1
           
             
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 [REDACTED] )  ISCR Case No. 15-00224 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Carroll J. Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
HESS, Stephanie C., Administrative Judge: 
 
This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial 
Considerations.)  Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
Applicant submitted a security clearance application (e-QIP) on February 6, 
2014. On August 25, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) sent her a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR), alleging security concerns under Guideline F. The DOD acted 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 (AG) implemented by DOD on September 1, 2006.  
  
 The SOR was sent to Applicant on August 25, 2015. She received the SOR and 
on September 6, 2015, answered it and requested a decision on the record without a 
hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on November 9, 
2015. On November 10, 2015, a complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM,) 
which included Government Exhibits (GX) 1 through 5, was sent to Applicant, who was 
 
  2
given an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or 
mitigate the Government’s evidence. She received the FORM on December 15, 2015 
and did not respond.1 The case was assigned to me on March 17, 2016.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
The SOR alleges 26 delinquent debts totaling approximately $142,593. In her 
Answer, Applicant admits 21 of the allegations, and qualifies many of the admissions 
with a repayment status or an explanation as to why she incurred the debt. She states 
that three of the alleged debts are duplicates. She denies five of the alleged debts. Her 
admissions in her Answer are incorporated in my findings of fact.   
 
Applicant is a 37-year-old acquisition specialist. She has been employed by 
various defense contractors since December 2002, and by her current employer since 
October 2013. She earned an associate’s degree in general studies in August 2002, a 
bachelor’s degree in business information systems in February 2006, and a master’s 
degree in information systems in October 2008. She married in 2003, and has been 
separated since September 2011. (GX 2.) She has held a DOD clearance since 2003. 
(GX 4.)  
 
Applicant’s husband was unemployed for three years between 2008 and 2011, 
during which time he did not actively seek employment. Applicant suffered extreme 
duress due to the financial pressures her husband’s unemployment was causing. She 
was unemployed from May 2011 until October 2011, and underemployed in a retail job 
from October 2011 until June 2012. Due to these circumstances, Applicant’s finances 
spiraled further out of control.  (GX 1; GX 2.)  
 
In September 2009, Applicant and her husband entered a rent-to-own agreement 
for a house which was in foreclosure. They soon discovered that the seller was 
collecting their payments, but not paying the mortgage, and that there was a tax lien on 
the house that precluded its sale. In September 2010, they moved to an apartment, 
where Applicant struggled to pay the rent. She borrowed money from her 401(k) in an 
effort to maintain her financial obligations. Nevertheless, they were ultimately evicted 
from the apartment, and Applicant’s car was repossessed. She left her husband in 
September 2011, and moved in with her mother. (GX 2.) 
 
By that time, Applicant had defaulted on her student loans and several other 
loans and credit-card accounts. (GX 3; GX 4.) In January 2013, she met with a 
bankruptcy attorney, and in January 2014, signed a retainer agreement to file 
bankruptcy. However, she did not pursue the filing. Instead, she contacted her creditors 
and attempted to work out a repayment schedule, by repaying the smaller debts first 
and then moving to the larger debts as her budget allows. (GX 1.) She is in repayment 
                                                            
1The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) transmittal letter is dated November 10, 2015, and 
Applicant’s receipt is dated December 15, 2015. The DOHA transmittal letter informed Applicant that he 
had 30 days after receiving it to submit information.  The DOHA transmittal letter and receipt are marked 
as Administrative Exhibit 1. 
 
  3
of the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.h, 1.i, 1.m, 1.n, and 1.r. Of these debts, all are 
student loans except SOR ¶ 1.c, which is for the balance on her repossessed car. She 
has paid off the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.k, 1.u, and 1.z, which total approximately $1,125. 
(GX 1.) She will enter repayment plans for SOR ¶¶ 1.d through 1.g, 1.o, 1.p, and 1.w 
through 1.y, once she resolves the debts she is currently repaying. (GX 1.) One of her 
student loans is in forbearance. (GX 1.) 
 
Applicant states:  The debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.q are the same debt; SOR ¶¶ 
1.d and 1.l are the same debt; and that SOR ¶¶ 1.n and 1.v are the same debt. The 
record evidence supports these statements. (GX 1; GX 4.) The duplicate debts total 
approximately $28,268. (GX 1; GX 4; GX 5.)  
 
Of the remaining $113,200 of delinquent debt for which Applicant is responsible, 
she has entered repayment plans with, and is currently making payments to, the 
creditors that own $83,521 of that debt. (GX 1.) She pays $2,193 monthly to her 
creditors, which is slightly greater than half her monthly net income, and continues to 
maintain her routine living expenses. (GX 1.) She is in repayment of several of her 
student loans. (GX 4; GX 1.) She maintains a written monthly budget, which includes a 
list of all her creditors, the balance of each debt, and the payments she is currently 
making. (GX 1.) She has not incurred any delinquent debt since approximately 2011.   
 
The delinquent debts are reflected in Applicant’s credit bureau reports (CBRs) 
dated December 2014 and February 2014. (GX 4; GX 5.) She discussed many of the 
debts in her e-QIP, and her overall financial status in her Personal Subject Interview 
(PSI) (GX 2; GX 3.)   
Policies 
 
 “[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 
484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to 
“control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an 
individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The 
President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants 
eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly 
consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified 
Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.  
 
Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant’s meeting the 
criteria contained in the AG. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, 
recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies these 
guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative 
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An 
administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information about the 
person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. 
 
 The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with 
access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and 
 
  4
endures throughout off-duty hours. 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. 
 
Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in 
no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”  See Exec. 
Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the 
applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense 
have established for issuing a clearance. 
 
 Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in 
the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant 
from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden 
of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 
“Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. 
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines 
presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the 
criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 92-1106 
at 3, 1993 WL 545051 at *3 (App. Bd. Oct. 7, 1993).  
 
 Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial 
evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the 
facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, 
and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-
31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005).  
 
An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent 
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 
01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, 
if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b).  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The concern under this guideline 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. 
 
  5
 
 This concern is broader than the possibility that an individual might knowingly 
compromise classified information in order to raise money. It encompasses concerns 
about an individual’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting 
classified information. An individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified 
information. See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012). 
 
 The record evidence establishes that:  SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.q; 1.d and 1.l; and, 1.n 
and 1.v, are duplicate debts. Therefore, I have not considered the debts alleged in SOR 
¶¶ 1.q, 1.l, and 1.v, when evaluating Applicant’s financial status. When the same 
conduct is alleged twice in the SOR under the same guideline, one of the duplicative 
allegations should be resolved in Applicant=s favor. See ISCR Case No. 03-04704 (App. 
Bd. Sep. 21, 2005) at 3 (same debt alleged twice).  
  
 Applicant’s admissions, corroborated by her CBRs, e-QIP, and PSI, establish two 
disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability or unwillingness to 
satisfy debts”) and AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”). The 
following mitigating conditions under this guideline are potentially applicable: 
 
AG ¶ 20(a): the 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; 
 
AG ¶ 20(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; 
and 
 
AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts.  
 
AG ¶ 20(a) is established. Applicant has not incurred any delinquencies since 
approximately 2011.  Her prior financial difficulties were not due to irresponsible 
behavior or poor decision-making, and her conduct “does not cast doubt on [her] current 
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.”  
  
 AG ¶ 20(b) is established. Applicant experienced circumstances largely beyond 
her control when her husband was unemployed for three years, and when she was 
unemployed and underemployed. She acted reasonably by contacting her creditors, 
and entering payment plans which she could afford. She has fully resolved several of 
her debts.   
 
 
  6
 AG ¶ 20(d) is established. “Good faith” means acting in a way that shows 
reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation. ISCR Case 
No. 99-0201, 1999 WL 1442346 at *4 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 1999). A security clearance 
adjudication is an evaluation of an individual’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. 
It is not a debt-collection procedure. ISCR Case No. 09-02160 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010.) 
A person is not required to establish resolution of every debt alleged in the SOR. He or 
she need only establish a plan to resolve financial problems and take significant actions 
to implement the plan. The adjudicative guidelines do not require that an individual 
make payments on all delinquent debts simultaneously, nor do they require that the 
debts alleged in the SOR be paid first. See ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. 
May 21, 2008). Applicant has been paying her smaller debts first and then will repay the 
larger ones. She maintains a written budget and lives within her means. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 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. In applying the whole-
person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a 
security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant 
circumstances. An 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, coercion, exploitation, or 
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.  
 
 I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person 
analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) were addressed under that guideline, but I 
have also considered the following: 
 
 For many years, Applicant invested in her future by earning first an associate’s, 
then a bachelor’s, and ultimately a master’s degree. Following her husband’s and her 
own periods of unemployment, Applicant took significant measures to regain control 
over her finances. She separated from her husband and moved in with her mother. She 
continued to seek, and finally regain, employment as a government contractor. She 
established repayment schedules with many of her creditors, and has placed a student 
loan in forbearance. Although she considered resolving her debts through bankruptcy, 
she instead chose to repay them. She has been living within her means while repaying 
her creditors for several years.  Such actions are indicative of an individual who is 
 
  7
reliable and trustworthy and who exercises good judgment. I am confident that Applicant 
will continue her good-faith effort to resolve her remaining delinquent debt. 
 
 After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F, and 
evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has  
mitigated the security concerns raised by her delinquent debts. Accordingly, I conclude 
she has carried her burden of showing that it is clearly consistent with the national 
interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
As required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, I make the 
following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.z:    For Applicant. 
   
Conclusion 
 
 I conclude that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to continue 
Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified 
information is granted. 
 
 
 
 
Stephanie C. Hess 
Administrative Judge