1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
          )       ISCR Case No. 15-00683
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: David Hayes,  Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On August 8, 2015, the Department of Defense  (DOD) issued a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant listing security concerns arising under Guideline F
(Financial Considerations). The action was taken 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 in September 2006. 
Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested a hearing before an
administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on December 2, 2015. A notice of
hearing was issued on January 29, 2016, scheduling the hearing for February 25, 2016.
Government Exhibits (GX) 1-4 were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant
testified, and submitted Applicant Exhibits (AX) A-O at the hearing.  I kept the record
open until April 8, 2016, and exhibits (AX P- UU) were entered into the record without
A telephone conference was held on April 7, 2016 with all parties to clarify the post-hearing submissions.      1
2
objection.  The transcript was received on March 4, 2016. Based on a review of the1
pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is
granted.
Findings of Fact
In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted 15 debts and denied 9 debts in the
SOR allegations under Guideline F. He provided explanations for each alleged debt.
 
Applicant is 45 years old. He graduated from high school and attended college
but did not obtain his undergraduate degree. He completed a training program and a
certification to increase his skills. (AX N, O) Applicant was divorced and has remarried.
He has five children. He completed a security clearance application in 2013. (GX 1) He
has been with his current employer since April 2015. He is sponsored for a clearance by
a former employer. (Tr. 9)
Applicant’s work as a contractor has been sporadic. He began full time
employment in April 2015. Before that time, he was unemployed in 2008 from a long
term position. He sought employment and took temporary positions because he was not
able to find stable employment.  (Tr. 13)  Contracts were promised for a certain period of
time, but ended much sooner, and he had no work. He was unemployed and
underemployed in 2009 and 2011. During this time, he could not pay his bills. He used
credit cards to help him meet his expenses. He was also advised to take a training
program that would allow him to increase his career opportunities. He was told that
unemployment would pay for the program. He did not realize that the program had to be
in State A, and he chose one in State VB. Thus, he became liable for that account. (Tr.
14) In 2013, Applicant attempted to consolidate his debts with Oak View Law Group. (AX
M) This company did not help him deal effectively with his debts. Applicant also did not
have sufficient funds to work with this program.
The SOR alleges 24 delinquent debts, which consist of a state tax lien, a 2011
judgment, collection accounts, charged-off accounts, and child support obligations.
Applicant’s debts originated about 2009. The total amount of indebtedness is
approximately $70,000. 
Applicant did not ignore his debts. He attempted a loan consolidation in 2013, but
he had no success. His priority was his mortgage (SOR 1. j) and his child support. (AX
D) His mortgage account is current. (GX 4) His child support in two states had been
garnished. (AX D) One account is closed, as the child is emancipated. (SOR 1.k) The
other child support amount (SOR1.I and SOR 1.p) is garnished in the amount of $336
from his pay. (AX I) He paid what accounts that he could and prioritized them.
 When Applicant obtained his full-time job in 2015, he slowly started the process
of re-establishing with creditors. The following are paid: SOR 1.b (2012 tax lien in the
3
amount of $3,724) AX A; SOR 1.c(gasoline account in the amount of $28) AX B; SOR
1.e (energy account in the amount of $74) AX C; SOR 1.f ( collection account in the
amount of $146) AX R; SOR 1.h was settled for $545 (AX EE); the cable account in
SOR 1.q has been settled in the amount of $210.81. (AX E); SOR 1.r in the amount of
$425 has been satisfied. (AX ); SOR 1.s( collection account in the amount of $139) has
been paid in full. (AX F); SOR1.u (cell account in the amount of $1,616) was settled. (AX
C); SOR 1.w collection account for $207 has been paid. (AX G); SOR 1.t in the amount
of $532 has been paid. (AX DD)
Applicant has payments plans for the following: SOR 1.d in the amount of $4,543,
which is a duplicate of 1.m. He has provided documentation that he has made a
payment of $78.49 that is for his auto loan. (AX V) Applicant has the account in SOR 1.g
for $5,913, in a payment plan. He made a payment of $106 and provided
documentation. (AX V)
As for the allegation in SOR 1.i, Applicant has a payment plan in place. He
provided documentation that he has made two payments in the amount of $75 each.
(AX GG) 
Applicant’s former wife was responsible for the debt in SOR 1.o for $3,760. She
included that in her 2013 bankruptcy. (AX UU)
As to the accounts in SOR 1.a and SOR 1.n, they are duplicates. The amount is
$8,681. Applicant has a payment plan in place and has made a payment of $100. (AX
W) 
SOR 1.v (collection account in amount of $3,004) is in a payment plan. Applicant
pays $164.25 monthly. (AX BB)
Finally, Applicant disputes the account in SOR 1.x for $140. He researched the
debt with the insurance company. Applicant has a current account with this company.
This account does not belong to Applicant. It is an account for another individual.
Applicant submitted a personal financial statement (PFS). (AX J) He and his wife
are both employed. Applicant’s net monthly income is $3,069. His wife earns $1,876 net
income. They have a small venture for fund raising which sometimes provides an
additional $500. After expenses, Applicant has $743. He listed on his PFS the various
debts that he pays in his four payment plans.  He has some bank savings and retirement
account. (AX J) He has no new debts. He participated in a consumer credit counseling
program. (AX H) He takes a class at his church that provides information on managing
credit cards, eliminating debt, and staying focused on finances. (Tr. 87)
Applicant’s minister states that he is a devoted family man and is actively involved
in the church and the community. The minister recommends Applicant. (AX L)
A former employer wrote a letter of recommendation for Applicant. He states that
Applicant worked as a consultant analyst from 2011 to 2013. The senior associate noted
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      2
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      3
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      4
4
that Applicant was well liked by both customers and colleagues. He received several
awards for his exemplary service. He worked effectively with his team. (AX K) 
Policies
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, an
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief
introductory explanations for each guideline, 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
in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. An administrative
judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.
Under AG ¶ 2(c), this process is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known
as the “whole-person concept.” An 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. 
The U.S. Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts
alleged in the SOR. An 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 burden of proof is something less than a2
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  3 4
A person seeking access to classified information enters into a fiduciary
relationship with the Government based on 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
the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect classified information. Such
decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of 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
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      5
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      6
 Id.      7
5
applicant concerned.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance5
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt6
about whether an applicant should be allowed access to sensitive information must be
resolved in favor of protecting such information.  The decision to deny an individual a7
security clearance does not necessarily reflect badly on an applicant’s character. It is
merely an indication that the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President
and the Secretary of Defense established for issuing a clearance.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18:
Failure or an 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.” It also states that “an individual who is
financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to
generate funds.
Applicant’s credit reports confirm delinquent debts, judgment, and collection
accounts. Consequently, Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions (FC DC) AG
¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and FC DC AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of
not meeting financial obligations) apply. With such conditions raised, it is left to Applicant
to overcome the case against him and mitigate security concerns.  
The nature, frequency, and relative recency of Applicant’s financial difficulties
make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago.” Applicant still has significant
debts that he is in the process of paying. He has paid some small debts in the SOR. His
payment plans are recent.  Consequently, Financial Considerations Mitigating Condition
(FC MC) 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) partially applies.
FC MC AG ¶ 20(b) (the conditions that resulted in the behavior 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
6
responsibly under the circumstances) partially applies. Applicant had several bouts of
unemployment or underemployment over the years. He did not obtain a steady full- time
position until 2015, after he was unemployed in 2008. He was diligent in keeping his
home and paying child support. He could have been more proactive but he did try to
prioritize his accounts and he has now either paid, settled, or made recent payment
arrangements for the debts.    
FC MC AG ¶ 20(d), (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts) has application. When Applicant was fully
employed in 2015, he paid some small debts and had the garnishment for child support.
He tried to consolidate debts as early as 2013 but did not have the financial resources.
He has now paid bills and addressed all debts. FC MC AG ¶ 20(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) applies.
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 an applicant’s
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, coercion, exploitation, or
duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. 
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. As noted above, the
ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant seeking a security clearance. 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the
facts and circumstances surrounding this case, as well as the whole-person factors. 
Applicant is 45 years old. He divorced and has five children. He has had sporadic
employment as a contractor since losing a regular position in  2008. He made efforts to
find work and has taken various temporary jobs. His unemployment and
underemployment contributed to his financial problems. He provided sufficient
information that he has paid or settled some debts. He is current with his mortgage and
his child support is garnished by court order. He supported his family and kept his home.
He has payment plans for the debts that he has not paid or settled. He will get an
increase in pay if he obtains a job with a security clearance. He disputed one debt.
7
Applicant persuaded me that he refuted or mitigated the Government’s case
concerning the financial considerations security concerns. He has  carried his burden of
proof.  
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 : FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1x: 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 a security clearance.
Clearance is granted.
                                                     
NOREEN A. LYNCH.
Administrative Judge