1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 14-06013
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Meg Foreman, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Jacob T. Ranish, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant has either satisfied all of her financial delinquencies, or has been
paying them through payment plans. Her ability to get control of her finances was
facilitated by a $55,000 pay increase over the past two years and the successful
completion of some online money management courses. Under these circumstances,
she has mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On May 22, 2015, 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. 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) implemented by the DOD on
September 1, 2006. On July 26, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting the
2
 
allegations and requesting a hearing, whereupon the case was assigned to me on
September 17, 2015. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on September 23, 2015,
scheduling the hearing for November 2, 2015. The hearing was held as scheduled. At
the hearing, I received five Government exhibits (GE 1 - GE 5) and 13 Applicant exhibits
(AE A - AE M). Also, I considered the testimony of Applicant and a character witness.
DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on November 9, 2015.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 35-year-old single woman who is a high school graduate and has
attended college intermittently over the years. She is a few credits short of earning a
bachelor’s degree. (Tr. 77) She works for a defense contractor as an acquisitions
analyst. (Tr. 20) She has held a security clearance since 2007. 
Applicant is highly respected on the job and in her community. A former
supervisor characterizes her as a mature, responsible person who works well under
stress. (AE L at 29) Another former coworker, who indirectly supervised her,
characterizes her as reliable, trustworthy and highly motivated. (AE L at 16)
Applicant has been living in the same metropolitan area for approximately 10
years. Previously, she had spent her entire life in a small, rural town. Upon relocating,
she underestimated the difference in the cost-of-living in her home town as compared to
the area where she relocated.  (Tr. 20) Also, as a young person in her mid-twenties, she
eagerly availed herself of the city’s more cosmopolitan lifestyle, frequently going to
parties, trips, museums, and other social outings, in an effort to make friends. (Tr. 27)
Having no experience managing a budget, and only a marginal understanding of
the relationship between compound interest and credit card debt, Applicant gradually
lost control of her finances. (Tr. 24) By 2010, she had incurred approximately $15,000 of
delinquent debt, as alleged in the SOR, including a tenant-related debt (subparagraph
1.a, as duplicated in subparagraph 1.b), credit cards and utilities (subparagraphs 1.c,
1.g; and 1.I - 1.k), and student loans (subparagraphs 1.d - 1.f, 1.h, and 1.l).
Later in 2010, Applicant contacted a debt resolution company. For a $500 fee
and an ongoing payment of $100 monthly, the company agreed to contact her creditors,
negotiate settlements, and help her satisfy the debt. (AE J) Initially, the company
provided Applicant with frequent updates. As time progressed, the contacts decreased.
(Tr. 29) By 2012, Applicant had paid the company nearly $3,000, yet had made nominal
debt reduction progress.
Frustrated, Applicant contacted her state attorney general’s office and discovered
that the debt resolution company was embroiled in a class action lawsuit alleging
fraudulent misrepresentation. (AE J at 11) Applicant attempted to join the lawsuit, but
discovered that she had missed the inclusion deadline. (Tr. 35)
3
 
At some point during the past 18 months, Applicant began personally contacting
creditors and arranging payment plans. By October 2015, she had satisfied the back
rent, the credit card debts, and the delinquencies, as listed in subparagraphs 1.a, 1.c,
1.g, and 1.i through 1.k and 1.m, in their entirety. (AEs A, B, D, E - G, and M,
respectively)
Applicant owed delinquent student loans to two colleges. The loans listed in
subparagraphs 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, and 1.h, totalling approximately $4,500, stem from a college
she attended before relocating in 2005. Subparagraph 1.l, totalling approximately
$2,200, stems from a class she took recently. Applicant negotiated a reduced
settlement amount with the first group of student loans for $3,400. Since then, she has
satisfied subparagraphs 1.e and 1.h entirely (AE C at 2), and has been satisfying
subparagraphs 1.d and 1.f through monthly payments. (AE C at 1) As for subparagraph
1.l, she made a payment arrangement under which she made a $620 initial payment in
October 2015 and has been making $85 payments since then. (AE H)
Applicant has student loan debt other than what is alleged delinquent in the SOR.
Collectively, it totals $170,000, and is not delinquent. (AE K at 2; Tr. 65-66; Tr. 83-84) 
Between 2011 and the present, Applicant’s salary has increased by $55,000,
from $75,000 annually to $130,000 annually. (Tr. 79) Her steady salary increases have
facilitated her ability to get her financial issues under control. 
Recently, in October 2015, Applicant completed several online financial
management courses. (AE M) With the help of her boyfriend, a licensed financial
planner whom she plans to marry, Applicant developed a budget. (Tr. 88) She has
approximately $2,365 of monthly after-expense income, $1,500 in savings, and $50,000
invested in a retirement plan. (AE K; Tr. 77) 
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating
conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the
complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. 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.” 
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,
4
 
or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by department counsel. . . .” The
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
          Under this guideline, “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.”
(AG ¶ 18) Between 2005 and 2010, Applicant incurred approximately $15,000 of
delinquent debt. AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c),
“a history of not meeting financial obligations,” apply.
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially 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 debt.
Although Applicant’s struggle with adjusting to the high cost-of-living in the area where
she relocated is certainly understandable, it does not rise to the level of a problem
beyond her control, as set forth in AG ¶ 20(b). I conclude this mitigating condition does
not apply.
Regardless of how Applicant incurred her delinquent debts, she has now either
satisfied them entirely, or is satisfying them through payment plans. She has completed
online financial counseling classes, and with the help of her boyfriend, a licensed
financial planner, has organized a budget. These steps, together with her substantially
higher income than she earned five years ago, makes the possibility of recurrence
minimal. I conclude that AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) apply, and that Applicant has mitigated
the security concern.
5
 
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows: 
(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.
Applicant, a youth in her mid-twenties when she relocated from her small, rural
home town, overspent on social outings in an effort to make new friends. Although this
does not trigger the application of AG ¶ 20(b) of the financial considerations guideline, it
is important, however, when assessing the relationship between her financial problems
and her maturity under the whole-person concept factors. In essence, much of
Applicant’s successful elimination of her debts can be attributed to the fact that she is
now older and wiser. 
Applicant’s strong character references were other factors that reflected
positively in her favor. Considering this case in the context of the whole-person concept,
I conclude that Applicant has mitigated the security concern. 
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
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.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge
6