The record  consists of the transcript (Tr.), Government exhibits (GE) 1-3, and Applicant exhibits (AE) A-B.1
AE B was timely received post hearing. The record in this case closed 1 September 2015, the day Department
Counsel stated no objection to AE B.
DoD acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20,2
1960), as amended; 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
1 September 2006. 
1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
      )
)      ISCR Case No. 14-03475
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Bryan J. Olmos, Esquire, Department Counsel
Christopher Morin, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro Se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  I deny Applicant’s clearance.1
On 4 February 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued an SOR to
Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations.2
Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a hearing before the Defense Office of
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). DOHA assigned the case to me 1 July 2015, and I
convened a hearing 18 August 2015. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 26 August
2015.
The law firm’s report does not contain any account numbers or other identifying data that might permit a more3
precise correlation of accounts.
 Because each of the SOR accounts may have been reported by more than one of the three main credit4
bureaus, a single credit report may have multiple entries for any one account. Particularly where the credit
report is a tri-bureau report, such as Applicant’s September 2012 (GE 2) and August 2015 (AE B) credit
reports. Applicant’s May 2014 credit report (GE 3) is a single-bureau report, and contains only SOR debts 1.b,
1.g, and 1.h. However, the report also notes Applicant’s dispute of SOR debts 1.b and 1.g.
The August 2015 credit report does not offer much clarity on Applicant’s current financial status because he5
did not print the account details that were available with each account. Consequently, I cannot tell if the
accounts were closed because they were paid or otherwise resolved, then aged off, or simply aged off.
2
 
Findings of Fact
Applicant denied the SOR allegations. He is a 33-year-old security officer
employed by a defense contractor since May 2007. He seeks to retain the security
clearance he renewed most recently in August 2007. Applicant served on active duty
with the U.S. military from August 1999 to December 2006, achieving paygrade E-4
before his honorable discharge. He served two tours as a medic in hostile-fire zones,
going into the field with the troops. When Applicant left the military in December 2006,
he remained unemployed until he obtained his current job in May 2007. He is currently
working two full-time jobs, earning $65,000 annually in one and $77,000 annually in the
other.
Applicant married his first wife in September 2002, and they divorced in April
2006. They had a child together. He married his second wife in September 2006, and
they separated in August 2013. They also had a child together. Their divorce is pending.
The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits (GE 2-3), establish 10 delinquent
debts totaling nearly $35,000. Applicant reported SOR debts 1.b and 1.c on his
September 2012 clearance application. Applicant’s Answer to the SOR asserted that all
the alleged debts were either paid or removed from his credit reports. However, he
documented no resolution of any specific debt, except for SOR 1.b and 1.d. A 27
August 2015 sworn statement from his ex-wife stated that she and Applicant resolved
the child-support issues at SOR 1.b in the summer of 2014 (AE B). A 21 August 2015
bill from the creditor at SOR 1.d shows that Applicant is a current customer with no
past-due balance (AE B). Accordingly, I find SOR 1.b and 1.d for Applicant.
Between January 2014 and February 2015, Applicant succeeded in having 24
accounts removed from his three credit bureaus credit reports (AE A). He accomplished
this feat through the services of a law firm that specializes in contesting entries on
individuals’ credit reports. The 24 accounts removed roughly correspond to the names
of the creditors alleged in the SOR,  but contain overlapping entries.  Applicant’s August3 4
2015 credit report (AE B) shows many of the accounts closed, but also shows new
accounts in collection.5
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).6
3
 
Applicant attributed these delinquent debts to his unemployment after leaving
active duty in December 2006, and child-support issues with his ex-wife and his
estranged wife. However, while he has documented the 24 accounts that have been
removed from his credit reports, he has not documented any of his claimed payments,
or direct contacts with his creditors that could show the precise status of his delinquent
accounts.
Applicant has not received any financial or credit counseling. He provided no
budget or financial statement to show his current financial status.  Applicant did not
provide any work or character references, or evidence of community involvement.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors to evaluate a person’s suitability for
access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also show a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). The applicability of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is
not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific guidelines should be followed when a case
can be measured against them, as they are policy guidance governing the grant or
denial of a clearance. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, disputed facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, the
burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the required judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels deciding any
reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.6
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has delinquent debt dating
back to at least October 2006 that he has not documented any action on, except
perhaps to have had them removed from his credit report for reasons that could range
¶19(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;7
¶20(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that8
it is  unlikely to recur . . . ;
¶20(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and9
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶20(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;10
4
 
from satisfaction of the debt to the simple expiration of the seven-year reporting period
for most debts.7
The mitigating factors for financial considerations provide little help to Applicant.
His financial difficulties are recent and not infrequent, although the stated causes may
be unlikely to recur given his current state annual income of $142,000.  The8
circumstances that caused his financial problems may be considered beyond his
control, but he has not documented that he was responsible dealing with his debts.9
Successful challenge of the contents of his credit reports does not establish that he
dealt responsibly with his creditors. He documented no contact with any of his creditors
for several years. Nor did he document that his successful efforts to challenge many of
his debts constitutes a good-faith effort to resolve his debts.10
In addition, Applicant has received no credit or financial counseling. Further,
Applicant provided no character or employment evidence to reasonably support a
“whole person” analysis in favor of granting his clearance. I conclude Guideline F
against Applicant.
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a, c, e-j: Against Applicant
Subparagraphs b, d: For Applicant
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge