1 
 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE    
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
            
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-01392 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
      
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant defaulted on approximately $70,000 in student-loan debt for his 
undergraduate education in part because he helped his mother pay the mortgage on her 
home. Applicant made good-faith efforts toward rehabilitating his student loans in recent 
years. Clearance is granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On September 14, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications 
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the 
security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, 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 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 October 7, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR allegations, and he requested a 
hearing before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
 
 
 2 
(DOHA). On January 15, 2016, 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 January 18, 2016, I scheduled the hearing for 
February 11, 2016. 
 
At the hearing, seven Government exhibits (GEs 1-7) 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 and two of his 
managers testified, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on February 19, 2016. 
 
At Applicant’s request, I held the record open for a month for post-hearing 
submissions. Applicant timely submitted 20 documents, which were admitted as AEs Q-JJ 
without objection. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
  The SOR alleges that as of September 14, 2015, Applicant owed delinquent 
student-loan debt totaling $73,309 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.i). Applicant provided a detailed 
response in which he admitted the debts. He indicated that he had been making payments 
on some loans and had repayment plans in place for the other loans. After considering the 
pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I make the following findings of fact: 
 
Applicant is a 28-year-old college graduate, who has worked for a defense 
contractor as a financial analyst since July 2011. (GE 1; Tr. 64.) He is seeking to retain his 
secret clearance for his duties. (AE Z.) 
 
After graduating from high school, Applicant pursued studies at a local community 
college from September 2005 to May 2006. He paid for his classes in part with income 
earned the previous summers as a grill cook at a sports stadium and as a camp counselor 
and from part-time work as a restaurant while in college. (GEs 1, 5-6; Tr. 68.) 
 
The first in his family to attend college (AE M; Tr. 60), Applicant pursued his 
bachelor’s degree at a four-year college in another state from September 2006 to May 
2010. He did not work during the academic semesters to focus on his academics and 
because he played a sport for the college. (Tr. 69.) He returned home to live with his 
mother and his sister during the summers of 2007 and 2008,
1
 working full time as a camp 
counselor both summers and holding a second part-time job as a restaurant server in 
2008. Applicant held an internship near his college from June 2009 to December 2009 and 
graduated in May 2010. (GE 1.) Applicant paid for his education in part with student loans 
totaling approximately $64,525 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.i). (GEs 2-4, 7.) Applicant’s student loans 
were deferred while he was in college. However, because he had taken a semester leave 
of absence to continue his internship, he had to start making payments immediately on his 
graduation. (GEs 1, 5-6; Tr. 58.) 
                                                 
1 
Applicant’s parents divorced when he was 7 years old. (Tr. 63,)  He and his sister, who is now 25, lived with 
their mother. (GE 1; Tr.  .) 
 
 3 
Applicant moved home after graduation. His mother was struggling financially at the 
time and fearful of losing her home. Applicant contributed $500 per month on average 
toward his mother’s mortgage for about two years. (Answer; AE J; Tr. 58, 66.) Applicant 
worked as a part-time manager at a skating rink at $11 an hour from June 2010 to October 
2010, when he was hired as a full-time employee by a logistics company at an annual 
salary of $30,000. (GE 1; Tr. 67.) In July 2011, he started his present employment at a 
salary of $38,000 annually. (GE 1; AE Y.)  
 
On September 8, 2011, Applicant completed and certified to the accuracy of a 
Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in application for a security clearance 
with his present employer. Applicant answered affirmatively to whether he had defaulted on 
any loans in the last seven years; whether he had any bills or debts turned over for 
collection in the last seven years; and whether he was currently over 90 days delinquent on 
any debts. He disclosed that he had defaulted on a $14,000 student loan (SOR ¶ 1.a) “due 
to not finding work out of college,” but that he was currently making payments. He 
explained that he took a leave of absence from college his senior year, which reduced his 
grace period. He expressed his hope that he would be caught up in the near future. (GE 1.) 
 
A check of Applicant’s credit on September 21, 2011, showed that Applicant was 60 
days past due on the student loan in SOR ¶ 1.a. The student loan in SOR ¶ 1.h was 
reported to be in collection. Additionally, Applicant was behind over 120 days on the 
student loans in SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.g. He was late 60 days on the loan in SOR ¶ 1.b and 90 
days on the loan in SOR ¶ 1.d. (GE 4.) 
 
On October 19, 2011, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for 
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). At the close of his interview, Applicant was 
asked about the delinquent student loans. Applicant denied any knowledge of any student 
loans being referred for collection. He explained that he had two separate accounts with 
the lender in SOR ¶ 1.a, of $9,000 and $5,000. Applicant expressed his intent to pay the 
$259 past-due balance to bring the loan current. About the other student loans that were 
reportedly past due, he explained that in November 2010 he began paying $450 a month 
to the student-loan lender in SOR 1.a. He assumed that his payment was being distributed 
among all his student loans except for a $1,000 loan that he had opened directly with this 
college (SOR ¶ 1.i). He indicated that he had paid $379 to the college in October 2011 to 
avoid that loan being placed for collection. Applicant expressed intent to obtain his credit 
report for contact information so that he could then arrange repayment terms. Applicant 
related that he had fallen behind on his student loans because he was helping his mother 
with her mortgage payment. His mother’s boyfriend had moved out of the home, and she 
could not afford the payment on her own. Applicant was living from paycheck to paycheck. 
(GE 6.) Applicant’s adjusted gross income for 2011 was $34,357. (AE Q.) 
 
Around 2012, Applicant began working as a part-time coach at a college. He takes 
home $2,700 a year after taxes. (AE K; Tr. 88-89.) In late January 2012, Applicant was 
arrested for a drunk-driving offense that he regrets. It cost him financially in that he had to 
pay over $6,000 for legal representation. (GE 5; Tr. 59-60.) In April 2012, Applicant’s 
mother was granted a bankruptcy discharge. (AEs J, HH.) Applicant moved nearer to his 
 
 4 
work shortly thereafter so that his mother could rent a room to her friend. (AE J; Tr. 65-66.) 
Applicant continued to help his mother with her mortgage for five months after he moved. 
(AE II.) He ignored collection calls about his student loans because he did not know that 
his creditors would accept payments that he could afford. (Tr. 60.)   
 
On July 16, 2012, Applicant was re-interviewed by an OPM investigator. He 
admitted that he had not made any payments toward some of his student loans because of 
his attorney fees for his arrest. Once the charge was resolved, Applicant planned to make 
payments toward his student loans. Although his finances were currently strained, he had 
not fallen behind on his other financial obligations. (GE 5.) 
 
Applicant had a challenging but successful first year with his employer. On his 
annual performance review in October 2012, Applicant met his employer’s expectations for 
productivity and technical knowledge but exceeded expectations for judgment. He was 
given an increase in salary to $41,800 from $38,000. (AEs S, Y.) With his part-time 
coaching duties, he earned $44,737 in 2012. (AE Q.) 
 
In December 2012, Applicant started working as an administrative manager for his 
defense contractor employer. For his duties in inventory control, database management, 
and shipping and receiving, Applicant’s salary was raised to $46,000 annually. (AEs T, Y.) 
He proved to be an indispensable member of the team. (AE T). He was given an increase 
in salary to $48,500 in late September 2013. (AE Y.)   
 
Creditor records for the student loans in SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.d reflect that Applicant 
made eight payments totaling $789.80 between September 2010 and November 2012 on 
the loan in SOR ¶ 1.d. He paid $4,830.68 toward the student loan in SOR ¶ 1.a between 
September 27, 2010, and October 18, 2013. (AE R,) On March 26, 2013, Applicant’s 
federal income tax refund of $972 for 2012 was intercepted and applied to his federal 
student-loan debt. In 2014, he made nine payments totaling $1,541 toward his federal 
student loans, including SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.f. (AE E.) Additionally, his $1,360 federal 
income tax refund for tax year 2013 (AE Q) was taken and applied to his federal student 
loans on April 15, 2014. (AE E.) With the $3,000 earned from his college coaching duties 
and his defense contractor salary, Applicant earned $46,784 in 2014. (AE Q.) Applicant 
made no payments on some of his student loans because he wanted to make sure that he 
could make the payments already promised to his other creditors. He believed he had only 
one opportunity to rehabilitate his student loans. (AE II.) 
  
 In June 2015, Applicant’s salary was increased to $61,000 annually in recognition of 
his contributions at work. (AE Y; Tr. 27-28.) His monthly take-home pay increased from 
$2,100 to $2,960. (AE G.) Applicant arranged repayment terms for his remaining defaulted 
student loans, as set forth in the following table: 
 
Student loan debt  Delinquency history Payment Status 
1.a. $17,455 charged-off 
loan 
Account opened Sep. 2006 
for $13,500, $126 monthly 
payments; $259 past due on 
Paid $480 Sep. 2010-Dec. 
2010, eight payments 
totaling $1,949 in 2011; four 
 
 5 
$17,370 balance Aug. 2011; 
$16,581 balance Dec. 2012; 
$17,455 charged-off Jul. 
2013 (GEs 2-4); $14,726 
balance Jan. 2016. (AE A.) 
payments totaling $1,036 in 
2012, five payments totaling 
$1,364 in 2013; one 
payment of $987 Sep, 2015; 
$186 monthly payments Oct. 
2015-Jan. 2016, to continue 
at $186 monthly to at least 
Aug. 2016. (AEs A, H, R, 
EE, II; Tr. 69-70.) 
1.b. $13,526 charged-off 
loan 
Account opened Oct. 2007 
for $12,220, 60 days past 
due Aug. 2011, $13,526 
charged off May 2012; 
$13,415 past-due balance 
Nov. 2015 (GEs 2-4, 7); 
$13,428 balance Feb. 2016. 
(AE B.)  
Paid $50 monthly Sep. 
2015-Feb. 2016, in 
repayment plan to Jan. 
2017; intends to increase 
payment around Oct. 2016. 
(AEs B, H, EE; Tr. 74-75.)  
1.c. $10,771 past-due 
federal loan 
Three Stafford Subsidized 
loans totaling $8,125 
opened Oct. 2006-Dec. 
2007, $8,168 total balance 
Aug. 2011; 180 days past 
due Dec. 2012; consolidated 
$10,429 balance Oct. 2014; 
$10,771 balance Dec. 2014; 
$10,808 balance Jan. 2016. 
(GEs 2-4, 7; AE C.)  
Payments at $61.93 monthly 
since Jul. 2014, to increase 
to $71.84 monthly Feb. 
2017, and then increasing 
every 24 months. (AEs C, H, 
EE; Tr. 75-77.) 
1.d. $9,268 loan in collection Account opened Jul. 2008 
for $9,000, first delinquency 
Jan. 2011, $9,694 charged 
off; $9,732 balance Aug. 
2011, $9,907 default 
balance Nov. 2011; $9,268 
for collection Dec. 2013, 
$9,068 balance Dec. 2015. 
(GEs 2-4, 7); $8,868 
balance Jan. 2016. (AE D.)  
Three payments totaling 
$238.86 in 2010, three 
payments totaling $189.56 in 
2011, and payments of 
$267.40 and $93.98 in 2012 
before loan sold in 2014 (AE 
R); paid $100 monthly Oct. 
2015-Feb. 2016, to continue 
to Sep. 2020. (AEs D, H, 
EE, JJ; Tr. 77-78.) 
1.e. $5,812 federal loan in 
collection 
Account opened Sep. 2008 
for $5,500; $5,812 balance 
Sep 2010; $6,395 in 
collection Jun. 2012; $5,196 
past-due balance Dec. 2015. 
(GEs 2-4, 7.) 
Four federal loans 
consolidated for repayment; 
$972 tax refund applied Mar. 
26, 2013, $1,360 tax refund 
applied Apr. 15, 2014, $169 
monthly Apr. 2014-Feb. 
2015, $1,796 tax refund 
applied Mar. 2015, $169 
Apr. 2015; $79 monthly Jul. 
 
 6 
2015-Jan. 2016 under new 
loan rehabilitation program; 
total balance $17,765 after 
Jan. 2016 payment. (AEs E, 
H, Q; Tr. 79-80.) 
1.f. $5,526 federal loan in 
collection 
Account opened Feb. 2010 
for $5,500, $5,526 for 
collection Mar. 2011, $6,140 
in collection Jun. 2012; 
$4,911 past-due balance 
Dec. 2015. (GEs 2-4, 7.) 
See SOR ¶ 1.e. 
1.g. $5,500 past-due federal 
loan 
Two student loans of $2,000 
opened in Sep. 2008 and 
Feb. 2010.
2
 
See SOR ¶ 1.e. 
1.h. $4,601 charged-off loan Account opened Nov. 2009 
for $4,200, $4,780 charged 
off; $5,250 balance Dec. 
2012; $4,601 past due as of 
Dec. 2014; $4,513 past-due 
balance Nov. 2015 (GEs 2-
4); $4,693 balance Feb. 
2016. (AE B.) 
Payments at $50 monthly 
Sep. 2015-Feb. 2016, to 
continue to Jan. 2017; plans 
to increase payment around 
Oct. 2016. (AEs B, H.) 
1.i. $860 loan in collection Perkins loan opened May 
2009 for $1,000, $254 past 
due Aug. 2011, $860 past 
due as of Jan. 2015, $440 
past-due balance Jan. 2016. 
(GEs 2, 4, 7.) 
$50 monthly payments Aug. 
2015-Jan. 2016, paid 
$393.70 to pay off loan Feb. 
2016. (AEs F, H, AA, EE; Tr. 
84.) 
 
 Applicant’s current annual salary with his defense contractor employer is $63,500. 
(AE Y.) As of February 2016, Applicant had rented his apartment for three years. He paid 
his rent on time. (AE I.) He had to cover the $1,100 monthly rent himself for a couple of 
months after his roommate moved out in September 2015. (Tr. 85, 99-100). Applicant’s 
monthly expenses totaled between $2,300 and $2,500 after paying $575 per month toward 
his delinquent student loans. (AE G.) On January 17, 2016, Applicant bought for $4,500 
cash a 1997 model-year car with 178,000 miles on the odometer. His previous vehicle was 
a newer model (2002), but it needed about $2,000 in mechanical work. (AE O; Tr. 61, 94.) 
 
                                                 
2 
Applicant indicates that he is repaying a new debt servicer $79 per month toward four student loans, 
including SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.f. (AEs E, II.) The debt servicer’s records show that as of July 2015, Applicant 
owed principal balances of $5,141 (SOR ¶ 1.e), $4,869 (SOR ¶ 1.f), $2,088 and $1.952. (AE E.) Available 
credit reports shows two student loans of $2,000 each opened in September 2008 and February 2010. While 
he owes additional federal student loan debt beyond that alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.f that may be 
collectively covered in SOR ¶ 1.g, it is no longer held by the creditor in SOR 1.g (AE BB), and it is being 
repaid. 
 
 7 
 Applicant does not have a credit card, so he tries to save a little each month for any 
emergency expenses. (AE G.) Applicant has $4,911 in checking and savings deposits. (AE 
DD.) Applicant moved into his girlfriend’s home on March 1, 2016, at $300 per month in 
rent. They have both agreed that he should put the $300 per month in rent savings toward 
his student loans. Applicant plans to consult with his uncle about whether he should 
continue to save to pay off some of his smaller loans in full or increase his monthly 
payments. (AE II; Tr. 62.) Applicant had sought out his uncle’s advice in February 2015 
when he learned that his uncle was a part-time financial advisor, and on his advice has 
reduced some expenses. (AE X; Tr. 62-63.) He has received some offers to settle his 
private loans for 75%, but has not saved enough to settle them. (Tr. 62.) 
 
Work and character references 
 
 Applicant displayed leadership, dedication, and hard work as a student athlete when 
he was in college. He had a reputation for being “a solid role model and an extremely 
caring person.” (AE L.) As an assistant coach for a local college team for the past four 
years, Applicant has similarly shown discipline, responsibility, and a willingness to help 
whenever needed. (AE K.) 
 
 Applicant’s performance appraisals in his defense contractor employment have 
been uniformly positive. Applicant has met or exceeded his employer’s expectations in all 
categories. A quick learner, Applicant was eager to accept new challenges from the start of 
his employment. After performing superbly as a financial analyst in the business area, he 
transferred to an administrative manager position where he continued to need minimal 
supervision. (AEs S, T; Tr. 22, 26.) As of his annual review in September 2014, he had 
become a key member of his team. In the opinion of his direct supervisor, Applicant’s 
attention to detail, professionalism, and strong work ethic have contributed to the continued 
success of their business. (AE U.) This manager requested and received authorization for 
the $10,000 merit increase in salary that Applicant received effective June 2015. (Tr. 36.) 
On receipt of the SOR, Applicant asked his direct supervisor whether he should consider 
borrowing from his 401(k) at work to increase his student loan payments. The supervisor 
advised him against taking a loan. He felt Applicant was “on the right track,” in that he was 
already making payments toward his student loans. (Tr. 42-43.) This manager has no 
reservations about Applicant holding a DOD security clearance. (Tr. 43.) 
 
 A second-level manager, who was involved in hiring Applicant, also testified to the 
exemplary quality of Applicant’s work and to his reliability. (Tr. 23-28.) This manager is 
aware that Applicant fell behind in repaying his student loans, but also knows that Applicant 
has taken steps to remediate arrearages. (Tr. 30.) He has seen no evidence of extravagant 
expenditure by Applicant and believes Applicant will repay his loans. (Tr. 31.) Applicant’s 
task manager also considers Applicant to be a trusted colleague. (AE Z.) 
  
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 
 
 8 
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). 
 
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 
 
 9 
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 Applicant’s failure to make timely 
payments on about $63,025 in student-loan debt for his undergraduate studies. While he 
made some payments on the student loans when he could, he also ignored collection 
notices when he could not afford to make payments. His loan in SOR ¶ 1.a was charged 
off for $17,455 in July 2013. His loan in SOR ¶ 1.b was charged off for $13,526 in May 
2012. Three Subsidized Stafford loans totaling $8,125 were 180 days past due as of 
December 2012. His private student loan in SOR ¶ 1.d was charged off for $9,624 in 2011. 
As of June 2012, four federal student loans, including two $5,500 loans (SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 
1.f) were in collection. His private student loan in SOR ¶ 1.h was charged off for $4,780. 
Additionally, he fell $860 past due on his $1,000 Perkins loan (SOR ¶ 1.i). Disqualifying 
conditions AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a 
history of not meeting financial obligations,” are implicated. 
 
The student loans were opened between September 2006 and February 2010, and 
there is no record of delinquency on other accounts, such as utilities or rent. Even so, 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 date of the SOR, all of the loans 
were in delinquency status. 
 
Applicant struggled to pay his loans initially because of low income after he 
graduated from college. He worked part time at $11 an hour as an assistant manager at a 
skating rink from June 2010 to October 2010. He gained employment at $30,000 annually 
with a logistics company in November 2010, but he contributed $500 a month toward the 
mortgage on his mother’s home in lieu of timely payments on his student loans. His mother 
was struggling financially, his sister was still in high school, and he was living at home. 
Applicant continued to support his mother financially for about five months even after he 
moved out of the home so that she could rent out his room. Applicant understandably gave 
priority to helping his mother under those circumstances. AG ¶ 20(b) applies in mitigation 
of his failure to make consistent payments on his student loans from 2011 into 2012. AG ¶ 
20(b) 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. 
 
Yet AG ¶ 20(b) does not mitigate his inability to make payments on his student loans 
because of $6,000 in legal bills incurred as a result of a January 2012 drunk-driving 
offense or his lack of student loan payments from 2013 into 2014. He earned wages of 
$48,085 for 2013 and yet made only five payments totaling $1,364 toward the student loan 
in SOR ¶ 1.a. He made no payments on that loan in 2014; on the loan in SOR ¶ 1.b 
 
 10 
between May 2012 and September 2015; or on his loans in SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.h, and 1.i in 
2013 or 2014. The lone payment on his student loans in SOR ¶¶ 1.e-1.g in 2013 was from 
the interception of his tax refund of $972. Applicant made no payments toward his Stafford 
loans (SOR ¶ 1.c) in 2013. I cannot conclude that he acted fully responsibly when he 
ignored collection notices from creditors. He may not have understood that the creditors 
would accept lower payments from him, but he also did not make a concerted effort to 
address his student-loan delinquencies before April 2014. 
 
 Applicant is credited with making monthly payments since April 2014 toward 
rehabilitating the federal student loans covered in SOR ¶¶ 1.e-1.g and since July 2014 
toward the Stafford loans in SOR ¶ 1.c. Repayment on other loans did not start until after 
he received the SOR in September 2015. However, he has consistently made monthly 
payments on all of his student loans since that time. The Perkins loan in SOR ¶ 1.i has 
been paid off. His recent efforts to address his student loan debts establish mitigating 
conditions AG ¶¶ 20 (c) and 20(d), which provide as follows: 
 
 (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. 
 
Applicant still owes approximately $70,288 in student-loan debt, which is a 
substantial debt burden. However, student loans are an investment in one’s future and do 
not carry the same judgment concerns as would excessive credit card debt. Applicant has 
no record of irresponsible spending or reliance on consumer credit card debt. When he 
needed a vehicle in January 2016, he bought a 1997 model-year vehicle outright rather 
than take on more debt through a vehicle loan. Applicant is not required to pay off each 
debt in the SOR to be eligible for a security clearance. He is required to demonstrate that 
he has an established plan to resolve his financial issues and that he has taken significant 
actions to implement his plan. See ISCR Case No. 07-06482 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008). He 
has made only five or six months of payments on some of his student loans, but he has 
made more than a year of payments on his federal student loans alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.c 
and 1.e-1.g. He has paid off his Perkins student loan. Applicant expressed a credible intent 
to increase the amount of his monthly payments on the student loans in SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 
1.h in the near future. With the increase in his annual salary since mid-2015 and lower rent 
starting March 1, 2016, his financial situation is likely to continue to improve going forward. 
I am persuaded that he will make the payments required to fully rehabilitate his student 
loans. The financial considerations concerns are mitigated by his organized and consistent 
efforts since April 2014 to address his student-loan delinquencies. 
 
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 
 
 11 
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, 
coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or 
recurrence. 
 
The analysis under Guideline F is incorporated in my whole-person assessment, but 
some aspects warrant additional comment. Applicant exhibited poor judgment with regard 
to his student loans, but he has otherwise been responsible in fulfilling his obligations. He 
was a leader on his college team. He continues to display qualities of good character, 
dedication, and reliability as a defense contractor employee and as an assistant coach for 
a college team. Applicant demonstrated such competence at work to earn a $10,000 merit 
increase in his salary effective June 20, 2015. Applicant responsibly took the increase in 
his take-home pay and applied it to his student-loan debt and savings. 
 
The payments Applicant has made toward resolving his student loans 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.
3
 After considering all the evidence, I conclude that 
it is clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Applicant’s security clearance 
eligibility. 
 
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.i: For Applicant 
                                                 
3 
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). 
 
 12 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, 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. 
 
 
________________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge