Inactive Reserve of the
Army National Guard of her state between September 1993 and May 2002, and
received an honorable discharge. (Item 3) 
Finances
Between November 2010 and March 2014, Applicant accumulated delinquent
debts (mostly medical accounts) that are still outstanding. Credit reports reveal
delinquent medical accounts exceeding $2,500 that Applicant has admitted. (Item 2)
Three of the listed debts (creditors 1.b, 1.s, and 1.t) are disputed by Applicant. She
documented her dispute with creditor 1.b with letters of June 18, 2014 and May 17,
3
2015, disputing the charges on the grounds she returned the equipment to the creditor
and is entitled to a credit and removal of the debt from her credit reports. (Item 2)
Applicant’s dispute with this creditor is reasonable and made in good faith, and is
accepted.
Applicant disputed two other debts: the listed debts with creditors 1.s and 1.t for
reasons she never received any hospital procedures that could justify these charges
(both over $4,000). Applicant’s disputes of these charges from creditors 1.s and 1.t are
not documented and cannot be verified for accuracy without additional documentation
from Applicant. 
Applicant attributes her admitted medical debts to divorce and chronic health
issues at a time when she either had no medical insurance or her insurance was
inadequate. (Items 2 and 6) She has since been working on cleaning up her credit,
which was tarnished from her divorce and medical conditions. (Items 2 and 6) To that
end, she has been making minimum payments on her smaller debts. She affirmed that
all of her medical debts stem from medical procedures at one hospital in her
community, along with visits to her treating physician. (Item 2) Efforts to enlist the
pertinent insurance companies to lower her costs or to mount disputes of the charges
were not successful. (Item 2) 
Whether the documented payments Applicant made to her creditors represent
payments to her listed creditors in the SOR, and whether they represent her best
efforts, is unclear. Her post-FORM submissions contained no explanations of whether
the recipients of her payments are in any way connected with the identified creditors in
the SOR. Further, she provided no recent personal financial statement or evidence of
financial counseling. Without more information from Applicant about her current
financial status, assessments of her financial condition and ability to pay her delinquent
debts in the foreseeable future cannot be fully evaluated.  
Endorsements
Applicant provided no endorsements or performance evaluations on her behalf.
Nor did she provide any proof of community and civic contributions.
Policies
The AGs list guidelines to be used by administrative judges in the decision-making
process covering DOHA cases. These guidelines take into account factors that could
create a potential conflict of interest for the individual applicant, as well as considerations
that could affect the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified
information. These guidelines include "[c]onditions that could raise a security concern
and may be disqualifying” (disqualifying conditions), if any, and many of the "[c]onditions
that could mitigate security concerns.” 
The AGs must be considered before deciding whether or not a security clearance
should be granted, continued, or denied. The guidelines do not require administrative
4
judges to place exclusive reliance on the enumerated disqualifying and mitigating
conditions in the guidelines in arriving at a decision. Each of the guidelines is to be
evaluated in the context of the whole person in accordance with AG ¶ 2(c). 
In addition to the relevant AGs, administrative judges must take into account the
pertinent considerations for assessing extenuation and mitigation set forth in AG ¶ 2(a) of
the revised AGs, which are intended to assist the judges in reaching a fair and impartial
commonsense decision based upon a careful consideration of the pertinent guidelines
within the context of the whole person. The adjudicative process is designed to examine
a sufficient period of an applicant’s life to enable predictive judgments to be made about
whether the applicant is an acceptable security risk. 
When evaluating an applicant’s conduct, the relevant guidelines are to be
considered together with the following AG ¶ 2(a) factors: (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 chances; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for
pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or
recurrence.
Viewing the issues raised and evidence as a whole, the following individual
guideline is pertinent in this case:
Financial Considerations
The Concern: 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.  Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial
crimes including espionage.  Affluence that cannot be explained by known
sources of income is also a security concern.  It may indicate proceeds
from financially profitable criminal acts. AG ¶ 18.
Burden of Proof
By virtue of the principles and policies framed by the AGs, a decision to grant
or continue an applicant's security clearance may be made only upon a threshold
finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest.  Because the
Directive requires administrative judges to make a commonsense appraisal of the
evidence accumulated in the record, the ultimate determination of an applicant's
eligibility for a security clearance depends, in large part, on the relevance and
materiality of that evidence. See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509-511
5
(1995).  As with all adversarial proceedings, the judge may draw only those inferences
which have a reasonable and logical basis from the evidence of record.  Conversely,
the judge cannot draw factual inferences that are grounded on speculation or
conjecture.
The Government's initial burden is twofold: (1) it must prove by substantial
evidence any controverted facts alleged in the SOR, and (2) it must demonstrate that
the facts proven have a material bearing to the applicant's eligibility to obtain or
maintain a security clearance. The required materiality showing, however, does not
require the Government to affirmatively demonstrate that the applicant has actually
mishandled or abused classified information before it can deny or revoke a security
clearance. Rather, the judge must consider and weigh the cognizable risks that an
applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information.
Once the Government meets its initial burden of proof of establishing admitted
or controverted facts, the evidentiary burden shifts to the applicant for the purpose of
establishing his or her security worthiness through evidence of refutation, extenuation,
or mitigation.  Based on the requirement of  Executive Order 10865 that all security
clearances be clearly consistent with the national interest, the applicant has the
ultimate burden of demonstrating his or her clearance eligibility. “[S]ecurity-clearance
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” See Department of the
Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988). 
Analysis  
Applicant is a fully employed security officer for a defense contractor who
accumulated delinquent debts (mostly medical accounts) between November 2010
and March 2014. Applicant attributed her unresolved debt delinquencies to divorce
and either no medical insurance or poor insurance. While she assured that she is
working hard to repair her credit, she furnished little documentation to support her
assurances. Applicant’s delinquent debt accruals warrant the application of two of the
disqualifying conditions (DC) of the Guidelines. DC ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness
to satisfy debts;” and DC  ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations.”
Applicant’s pleading admissions with respect to her accrued delinquent debts
covered in the SOR negate the need for any independent proof (McCormick on
Evidence, § 262 (6th ed. 2006)). Each of Applicant’s listed debts are fully documented
in her credit reports. Some judgment problems persist over Applicant’s insufficiently
explained debt delinquencies and resolution initiatives. With knowledge of the status
of her medical debts, she has taken insufficient corrective steps to pay or resolve her
delinquencies and demonstrate she acted responsibly in addressing her listed debts.
See ISCR Case 03-01059 at 3 (App. Bd. Sep. 24, 2004). 
                                         
Holding a security clearance involves a fiduciary relationship between the
Government and the clearance holder. Quite apart from any agreement the clearance
holder may have signed with the Government, the nature of the clearance holder’s
duties and access to classified information necessarily imposes important duties of
6
trust and candor on the clearance holder that are considerably higher than those
typically imposed on Government employees and contractors involved in other lines of
Government business.  See Snepp v. United States, 444 U.S. 507, 511 n.6 (1980). 
Inferentially, Applicant’s accumulated delinquent debts are attributable for the
most part to her divorce and lack of adequate medical insurance to cover her hospital
procedures and physician fees. Afforded opportunities to provide more information
and documentary support for her getting behind with her medical bills, she has been
slow to provide payment documentation of her creditor payments. Most of the
payments she did document involve creditors not identified as creditors listed in the
SOR. Payments documented in both her SOR and FORM responses reflect very
modest total payments (less than $330).  
Based on the developed record, it is unclear how either her divorce or
insurance deficits played such an important role in her financial decision-making.
From a review of the documented materials in the FORM, some extenuating
circumstances are associated with Applicant’s inability to pay or otherwise resolve her
debts. Partially available to Applicant is mitigating condition (MC) ¶ 20(b), “the
conditions that resulted in the behavior 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.” 
Some partial application of MC ¶ 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith
effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” is available to Applicant.
And MC ¶ 20(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,” has some application to Applicant’s situation. Applicant mounted a successful
dispute of her creditor 1.b debt, for which she was credited with achieving with the
creditor. By contrast, her disputes with creditors 1.s and 1.t are not sufficiently
developed to permit favorable inferences of successful resolution.
What is not clear from this developed record are the specifics of what role
Applicant’s ex-husband and his  medical conditions played in her accumulation of so
many delinquent consumer debts. Whether she acted responsibility is directly
contingent upon her providing documented evidence of how she addressed her
finances.  Without documentation of financial counseling and additional steps she has
taken to address her medical debts, mitigation credit is not available to Applicant
based on the developed evidence in the record.
Whole-person assessment does not enable Applicant to surmount the
judgment questions raised by her accrual of so many medical debts and failure to
resolve them. Resolution of her listed delinquent accounts is a critical prerequisite to
her regaining control of her finances. Endorsements and performance evaluations
might have been helpful, too, in making a whole-person assessment of her overall
clearance eligibility, but were not provided. 
7
Overall, clearance eligibility assessment of Applicant based on the limited
amount of information available for consideration in this record does not enable her to
establish judgment and trust levels sufficient to overcome security concerns arising
out of her lapses in judgment in managing her debts and resolving her delinquent
medical accounts. 
Taking into account all of the documented facts and circumstances surrounding
Applicant’s debt accumulations and her lack of more specific explanations for her
debt accruals and corrective actions taken, it is still too soon to make safe predictive
judgments about Applicant’s ability to satisfactorily address her outstanding debts.
More time is needed to facilitate’s Applicant’s making the necessary progress with her
debts to facilitate conclusions that her finances are sufficiently stabilized to permit her
access to classified information. Unfavorable conclusions warrant with respect to the
allegations covered by subparagraphs 1.a and 1.c through 1.aa. Favorable
conclusions are warranted with respect to the allegations covered by subparagraph
1.b.
Formal Findings
In reviewing the allegations of the SOR and ensuing conclusions reached in the
context of the findings of fact, conclusions, conditions, and the factors listed above, I
make the following formal findings:
GUIDELINE F (FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS): AGAINST APPLICANT
   
Subparas. 1.a and 1.c through 1.aa:            Against Applicant
Subpara. 1.b:                                                For Applicant
Conclusions
In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security
clearance.  Clearance is denied.
                                          
Roger C. Wesley
Administrative Judge 
                                        
8