1 
  
 
   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
       DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
 ----------------------    )  ISCR Case No. 15-01919 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Nicole A. Smith, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
___________ 
 
Decision 
___________ 
 
HARVEY, Mark, Administrative Judge: 
 
 Applicant’s statement of reasons (SOR) alleges 33 delinquent debts totaling 
$21,797. She failed to provide sufficient information about her finances and 
demonstrate progress resolving her SOR debts. Financial considerations security 
concerns are not mitigated. Access to classified information is denied.      
  
History of the Case 
  
On July 24, 2014, Applicant completed and signed an Electronic Questionnaire 
for National Security Positions (e-QIP) (SF 86). (Item 3) On September 26, 2015, the 
Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued 
Applicant a statement of reasons (SOR) pursuant to Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865,  
Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as 
amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance 
Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended; and the adjudicative 
guidelines (AG), which became effective on September 1, 2006. The SOR set forth 
security concerns arising under the financial considerations guideline.  
 
On November 12, 2015, Applicant provided a response to the SOR, and she 
requested a decision without a hearing. On December 10, 2015, Department Counsel 
completed the File of Relevant Material (FORM). On December 18, 2015, Applicant 
received the FORM. On February 26, 2016, DOHA received Applicant’s response to the 
 
2 
  
 
FORM. On April 4, 2016, the case was assigned to me. The Government’s case 
consisted of seven exhibits. (Items 1-7)  
 
Findings of Fact1 
 
 In Applicant’s SOR response, she wrote “I agree” for the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 
1.b through 1.gg. She denied SOR allegation ¶ 1.a. She also provided extenuating and 
mitigating information. Applicant’s admissions are accepted as findings of fact.  
 
Applicant is a 30-year-old computer analyst employed by a defense contractor 
since September 2011.2 After completing high school, she attended college at several 
institutions; however, she did not receive a degree. She has never served in the military. 
In July 2008, she married, and in September 2009, she divorced. In February 2013, she 
married. Her children were born in 2006, 2010, and 2013.  Her husband is in the U.S. 
Navy.  
 
Applicant was a nursing assistant from March 2003 to May 2006. She was a 
testing lead at a college from May 2006 to September 2006. She was unemployed from 
September 2006 to September 2007. She was a testing assistant from September 2007 
until October 2010 at a college. She was unemployed from October 2010 to September 
2011.  
 
Financial Considerations 
 
 Applicant’s history of delinquent debt is documented in her credit reports, SF 86, 
and SOR response. Her SOR alleges 33 delinquent debts totaling $21,797. Her SOR 
includes 28 medical debts totaling $7,243 as follows: ¶ 1.b ($201); ¶ 1.c ($299); ¶ 1.d 
($67); ¶ 1.e ($250); ¶ 1.f to ¶ 1.h each for $67; ¶ 1.i ($70); ¶ 1.j ($250); ¶ 1.k ($299); ¶ 
1.l ($128); ¶ 1.m ($454); ¶ 1.n ($304); ¶ 1.o ($202); ¶ 1.p ($95); ¶ 1.q ($88); ¶ 1.r 
($1,253); ¶ 1.s ($67); ¶ 1.t ($367); ¶ 1.u ($236); ¶ 1.v ($235); ¶ 1.y ($787); ¶ 1.z ($697); 
¶ 1.aa ($304); ¶ 1.bb ($155); ¶ 1.cc ($96); ¶ 1.dd ($88); and ¶ 1.ee ($50).  
 
The SOR also alleges five non-medical debts totaling $14,554 as follows:  ¶ 1.a 
is a telecommunications collection debt for $622; ¶ 1.w is a charged-off bank debt for 
$3,335; ¶ 1.x is a charged-off bank debt for $9,524; ¶ 1.ff is a collection account for 
$163; and ¶ 1.gg is a collection account for $910.  
 
There is no evidence that Applicant received financial counseling. There is no 
evidence that she abused alcohol or used of illegal drugs. She disclosed 22 delinquent 
or formerly delinquent debts on her SF 86. (Item 3) Most of the delinquent debts listed 
                                            
1Some details have been excluded in order to protect Applicant’s right to privacy. Specific 
information is available in the cited exhibits.  
 
2Unless stated otherwise, the source for the information in this paragraph and the next paragraph 
is Applicant’s July 24, 2014 Electronic Questionnaire for National Security Positions (e-QIP) (SF 86) and 
her FORM response. (Item 3) 
 
3 
  
 
on her SF 86 are medical debts in which she indicated her husband was working with 
TRICARE to resolve the medical debts. (Item 3) 
 
In Applicant’s SOR response, she said she paid the telecommunications debt in 
SOR ¶ 1.a for $622, and it was on longer listed on her credit report. (Item 2) For her 
medical debts, she said she was unaware that she needed a referral to doctors from 
TRICARE or she would be billed. (Item 2) She hired a firm to dispute the negative 
entries on her credit report. (Item 2) She said after she resolves her medical bills, she 
intends to work on paying her other delinquent debts. The firm she used to dispute 
negative credit entries advised Applicant that seven negative entries from collection 
companies were removed from her TransUnion credit report in 2015. (Item 2)  
 
The file lacks documentary evidence that Applicant paid, arranged to pay, 
settled, compromised, or otherwise resolved any of the delinquent accounts alleged in 
the SOR. There is no evidence of Applicant’s income, and she did not provide a budget 
or personal financial statement. The record lacks corroborating or substantiating 
documentation and detailed explanations of the causes for her non-medical financial 
problems and other mitigating information. The FORM noted that Applicant had 30 days 
from the receipt of the FORM “in which to submit a documentary response setting forth 
objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation, as appropriate. If you do not 
file any objections or submit any additional information . . . your case will be assigned to 
an Administrative Judge for a determination based solely” on the evidence set forth in 
this FORM. (FORM at 4)  
 
Applicant said she had a payment plan with a collection company, and she was 
paying $100 every two weeks to address $3,218 in medical debts.3 She said once the 
medical debts were resolved, she would address her other delinquent SOR debts. Her 
documentation does not address the amount paid to address her medical debts, and 
which SOR medical debts were being addressed by the collection company. She noted 
that she does not have access to classified information, and she provided additional 
details about her background.  
 
Character Evidence 
 
The sense of the five letters from Applicant’s supervisors and colleagues is that 
Applicant is skilled, trustworthy, competent, professional, helpful, conscientious about 
security, ethical, and responsible. Her character references support her request for 
access to classified information.  
 
  
                                            
3The information in this paragraph and the next paragraph is from Applicant’s FORM response.  
 
4 
  
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the 
Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security 
emphasizing, “no 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 
applicant’s 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 meeting the 
criteria contained in the revised adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not 
inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these 
guidelines are applied 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, 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 
endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the 
possible risk 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 “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, nothing in this decision should be construed to suggest that it is based, in whole 
or in part, on any express or implied determination about applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, 
or patriotism. It 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. 95-0611 
at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996). 
 
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 ultimate burden of demonstrating that it 
 
5 
  
 
is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his [or her] security 
clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). The burden of 
disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 
02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). “[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 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concern relating to financial problems:  
 
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.  
 
AG ¶ 19 provides two disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern 
and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;” and 
“(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.” Applicant’s history of delinquent debt 
is documented in her credit reports, SF 86, SOR response, and FORM response. 
Applicant’s SOR alleges 33 delinquent debts totaling $21,797. She admitted 
responsibility for 32 SOR debts totaling $21,175 in her SOR response. The Government 
established the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c), requiring additional 
inquiry about the possible applicability of mitigating conditions.  
 
Five mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:  
 
(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;  
 
(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; 
 
 
6 
  
 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts;4 and 
  
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the 
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides 
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides 
evidence of actions to resolve the issue. 
 
The Appeal Board concisely explained Applicant’s responsibility for proving the 
applicability of mitigating conditions as follows:  
 
Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance 
eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance 
of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th 
Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the Government 
presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the 
applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The 
standard applicable in security clearance decisions is that articulated in 
Egan, supra. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for 
access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national 
security.” Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).  
 
ISCR Case No. 10-04641 at 4 (App. Bd. Sept. 24, 2013).  
 
Applicant’s conduct in resolving her delinquent debt does not warrant full 
application of any mitigating conditions to all of her SOR debts; however, she presented 
some important mitigating information. She was unemployed from September 2006 to 
September 2007, and from October 2010 to September 2011. She had 28 SOR medical 
debts. Unemployment and medical debts are circumstances beyond her control that 
adversely affected her finances. She did not provide enough details about what she did 
to address her SOR debts after she became employed and the degree of impact of 
these circumstances beyond her control to establish full mitigation. She did not describe 
receipt of financial counseling.    
 
                                            
4The Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a “good faith” effort to repay 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts:  
 
In order to qualify for application of [the “good faith” mitigating condition], an applicant 
must present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
some other good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does 
not define the term “good-faith.” However, the Board has indicated that the concept of 
good-faith “requires a showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, 
prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.” Accordingly, an applicant must 
do more than merely show that he or she relied on a legally available option (such as 
bankruptcy) in order to claim the benefit of [the “good faith” mitigating condition]. 
 
(internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004) (quoting 
ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)).   
 
7 
  
 
I have credited Applicant with resolving the telecommunications debt in SOR ¶ 
1.a for $622. Applicant did not provide sufficient documentation relating to the other 
SOR debts: (1) proof of payments, such as checking account statements, photocopies 
of checks, or a letter from the creditor proving that she paid or made any payments to 
the creditors; (2) correspondence to or from any creditors to establish maintenance of 
contact with creditors;5 (3) credible debt disputes indicating she did not believe she was 
responsible for the debts and why she held such a belief; (4) attempts to negotiate 
payment plans, such as settlement offers or agreements to show that she was 
attempting to resolve these debts; or (5) other evidence of progress or resolution of her 
debts. 
 
Applicant provided some evidence of successful debt disputes; however, she did 
not establish that any of the disputes related to specific SOR debts. She failed to 
establish mitigation under AG ¶ 20(e) for any specific SOR debts because she did not 
provide documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or the result of the 
dispute. 
   
There is insufficient evidence about why Applicant was unable to make greater 
progress resolving more of her SOR debts. There is insufficient assurance that her 
financial problems are being resolved, are under control, and will not recur in the future. 
Under all the circumstances, she failed to establish that financial considerations security 
concerns are mitigated. 
 
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 the 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.  
 
                                            
5“Even if Applicant’s financial difficulties initially arose, in whole or in part, due to circumstances 
outside his [or her] control, the Judge could still consider whether Applicant has since acted in a 
reasonable manner when dealing with those financial difficulties.” ISCR Case No. 05-11366 at 4 n.9 (App. 
Bd. Jan. 12, 2007) (citing ISCR Case No. 99-0462 at 4 (App. Bd. May 25, 2000); ISCR Case No. 99-0012 
at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 1999); ISCR Case No. 03-13096 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2005)). A component is 
whether he or she maintained contact with creditors and attempted to negotiate partial payments to keep 
debts current. 
 
8 
  
 
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. I have incorporated my comments 
under Guidelines F and E in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 
2(a) were addressed under those guidelines, but some warrant additional comment.  
 
There is some evidence supporting approval of Applicant’s clearance. Applicant 
is a 30-year-old computer analyst employed by a defense contractor since September 
2011. In 2013, she married. Her children were born in 2006, 2010, and 2013. Her 
husband is in the U.S. Navy. She was unemployed from September 2006 to September 
2007, and from October 2010 to September 2011. The sense of the five letters from 
Applicant’s supervisors and colleagues is that Applicant is skilled, trustworthy, 
competent, professional, helpful, conscientious about security, ethical, and responsible. 
Her character references support her request for access to classified information. 
Medical debts and unemployment adversely affected her finances. There is no evidence 
of abuse of alcohol or use of illegal drugs. She disclosed her financial problems on her 
SF 86.  
 
The financial evidence against approval of Applicant’s clearance is more 
substantial at this time. Applicant has a history of financial problems. Her SOR alleges 
33 delinquent debts totaling $21,797. She said she paid the debt in SOR ¶ 1.a for $622, 
and she was making $200 monthly payments to a medical-collection company.6 She 
provided insufficient corroborating or substantiating documentary evidence of payments 
to her other SOR creditors, payment plans, or her communications to those creditors. 
She did not provide documentation showing her attempts to resolve most of her SOR 
debts in good faith. Her failure to provide more documented evidence of progress 
resolving her SOR debts shows lack of financial responsibility and judgment and raises 
unmitigated questions about Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect 
classified information. See AG ¶ 18. More information about inability to pay debts, 
financial history, or documented financial progress is necessary to mitigate security 
concerns.  
 
It is well settled that once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security 
clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or renewal of a 
security clearance. See Dorfmont, 913 F. 2d at 1401. Unmitigated financial 
considerations concerns lead me to conclude that grant of a security clearance to 
Applicant is not warranted at this time. This decision should not be construed as a 
determination that Applicant cannot or will not attain the state of reform necessary for 
award of a security clearance in the future. With more effort towards documented 
resolution of her past-due debts, and a track record of behavior consistent with her 
                                            
6Applicant did not establish the length of time she was making these payments to address her 
medical debts. The Appeal board stated, “an applicant who begins to resolve debts only after an SOR 
placed him on notice that his clearance was in jeopardy may lack the judgment and self discipline to 
follow rules and regulations over time or when there is no immediate threat to his own interests.” ISCR 
Case No. 14-05476 at 4 (App. Bd. Mar. 25, 2016) (citing ISCR Case No. 14-03358 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 9, 
2015). In this instance, Applicant reasonably delayed addressing her medical debts until TRICARE had 
an opportunity to fully consider whether TRICARE should pay them.  
 
9 
  
 
obligations, she may well be able to demonstrate persuasive evidence of her security 
clearance worthiness.  
 
I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Egan, Exec. Or. 10865, the 
Directive, and the AGs, to the facts and circumstances in the context of the whole 
person. I conclude that financial consideration concerns are not mitigated, and it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant security clearance 
eligibility at this time. Financial considerations concerns are not mitigated. 
 
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:     AGAINST APPLICANT  
 
Subparagraph 1.a:     For Applicant 
Subparagraphs 1.b through 1.gg:  Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
_________________________ 
MARK HARVEY 
Administrative Judge