1 
 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE    
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 14-05162 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Eric C. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant owed approximately $18,301 in delinquent debt as of April 2015, $14,962 
of which was for a vehicle loan co-signed for his wife. They defaulted on the loan because 
the car had engine trouble a short time after purchase and repairs were not covered by 
warranty. He has resolved some debts and is making payments on others, including the car 
loan. Applicant used marijuana between June 2004 and October 2007, and once in 
November 2013. He regrets his drug use and does not intend any future drug involvement. 
Clearance granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On April 15, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant,
1
 detailing the security 
concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, and Guideline H, Drug Involvement, 
and explaining why it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the national interest to 
grant or continue his security clearance eligibility. The DOD CAF took the action under 
                                                 
1 
Applicant’s surname was misspelled in the SOR. It is correct in the caption. 
 
 
 2 
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 
1960), as amended; Department of Defense (DOD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial 
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); 
and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DOD on September 1, 2006. 
 
On May 11, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR allegations except for SOR ¶ 1.j, 
and he requested a hearing before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). In response to an email from the DOD CAF, Applicant 
answered SOR ¶ 1.j. On July 21, 2015, the case was assigned to me to conduct a hearing 
to determine whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a 
security clearance for Applicant. On July 23, 2015, I scheduled the hearing for August 21, 
2015. 
 
At the hearing, five Government exhibits (GEs 1-2) and 16 Applicant exhibits (AEs 
A-P) were admitted into evidence without objection. A chart prepared by Department 
Counsel as a supplement to his oral closing argument was incorporated in the record as a 
hearing exhibit (HE 1) but not entered as an evidentiary exhibit. Applicant testified, as 
reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on August 28, 2015. 
 
At Applicant’s request, I held the record open until September 18, 2015, for post-
hearing submissions. Applicant timely submitted 13 documents, which were admitted as 
AEs Q-CC. Department Counsel filed no objections by the October 9, 2015, final deadline 
for comment. 
 
Summary of SOR Allegations 
 
  The SOR alleges under Guideline F that Applicant owed $18,301 in delinquent debt 
(SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.m) as of April 15, 2015, $14,962 of which was owed on a defaulted vehicle 
loan (SOR ¶ 1.a). Under Guideline H, Applicant is alleged to have used marijuana between 
June 2004 and November 2013 (SOR ¶ 2.a). Applicant admitted the allegations, some with 
explanation. About the debt in SOR ¶ 1.a, he had cosigned a loan for his spouse for a 
vehicle that had engine trouble only a few months after purchase. He was told the repair 
would be covered by warranty, but the manufacturer then refused to cover the repair costs. 
Several medical debts went to collection because he lacked the income to pay them. 
Applicant explained that his marijuana use was “extremely infrequent with even a six-year 
gap between uses.” He passed a drug screen for his current employer and was willing to 
execute a statement of intent to refrain from illegal drug use. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
  Applicant’s admissions to the debts and marijuana use are accepted and 
incorporated as factual findings. After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I 
make the following additional findings of fact: 
 
Applicant is a 29-year-old high school graduate with a certificate from a community 
college in machining. He started as an installation mechanic (outside machinist) with a 
 
 3 
defense contractor in mid-March 2014. (GE 4; AEs B-C; Tr. 22, 24.) In late July 2015, he 
was promoted to operations supervisor with foreman responsibility for 16 other machinists. 
(Tr. 25, 30.) He has been married since June 2008 and has three children, ages 3, 6, and 
7. He also has a 16-year-old stepdaughter with whom his spouse shares joint custody with 
her ex-husband. (GE 1; Tr. 23-24.) Applicant and his spouse receive no child support for 
her daughter. (Tr. 24.) 
 
Financial 
 
 Following his graduation from high school in June 2004, Applicant worked as a full-
time carpenter until he was laid off in September 2004. He collected unemployment 
compensation until October 2005, when he began working as a department manager for a 
home improvement retailer. He worked at three different locations for the company. (GE 4.) 
His federal taxable income was $21,897 in 2007. (AE E.) In November 2007, he accepted 
a transfer to another state. Over the next five months, he had eight infractions regarding to 
time issues and was terminated from his job in April 2008. (GEs 1, 4; Tr. 26.) 
 
From June 2008 to August 2009, Applicant worked as a group leader for a 
manufacturer. His oldest child, a son, was born in September 2008. In August 2009, shortly 
before the birth of his second child, a daughter, Applicant began working two full-time jobs: 
in quality control for a flooring company, and as a tire technician. (GE 1.) He was behind 
three months on the rent at the time, and Applicant took a second job to catch up on living 
expenses. (Tr. 48.) He was fired by the flooring company in May 2010 for attendance 
issues. (GE 4; Tr. 26.) In September 2010, he was terminated by the tire company when he 
reported late to work. Applicant was then employed as a mechanic apprenticeship at a car 
dealership until August 2011, when he was laid off. Applicant collected unemployment 
compensation until December 2011, when he started working as an inspector for a 
machinery company. (GEs 1, 4.) 
 
In June 2012, Applicant co-signed on a $22,645 vehicle loan for his spouse (SOR ¶ 
1.a). (Tr. 45.) The loan repayments were $520 per month for 73 months. (GE 2.) His gross 
annual salary was $28,337, and she did not work outside the home. (AE G.) About four 
months after they bought the car, the engine stopped working. To find the source of the 
problem and to verify if the cost of repair was covered under the car’s warranty, Applicant 
agreed to have the engine removed at a cost of $2,000. When it could not be conclusively 
determined that the cause of the problem was covered under warranty, Applicant tried 
without success to have their lender cover the cost of the repair and add the cost to the 
end of the auto loan. (Tr. 41-45.) Applicant and his spouse had made timely payments on 
the loan through December 2012, but after six months of no payments, the loan was 
charged off in June 2013 and the vehicle was repossessed. (GE 2; Tr. 41.) As of March 
2014, Applicant and his spouse were contractually liable for $14,962 on the loan. (GE 2; 
Tr. 46.) 
 
 Starting around September 2012, Applicant began to miss time at work for medical 
appointments for his two autistic children. (GE 4.) His employer was initially 
accommodating, but In April 2013, Applicant was fired from his job for attendance issues. 
 
 4 
(GE 1; Tr. 27-28.) His ensuing financial struggles triggered marital problems. Applicant and 
his spouse separated in September 2013, and he moved back home where he believed he 
would find work. (GE 4; Tr. 36-38.)  He stayed with his grandfather rent free but provided 
$150 to $200 a month toward utility costs. (Tr. 37-38.) In October 2013, Applicant began 
working as a part-time clerk at a convenience store for some income. (GEs 1, 4; Tr. 25.) 
His adjusted gross income totaled only $10,198 in 2013, of which $4,185 was 
unemployment compensation. (AE H.) Applicant and his spouse reconciled, and he moved 
his family at a cost of $2,000 in February 2014. (Tr. 37, 100.) Applicant paid for the moving 
costs with their income tax refund. (Tr. 103.) 
 
  Applicant completed and certified to the accuracy of an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on February 27, 2014, to work for his current employer. 
(GE 1.) He responded affirmatively to the financial record inquiries into any delinquencies 
involving routine accounts and listed eight debts: a $594 charged-off credit card debt from 
May 2007 resolved in January 2008; a $93 library fine (SOR ¶ 1.k) from November 2009 in 
collection; a $155 medical debt (SOR ¶ 1.i) from December 2009 in collection; $63 and 
$136 (SOR ¶¶ 1.l and 1.j) debts for DVDs from March 2010 in collection; a $335 medical 
debt (SOR ¶ 1.c)
2
 from June 2010 in collection; a $250 medical debt (SOR ¶ 1.g) from 
June 2013 in collection; and a $15,080 charged-off balance on the automobile loan co-
signed for his spouse (SOR ¶ 1.a). Applicant explained that he was using an online credit 
reporting service in an effort to improve his credit. (GE 1.) 
 
 Applicant started working for his employer on March 19, 2014, at $18 an hour. (AEs 
B, C.) Shortly thereafter, he and his family moved into their current apartment. The rent is 
$975 per month. (AEs J, K; Tr. 104.) A check of Applicant’s credit on March 13, 2014, 
revealed disputed joint contractual liability for $14,962 on the automobile loan in SOR ¶ 
1.a. As of January 2014, Applicant was reportedly past due 60 days on a secured loan 
balance of $1,171 (SOR ¶ 1.b). Facing possible eviction and cut-off of his electricity 
service, he opened the account in March 2012, using his vehicle as collateral. (Tr. 47.) In 
addition to the collection debts listed on his e-QIP (SOR ¶¶ 1.g, 1.i-1.l), he owed collection 
debts of $528 (SOR ¶ 1.f), $230 (SOR ¶ 1.h), and $60 (SOR ¶ 1.m). (GE 2.)  
 
 On April 8, 2014, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Applicant did not dispute his liability for the 
collection debts, which became delinquent due to lack of funds. He expressed his intent to 
pay a $93 library debt (SOR ¶ 1.k) for a lost book within the next two months. He was 
uncertain about when he would be able to pay the other collection debts, although he 
planned to address them one at a time. Applicant disputed his and his spouse’s liability for 
the charged-off automobile loan (SOR ¶ 1.a) in that the engine went on the vehicle when 
the car was under warranty, but the warranty was not honored. About the secured loan that 
was 60 days past due (SOR ¶ 1.b), Applicant explained that he borrowed the funds to pay 
his rent and the balance of an auto loan.
3
 He had made $110 payments on the loan in 
                                                 
2 
A recent credit report (GE 5) shows that the medical debt was originally $168. (GE 5.) 
 
3 
Applicant’s credit record (GE 3) confirms that he opened a car loan of $6,286 in February 2010 and paid it off 
in May 2012. 
 
 5 
February 2014 and in April 2014 but nothing since then. He acknowledged he was behind 
in his payments because of a lack of funds. Applicant did not recognize a $230 collection 
debt (SOR 1.h) reportedly owed a cable communications company. Applicant indicated that 
he has been monitoring his credit online. (GE 4.) 
   
 Around April 2014, Applicant began taking online college classes. (GE 4.) He took 
out a federal loan of $1,651 to cover the costs. (GEs 3, 5.) 
 
 As of September 17, 2014, Equifax was reporting no progress toward resolving the 
disputed auto loan (SOR ¶ 1.a) or the $335 medical collection debt (SOR ¶ 1.c). Applicant 
owed $1,237 on his secured loan (SOR ¶ 1.b), which was 120 days past due. Two 
additional debts had been placed for collection in 2014: a $316 medical debt (SOR ¶ 1.d) 
from June 2011 and a $192 utility debt (SOR ¶ 1.e) from January 2014. (GE 3.) About the 
utility debt, Applicant mistakenly assumed that the initial deposit on the account would 
cover the bill after his spouse moved from the property. (Tr. 50-51.) Some collection debts 
had been dropped from his credit record. (GE 3.) 
 
 Applicant and his spouse reported $36,555 in adjusted gross income in 2014. (AE I.) 
They received a $1,370 state tax refund (AE I), which went toward the purchase of a 2007 
model-year minivan for her in 2015 when her car failed state inspection. (Tr. 58-60.) 
Available credit records show that Applicant opened an automobile loan in February 2015 
for $8,447. (GE 5.) Applicant drives a 2002 model-year vehicle that he bought outright in 
2014 for $1,000. (Tr. 59, 97.)  He had some other car expenses in 2015, including for two 
new tires and a new clutch. (AEs T, CC; Tr. 99.) 
  
 Applicant met his employer’s expectations in all work performance criteria rated 
during his first year on the job. (AEs B, C; Tr. 30.) He was considered to be an asset to his 
department, conscientious in carrying out his duties, and a leader in his area. He received 
an increase in his hourly wage equivalent to approximately $140 a month. (AE C.) 
Applicant received one verbal warning for a noncompliance issue with specifications but no 
other reprimands. (Tr. 29.) 
 
 As of June 30, 2015, Equifax was reporting past-due balances of $14,962 on the 
disputed auto loan debt (SOR ¶ 1.a), $1,171 on the secured loan (SOR ¶ 1.b), $250 on his 
federal student loan balance of $1,601, and collection balances of $192 (SOR ¶ 1.e) and 
$335 (SOR ¶ 1.c). Applicant was making timely payments on the February 2015 car loan 
for his spouse’s vehicle. (GE 5.) Applicant had not attempted to resolve the charged-off 
auto loan (SOR ¶ 1.a) since late 2013 (Tr. 41.) Applicant’s household budget, with rent at 
$975, car payment of $250, and $200 for his student loan,
4
 left a monthly cash flow of 
$382, but with only $400 a month for food and nothing budgeted for personal care or 
clothing expenses. (AE J; Tr. 85.) 
                                                                                                                                                             
 
4 
Applicant testified that he was paying $200 a month for classes he took at a community college. (Tr. 85.) 
According to his e-QIP, he attended the community college during the fall semester 2011. (GE 1.) Available 
credit reports list only one student loan of $1,651 opened in April 2014. (GEs 3, 5.) 
 
 6 
 With his promotion in late July 2015, Applicant became a salaried employee at 
$79,000 annually. (Tr. 30.) Applicant retained the services of a debt resolution law firm at a 
cost of $99.95 a month to verify the debts on his credit record, to negotiate “pay-to-delete 
terms,” to assist him in resolving the charged-off car loan (SOR ¶ 1.a), and to advise him 
on rebuilding his credit so that he can purchase a home for his family someday. (AEs D, U; 
Tr. 67-70.) 
 
 Applicant also began contacting his creditors to arrange for repayment or 
settlements of debts. (Tr. 50.) On August 20, 2015, Applicant satisfied the debts in SOR ¶ 
1.e (AE L; Tr. 51), SOR ¶ 1.j (AE M), and SOR ¶ 1.l. (AE N.) He paid $183 in full settlement 
of the $230 balance of SOR ¶ 1.h. (AE O; Tr. 53-54.) As of September 15, 2015, Applicant 
had paid the $528 and $60 medical debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.m. (AE V; Tr. 51-52.) 
Applicant tried to pay the medical debts of $250 from March 2012 (SOR ¶ 1.g) and $316 
from June 2011 (SOR ¶ 1.d), but the creditor no longer had his account information. (Tr. 
52.) On August 21, 2015, a collection agency notified Applicant that both accounts were 
being removed from his credit record. (AE W.) Applicant was awaiting settlement 
documents for his unsecured loan (SOR ¶ 1.b). The creditor offered to settle for 50-75% of 
the balance. (Tr. 47.) Applicant had no success reaching the creditors holding the $335 
(SOR ¶ 1.c) and $155 (SOR ¶ 1.i) medical debts or the $93 library debt (SOR ¶ 1.h), 
although he expressed intent to pay them soon. (Tr. 48-49, 54-55.)   
 
 On September 14, 2015, the assignee for his spouse’s charged-off car loan debt 
(SOR ¶ 1.a) agreed to accept $5,236.82 in settlement of the $14,962 balance if paid by 
February 28, 2016. An initial payment of $1,000 was due by September 30, 2015, followed 
by monthly payments of $848. Two days later, the repayment terms were modified to allow 
for monthly payments of $523.68 from September 2015 to June 2016. Applicant submitted 
the first payment on September 18, 2015. (AE AA.) 
 
 On September 18, 2015, Applicant completed online credit counseling from a credit 
counseling service recognized by the federal bankruptcy court. (AEs Y, BB.) Based on 
financial information provided by Applicant to the credit counseling service, he had $1,799 
in income each month after expenses, but not including any debt payments. (AE BB.) 
Applicant’s take-home pay for the two weeks ending September 19, 2015, was $1,984. (AE 
Q.) Applicant has a health savings account at work into which he contributes $150 a month 
to assist with paying medical and dental costs for his family. (AE S.) As of August 2015, 
Applicant and his spouse had incurred $3,700 in medical expenses in 2015. His deductible 
is $4,000. (Tr. 101.) 
 
 Applicant’s spouse does not work outside the home. (Tr. 31.) She is taking some 
online college courses toward an accounting degree and has some small student loans 
that she will have to start repaying six months after she earns her degree. (Tr. 32-33.) With 
the cost of child care, it made more sense for her to obtain her degree before entering the 
workforce. In August 2015, Applicant and his spouse obtained cable services at $120 per 
month so that she would have access to the Internet for her schooling. (AE K; Tr. 59-60.)    
 
 7 
Drug Involvement 
 
 On his February 27, 2014 e-QIP, Applicant responded affirmatively to whether he 
had illegally used a drug or controlled substance in the last seven years. He indicated that 
he used marijuana between June 2004 and November 2013. As for the frequency of his 
use, Applicant indicated that he used marijuana socially two or three times a month. In 
further explanation, Applicant discrepantly added that he had been “clean” for five years 
when he made a poor choice and apparently used marijuana with someone who was 
smoking the drug. He expressed his desire to stay clean so that he could keep a good job 
and provide for his family. (GE 1.) Applicant had passed a pre-employment drug screen 
(hair follicle test) taken on February 11, 2014. (AE P; Tr. 81-82.) 
 
 During his subject interview of April 8, 2014, Applicant clarified that he smoked 
marijuana two to three times a month from June 2004 to October 2007 and once in 
November 2013. He explained that he had not known how to report the break in his 
marijuana use when he completed his e-QIP. Applicant explained that he used marijuana 
“usually in a house with his wife,” and with one of two named friends between June 2004 
and October 2007. About his more recent drug use, he went to a then co-worker’s home in 
November 2013 to fix a wall, and he took “a puff” from a marijuana cigarette offered by the 
co-worker. Applicant could not offer an explanation for why he used the marijuana on that 
occasion. Applicant admitted that he had purchased marijuana between June 2004 and 
October 2007 for his own use. He denied any use of marijuana since November 2013 or 
any current association with persons who use illegal drugs. (GE 4; Tr. 34-36.) 
 
 At his hearing, Applicant attributed his use of marijuana in November 2013 to the 
fact that he was “under a little bit of emotional duress.” He and his spouse were separated 
at that time, and she was debating whether to move to his locale. (Tr. 35.) He knew at the 
time that smoking marijuana was “a dumb decision.” (Tr. 40.) 
 
 Applicant has not been around anyone smoking marijuana since that occasion in 
November 2013. (Tr. 39-40.) Applicant’s unrebutted testimony is that his spouse does not 
use marijuana. (Tr. 40.) On September 18, 2015, Applicant executed a statement of intent 
to not use illegal drugs, associate with known drug users, or place himself in environments 
of drug use with the understanding that any violation would result in the automatic 
revocation of any security clearance granted to him. (AE Z.) 
  
Character References 
 
 Applicant’s current landlord is a local attorney who previously rented to Applicant 
eight to nine years ago. Applicant was always “courteous, trustworthy, and honest.” When 
Applicant contacted this landlord about an apartment after he moved back to the area, he 
“gladly” rented an apartment to him and his family. Applicant pays his rent on time and 
maintains the property in good order. (AE A.) Applicant’s spouse attests to Applicant’s 
willingness to seek out work to provide for their family, despite times of financial hardship 
and other adversities, including having two children with autism. (AE X.)   
 
 8 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  emphasizing 
that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 
U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, 
the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be considered 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 the adjudicative 
process. The administrative judge’s overall 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. 
 
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 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. 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 applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant 
has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security 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 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 
that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. 
Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, 
rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of Executive 
Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “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). 
 
 
 9 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern about financial considerations is articulated 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 F concerns are established by the collection debts and the charged-
off automobile loan. Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to 
satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” are 
implicated. 
 
Some of Applicant’s medical debts became delinquent more than five years ago. 
The $528 (SOR ¶ f) and $60 (SOR ¶ 1.m) medical debts are from 2007. Other debts were 
incurred more recently, such as the car loan (SOR ¶ 1.a) and the secured loan (SOR 1.b). 
Last payments on those accounts were in December 2012 and October 2013, respectively. 
None of the delinquencies in the SOR were incurred after Applicant started working for his 
current employer in March 2014. Yet, it is difficult to apply AG ¶ 20(a), “the behavior 
happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under circumstances that it is 
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current, reliability, or good 
judgment.” As of the issuance of the SOR in April 2015, none of the debts had been 
resolved. 
 
Lack of income appears to be the root cause of Applicant’s financial difficulties, but 
Applicant bears responsibility for some of his unemployment. He lost a job in April 2008 for 
infractions relating to time issues. While working for a manufacturing company from June 
2008 to August 2009, Applicant’s pay was insufficient to cover his household expenses. 
Three months behind in the rent, he took on a second full-time job in August 2009 to avoid 
eviction and termination of electricity service. While his willingness to take on a second job 
to pay his debts weighs in his favor, Applicant then lost both jobs for attendance issues. 
 
Applicant’s job layoff and unemployment from August 2011 to December 2011 
implicate AG ¶ 20(b), which provides: 
 
(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. 
 
 
 10 
While working as an inspector from December 2011 to April 2013, Applicant co-
signed on a car loan for his spouse, certainly not knowing that the vehicle would have 
serious engine problem only a few months later. In April 2013, he lost his job for 
attendance issues, but the lost time was to accompany his children with special needs to 
medical appointments. He was unemployed until October 2013, when he began working 
part time as a clerk in a convenience store. Available income tax returns for tax years 2012 
and 2013 show that his adjusted gross income decreased from $28,337 in 2012 to only 
$10,198 in 2013, which was certainly not enough to support his family and expect him to 
repay his delinquent debts. Applicant started working for his defense contractor employer 
at $18 an hour in March 2014, but his income was not enough for him to pay household 
expenses and address his old debts, which included nondiscretionary medical debt. 
 
Applicant also makes a credible case for mitigation under AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d), 
which provide: 
 
(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. 
 
On being promoted in late July 2015 to a salaried position, Applicant’s income 
doubled to $79,000 annually. Applicant retained the services of a law firm to verify the 
debts on his credit report and to negotiate a settlement of the charged-off automobile loan. 
He used his first paycheck as a salaried employee to satisfy, in full, the debts in SOR ¶¶ 
1.e, 1.f, 1.j, 1.l, and 1.m, and to settle the debt in SOR ¶ 1.h. He has repayment 
arrangements in place to settle his spouse’s car loan debt of $14,962 for $5,236.82, and 
he made the first payment. Applicant tried to pay the $250 and $316 medical debts in SOR 
¶¶ 1.g and 1.d. After his hearing, he received documentation indicating that those debts 
were being removed from his credit report, so he is not likely to be pursued for those debts. 
Applicant took online credit counseling. 
 
Applicant and his spouse still owe approximately $5,000 to settle her defaulted car 
loan. Applicant has yet to resolve the $1,172 secured loan, the $335 and $155 medical 
debts, and the $93 library book debt. He is awaiting paperwork to settle the secured loan 
and intends to pay the medical debts and library debt soon. Nothing in the Directive 
requires that Applicant completely pay off all his past-due debts to be eligible for a security 
clearance, however. Applicant has acted responsibly to address his debts once he had the 
income to make payments, and he is likely to continue to resolve his debts to keep the 
well-paying job that he needs to support his family. He has no record of extravagant 
spending or of reliance on consumer credit debt that could strain his finances going 
forward. The financial considerations are mitigated. 
 
 11 
Guideline H, Drug Involvement 
 
The security concern for drug involvement is articulated in AG ¶ 24: 
 
Use of an illegal drug or misuse of a prescription drug can raise questions 
about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because it may 
impair judgment and because it raises questions about a person’s ability or 
willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. 
 
Under AG ¶ 24(a), drugs are defined as “mood and behavior altering substances,” 
and include: 
 
(1) Drugs, materials, and other chemical compounds identified and listed in 
the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, as amended (e.g., marijuana or 
cannabis, depressants, narcotics, stimulants, and hallucinogens), and 
(2) inhalants and other similar substances. 
 
Under AG ¶ 24(b), drug abuse is defined as “the illegal use of a drug or use of a 
legal drug in a manner that deviates from approved medical direction.” Disqualifying 
condition AG ¶ 25(a), “any drug abuse,” applies because Applicant used marijuana two to 
three times a month between June 2004 and October 2007 and one time in November 
2013. The evidence also shows that he purchased marijuana for his own use between 
June 2004 and October 2007. While illegal drug purchase is potentially a disqualifying 
condition under AG ¶ 25(c), “illegal drug possession, including cultivation, processing, 
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution, or possession of drug paraphernalia,” the 
SOR did not allege his marijuana purchases as an issue of security concern.
5.
 AG ¶ 25(c) 
applies in that he had physical possession of marijuana when he smoked the drug. 
 
Applicant used marijuana once after being abstinent from the drug for six years. His 
one-time use in recent years cannot be viewed in isolation from his years of recurrent 
abuse. Mitigating condition AG ¶ 26(a), “the behavior happened so long ago, was so 
infrequent, or happened under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not 
cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” does 
not apply in this case. 
 
                                                 
5 
In ISCR Case No. 03-20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006) the Appeal Board listed five circumstances in 
which conduct not alleged in an SOR may be considered stating: 
  
(a) to assess an applicant’s credibility; (b) to evaluate an applicant’s evidence of extenuation, 
mitigation, or changed circumstances; (c) to consider whether an applicant has demonstrated 
successful rehabilitation; (d) to decide whether a particular provision of the Adjudicative 
Guidelines is applicable; or (e) to provide evidence for whole person analysis under Directive 
Section 6.3.  
 
Id. (citing ISCR Case No. 02-07218 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 15, 2004); ISCR Case No. 00-0633 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 
24, 2003)). 
 
 12 
Applicant has been candid about his drug involvement, disclosing his marijuana use 
on his e-QIP and during his interview with the OPM investigator. He has consistently 
denied any intent to use illegal drugs in the future. He denies any current association with 
anyone who uses illegal drugs. Concerning AG ¶ 26(b), “a demonstrated intent not to 
abuse any drugs in the future,” can be shown by: 
 
(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts; 
 
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; 
 
(3) an appropriate period of abstinence; or 
 
(4) a signed statement of intent with automatic revocation of clearance for 
any violation. 
 
Applicant informed an OPM investigator in April 2014 that his marijuana use 
between 2004 and 2007 usually occurred “in a house with his wife” and with either one of 
two friends, whom he named. He smoked marijuana in November 2013 with a then co-
worker, when he was at the co-worker’s home to repair a wall. There is no evidence of any 
ongoing relations with the friends or co-worker involved in his past drug use, and 
Applicant’s unrebutted testimony is that his spouse no longer uses any marijuana. His 
present abstinence of some two years in and of itself provides insufficient guarantee 
against relapse, given he used marijuana in 2013 after not using marijuana in the 
preceding six years. However, his present circumstances make any future marijuana use 
unlikely. He and his spouse were separated when he used marijuana in November 2013. 
Now, they are reconciled. He has a well-paying job with a defense contractor that serves as 
a significant deterrent to any future drug involvement. Applicant has professed orally, and 
executed a written statement, albeit unsigned, of no intent to use any illegal drug in the 
future with the understanding that his security clearance eligibility would be revoked for any 
violation. He has every incentive to maintain a drug-free lifestyle. The drug involvement 
concerns are mitigated. 
 
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 his conduct and 
all the 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, 
 
 13 
coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or 
recurrence. 
 
Most of Applicant’s drug involvement occurred during his teens and early 20s and is 
reasonably attributable to immaturity. He showed poor judgment when he accepted the 
offer of marijuana from a then co-worker in November 2013, but he is remorseful for his 
conduct and does not intend to repeat it. The attendance issues that caused or contributed 
to his job loss have not occurred in his present employment. He demonstrated such 
competence and leadership at work that he was promoted to a supervisory position after 
only 16 months on the job. 
 
As for the financial concerns, the DOHA Appeal Board has addressed a key 
element in the whole-person analysis in financial cases, stating: 
 
[A]n 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. 
 
ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations and quotation 
marks omitted). The payments Applicant has made toward resolving his delinquencies 
provide assurance that he can be counted on to continue to address his debts. The 
Government can re-validate Applicant’s financial status at any time through credit reports, 
investigation, or interrogatories. Approval of classified access to Applicant now would not 
bar the Government from revoking it, if required.
6
 After considering all the evidence, I 
conclude that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant security 
clearance eligibility. 
                                                 
6 
The DOHA Appeal Board has held that the Government has the right to reconsider the security significance 
of past conduct or circumstances in light of more recent conduct that has negative security significance. See 
ISCR Case No. 10-06943 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 17, 2012). 
 
 14 
Formal Findings 
 
Formal findings for or against Applicant 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 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a.-1.m: For Applicant 
 
  Paragraph 2, Guideline H:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
   Subparagraph 2.a:  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 or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
________________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge