1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 12-10808
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Charles Hale, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s divorce led to his financial problems. The steps that he has taken to
resolve them just began after the hearing. Under these circumstances, it is too soon to
conclude that he has resolved the financial considerations security concern. Clearance
is denied. 
 Statement of the Case
On June 6, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility
(DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security
concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The action was taken under
Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February
20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended
(Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the DOD on
September 1, 2006. On October 19, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting the
allegations and requesting a hearing. The case was assigned to me on March 3, 2016.
DOHA issued a notice of hearing on March 15, 2016, scheduling the hearing for April
2
 
14, 2016. The hearing was held as scheduled. At the hearing, I received five
Government exhibits (GE 1 - GE 5), and one Applicant exhibit (AE A). Also, I took
administrative notice, at Department Counsel’s request, of one exhibit (Hearing Exhibit
(HE) 1). At the close of the hearing, I left the record open, at Applicant’s request, to
allow him the opportunity to submit exhibits. Within the time allotted he submitted one
exhibit that I admitted and incorporated into the record as AE B. DOHA received the
transcript (Tr.) on April 25, 2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 38-year-old married man with two children from his previous
marriage, ages 16 and 12, and one child, age four, from his current marriage. His first
marriage ended in divorce in 2012 and he has been remarried since 2014. He and his
ex-wife share joint custody of their children. Applicant has finished high school and has
earned two years of college credits. Since 2011, he has worked for a defense contractor
as a senior network engineer. (Tr. 15) His duties include developing satellite networks.
(TR. 15)
Applicant has four delinquent debts totalling approximately $45,000, as alleged in
the SOR. Three are credit card accounts (SOR subparagraphs 1.a - 1.c), and one is a
utility (SOR subparagraph 1.d). Subparagraph 1.a totals $23,893. Subparagraphs 1.b
and 1.c are different accounts owed to the same creditor totalling approximately
$21,000. Applicant attributes these delinquencies to his spendthrift ex-wife who abused
their joint credit cards.  (Tr. 23)
Applicant and his ex-wife executed a separation agreement in April 2012. Under
the agreement, Both Applicant and his ex-wife were represented by attorneys. Applicant
agreed to pay her graduated alimony payments for three years, beginning with $950
monthly for year one, and ending with $800 monthly payments in year three. (AE A at 6-
7) Applicant also agreed to assume liability for the credit card debt. (AE A at 11)
As of the SOR date, Applicant had not made any payments towards the
satisfaction of his credit card debt. He asserts that he mistakenly thought that his wife,
under the separation agreement, was to assume liability for these credit cards. (Tr. 11)
Each page of the separation agreement is initialled by both Applicant and his wife. (AE
A) Both parties signed the agreement. (AE A at 21-22).
SOR subparagraph 1.d is an electric bill totalling $59.  This bill relates back to the
period Applicant and his ex-wife shared a home. (Tr. 30) In April 2016, Applicant
contacted the utility company to pay this bill and was referred to their “dead accounts
department.” (AE B) He is waiting for them to identify the name of the creditor to whom
they transferred the debt, so that he can pay the bill. (AE B)
After the hearing, Applicant consulted his tax advisor, who helped him develop a
budget. Since 2011, Applicant’s annual salary has increased by $34,000, from $81,000
to $115,000. (Tr. 18) Moreover, he no longer has to pay alimony, saving him
3
 
approximately $9,600 annually. (Tr. 21) In sum, Applicant has approximately $2,000 of
monthly discretionary income. (Tr. 22) He plans to use this discretionary income to
begin paying the SOR debts. Specifically, he will repay the creditor, alleged in
subparagraph 1.a, $300 per month, and the creditor alleged in subparagraph 1.b, $200
monthly. (AE B at 2) He will satisfy the debt owed to the creditor, alleged in
subparagraph 1.c, in its entirety through two $635 monthly payments. (AE B at 2)  
Policies
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 together with the factors listed in the
adjudicative process. 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.” 
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 for obtaining a favorable security
decision.
Analysis
Guideline F, Financial Considerations
The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:
(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; and
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debt.
4
 
Applicant’s spendthrift ex-wife incurred these debts, using their joint credit cards,
during their marriage. However, approximately four years have passed, and Applicant is
just beginning to take steps to address them. Applicant contends that he thought, per
the separation agreement, that these credit cards were his ex-wife’s responsibility. This
does not mitigate the negative security ramifications of his delay in addressing the debts
because the signed agreement, which he initialed on each page,  clearly identifies the
debts and states that they are his responsibility. 
Applicant attributes his failure to address these delinquencies earlier to a good-
faith oversight of the relevant language of the separation agreement. Given that the
separation agreement was a document that Applicant introduced at the hearing,  I do
not conclude that Applicant’s testimony regarding the delinquencies was dishonest.
However, it was irresponsible of him not to double check the separation agreement at
some point during the investigative process, particularly since it was an issue of interest
as early as his investigative interview in July 2012.  AG ¶ 20(b) is only partially
applicable.
Per Applicant’s budget that he organized with the assistance of a tax advisor, he
has $2,000 of monthly discretionary income to apply to these debts, and his salary has
increased significantly since his divorce. Conversely, he has neither made any
payments yet, nor provided evidence substantiating the agreements reached with the
creditors. Under these circumstances, AG ¶ 20(d) partially applies, but it is too soon to
ascertain whether the problem is being resolved or is under control. AG ¶ 20(c) does
not apply.
Whole-Person Concept
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows: 
(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.
Applicant was unaware that he was responsible for the debts that his ex-wife
incurred. He has developed a payment plan to satisfy them, and he submitted a budget
that indicates he has sufficient income to adhere to the payment plan. Conversely, he
knew at least as early as October 2015, when he answered the SOR, that these debts
were his responsibility, yet, he did not provide a payment plan until after the hearing.
This fact, alone, is not disqualifying, as I extended the record to afford him the
opportunity to submit this information. However, the post-hearing documents include no
5
 
evidence of any initial payments, and no projection of when the payments will be
completed. Under these circumstances, Applicant has not carried the burden. 
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
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.e: 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.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge