1
                                                             
                           
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
          )       ISCR Case No. 14-01533
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Nicole A. Smith,  Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Jacob T. Ranish, Esq.
                                                                            
______________
Decision
______________
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:
On August 5, 2014, 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 March 7, 2016, scheduling the hearing for April 5, 2016.
Government Exhibits (GX) 1-5 were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant
testified, and submitted Applicant Exhibits (AX) A-H at the hearing which were admitted
into evidence. I kept the record open until April 22, 2016, and exhibits (AX I-L) were
entered into the record without objection. The transcript was received on April 13, 2016.
Based on a review of the pleadings, testimony, and exhibits, eligibility for access to
classified information is granted.
2
Findings of Fact
In her answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all the debts, except two debts in
the SOR allegations under Guideline F. She provided explanations for each alleged
debt.
 
Applicant is 42 years old. She graduated from high school in 1992. She lived
abroad with her husband. After they divorced, she returned to the United States in 1994.
She worked in various jobs. She served in the United States Marine Corps from 1997
until 2002. She served on active duty for five years and an additional three years of
inactive duty. She receives VA disability compensation due to injuries received while on
active duty. She received an honorable discharge. She obtained her associate’s degree
in 2007. Applicant is divorced and has no children. She has held a security clearance for
almost 19 years. She completed a security clearance application in 2013. (GX 1) She
has two jobs at the present time.(Tr. 31) She has been with her current full-time
employer since 2016. (Tr. 69)
Applicant’s work as a contractor has been sporadic. After leaving the military in
2002, she worked for various Federal contractors but was unemployed  in 2003. In 2010,
Applicant was employed full time and earned a salary of about $55,000. When she left
that position, she earned about $61,000. (Tr. 19) In 2010, she bought her first home.
She acknowledged that there were hidden costs in owning a home. She realized that
she would need to supplement her income. She decided to work as a contractor in Iraq
from January 2011 until May 2012. (Tr. 22) She earned about $115,000 while working in
Iraq. She returned to the United States due to base closings and the drawdown on
troops.
When Applicant returned from Iraq, she could not find full-time permanent
employment. She was diligent in her job search and networking with a resource
management company. She applied for numerous positions. She tried to return to her
old employer, but they had no work. At that point, she applied for unemployment.
Apparently she filed for unemployment in the wrong state and had to return about
$3,000, which she paid. She was unemployed from May 2012 until October 2012. She
lived on her VA disability, her savings, and financial assistance from the state. (Tr. 26)
However, she could not maintain her expenses and acquired debt. 
In October 2012, Applicant obtained a job with a technology company doing
Information Technology (IT) support. She earned $65,000 a year. However, in 2014, her
mother became suddenly ill and rushed to the hospital. She was diagnosed with cancer.
Applicant had to go home to help care for her mother. So in 2014, after exhausting her
accrued leave, she had to take unpaid leave. (Tr. 28) Applicant’s mother was retired and
living on a fixed income. Applicant helped her mother with some expenses. She did not
pay some of her own bills in order to help her ill mother. (Tr. 30) In 2015, she accepted
one position that did not pay much money. She was then unemployed from December
2015 to March 2016. (Tr. 69)
3
The SOR alleges 11 delinquent debts, which consist of student loans, collection
accounts, a medical account, and a past-due mortgage account. The total amount of
indebtedness is approximately $58,000. 
Applicant did not ignore her debts, but prioritized things. She did not want to lose
her home, but she wanted to keep her home. She took a full-time job earning $60,000 in
2015. Her-part time job pays her about $30 an hour. At this point, she does has a net
monthly remainder of about $1,600. 
 As to the student loan accounts in SOR 1.a ($5,209) and 1.b ($4,595), Applicant
had consolidated her student loans and believed other loans were in forbearance. She
learned of these two accounts during the security investigation. She contacted the
company who bought the student loans. She will be in a payment plan with them. (AX A,
B)  She will pay $56.75 a month for the student loan in 1.a, and she will pay $50.41 a
month for the student loan in 1.b.
As to SOR allegation 1.c, for a collection account in the amount of $2,201, she
denies this account and has filed a formal dispute. She tried to have a community
service find the address but she has not been successful. It is for furniture and she
maintains that she has called the three credit bureau reporters but she has no
information about the account. (Tr. 36) It is no longer listed on her latest credit report.
(GX 5)
Applicant presented a document from the account in SOR 1.d, that shows she
has been in a payment plan since 2012. She made her last payment on April 12, 2016.
The original amount was $525. The statement shows a zero balance. (AX K)
Applicant admitted the debt in SOR 1.e for a collection account in the amount of
$231. The account was paid in 2014 in total. (AX L)
As to the debt in SOR 1.f. for a past-due amount of $41,756 on a mortgage
account opened in 2010, Applicant obtained a loan modification when she was working.
However, when she became unemployed in December 2015, and only had a part-time
job, she could not maintain a loan modification. She contacted the bank, Making Home
Affordable Mortgage Assistance Program (HOPE) and the VA for assistance. Applicant
noted that for some reasons she had to request the modification five times. She believes
they lost some of the paperwork. (Tr. 51) The home was scheduled for foreclosure in
late April 2016. Applicant submitted a letter from her VA loan officer, dated April 6, 2016,
that requested a delay of 60 days so that the loan modification can be considered. They
expect a favorable response. (AX I)
As to the debt in SOR 1.g for a medical collection account in the amount of
$1,937, the debt is in repayment status. Applicant submitted documentation that an
automated payment plan has been in effect since 2015. She makes a monthly payment
of $51.20 (AX B)
4
As to the debt in SOR 1.h for a phone account in the amount of $679, Applicant
submitted documentation that shows a zero balance. This was for a cell phone carrier
while Applicant was in Iraq. Her service was suspended while she was out of the
country. When the company failed to suspend service, they made an error. It is resolved.
(AX J)
As to the debt in SOR 1.i for a phone account in collection for $599, Applicant
disputed the account because she has active service with the company. She submitted
a formal dispute letter that she never owed such a debt,  and a resolution response that
was favorable to Applicant was received. (AX C)
As to the debt in SOR 1.j for a collection account for a mobile phone in the
amount of $590, Applicant formally disputes the debt. She provided documentation of
the dispute letter. (AX D)
As to the medical collection account in SOR 1.k in the amount of $622, Applicant
submitted documentation that the balance was paid. (AX E)
Applicant received financial counseling in 2016. She presented a certificate of
completion. (AX F) She understands the credit reporting system and has a budget and
income to address her debts. (Tr. 44) She is saving money and purchasing an
unemployment insurance policy for any other unemployment issues.
She volunteers in church and is active in many community activities. She also
sponsors activities for the homeless. She visits homes for the elderly at least once a
month and helps to minister to them. (Tr. 19)
Applicant submitted four letters of  recommendation. (AX G) Each attests to the
fact that Applicant is reliable and trustworthy. One letter noted that she works well within
diverse environments. A former co-worker of ten years notes that Applicant performs all
duties required to protect the interests of the U.S. Government. A current colleague
describes Applicant as a responsible person. She is aware of the financial security
concern issues and knows that Applicant does not live an extravagant lifestyle or live
beyond her means. (AX G) 
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,
 See also ISCR Case No. 94-1075 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Aug. 10, 1995).      1
 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988).      2
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      3
 See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive      4
information), and EO 10865 § 7.
 ISCR Case No. 93-1390 at 7-8 (App. Bd. Jan. 27, 1995).      5
 Id.      6
5
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 a1
preponderance of evidence.  The ultimate burden of persuasion is on the applicant.  2 3
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
applicant concerned.”  “The clearly consistent standard indicates that security clearance4
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”  Any reasonable doubt5
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 a6
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.
6
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, a past-due mortgage loan,
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 her 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 is in the process of
modifying her home mortgage loan. She has addressed all the debts and disputes one.
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
responsibly under the circumstances) applies. Applicant had several bouts of
unemployment or underemployment over the years. She currently works two jobs and
went to Iraq to supplement her income, so that she could maintain her home. She
helped her ill mother. She tried to prioritize accounts and 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. Applicant’s student loans are in
forbearance. She has paid or addressed all debts in the SOR.  She obtained a second
job to pay bills. She is in the final step of modifying her mortgage loan. She has now
paid bills and addressed all debts. She received financial counseling.  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.
7
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 42 years old. She served in the United States Marine Corps and received an
honorable discharge and VA disability for her service. She has held a security clearance
for almost 19 years. She had several periods of unemployment. She helped her ill
mother financially by taking time from work with unpaid leave. She bought a house in
2010, and learned that she needed to supplement her income to address all the her
expenses. She went to Iraq as a contractor to make more money. She always made
efforts to find work and has taken various temporary jobs. Her unemployment and
underemployment contributed to her financial problems. She now works two jobs. She
provided sufficient information that she has paid or settled her debts. She is in the
process of modifying her mortgage loan. She has payment plans for the debts that she
has not paid or settled. She disputed one debt.
The issue is not simply whether all her debts are paid – it is whether her financial
circumstances raise concerns about her fitness to hold a security clearance. Overall, the
record evidence leaves me with no questions or doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and
suitability for a security clearance. Applicant persuaded me that she refuted or mitigated
the Government’s case concerning the financial considerations security concerns. She
has  carried her burden of proof.  
8
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-1k: 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