1 
 
 
                                                              
                        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE    
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
            
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 14-05736 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: David P. Morra, Jr., Esq. 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
      
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant is now making payments on four student loans totaling $12,893 as of 
August 2015. The financial considerations security concerns are mitigated, but criminal 
conduct concerns persist. A June 2013 cocaine possession charge was dismissed on 
Applicant’s completion of adult drug court in January 2015. Yet, he has failed to provide a 
consistent, credible account of the incident. Clearance is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On April 23, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the security 
concerns under Guideline J, Criminal Conduct, and 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; 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. 
 
 
 
 2 
On May 22, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR allegations, and he requested a 
decision on the written record without a hearing. On July 20, 2015, the Government 
requested a hearing before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings 
and Appeals (DOHA) pursuant to ¶ E3.1.7 of the Directive. On October 22, 2015, 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 November 
6, 2015, I scheduled the hearing for December 3, 2015. 
 
At the hearing, counsel for Applicant entered his appearance. Six Government 
exhibits (GEs 1-6) and four Applicant exhibits (AEs A-D) were admitted into evidence 
without objection. Applicant testified, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on December 
18, 2015. The record was held open until January 4, 2016, for additional exhibits from 
Applicant. No documents were received by the deadline, so the record closed on that date. 
 
Summary of SOR Allegations 
 
  The SOR alleges under Guideline J that Applicant was arrested for felony 
possession of cocaine in June 2013 (SOR ¶ 1.a). Under Guideline F, Applicant is alleged 
to owe delinquent student loans totaling $21,691 (SOR ¶¶ 2.a-2.b and 2.d-2.g) and cable 
communications debts of $453 (SOR ¶ 2.c) and $140 (SOR ¶ 2.h) as of April 23, 2015. 
Applicant filed a pro se response admitting his arrest, but explaining that the charge was 
dismissed on his completion of adult drug court in January 2015. As for the debts, 
Applicant admitted the student loan with a $4,533 balance (SOR ¶ 2.a) was in forbearance 
with a first payment of $169.98 due on June 20, 2015. He admitted the debt in SOR ¶ 2.b, 
but asserted that it was a duplicate listing. Applicant admitted the federal student loan 
debts of $4,856 (SOR ¶ 2.d), $3,851 (SOR ¶ 2.e), $2,535 (SOR ¶ 2.f), and $2,384 (SOR ¶ 
2.g), although he also indicated that all his student loans had been transferred to the 
creditor identified in SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b. Concerning the two cable bills, Applicant 
asserted that he had paid $200 toward the $453 debt in SOR ¶ 2.c. He denied the $140 
cable debt in SOR ¶ 2.h because it had been paid as of May 18, 2015. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I make the following 
findings of fact: 
 
Applicant is 26 years old and has an associate’s degree awarded in May 2011. He 
has worked for a defense contractor since September 2013. Before then, he held part-time 
employment or was unemployed. (GE 1.) 
 
Financial 
 
Applicant worked part-time in dining services at a college from February 2007 to 
May 2007. From June 2007 to January 2008, he worked around 16 hours a week at $7 an 
hour in retail. He enrolled in a local community college in September 2007, and he stopped 
working in January 2008 to focus on improving his grades. From September 2009 to May 
 
 3 
2011, Applicant pursued his associate’s degree at a private college. He received financial 
aid for his tuition. Applicant was paid $9 an hour for about 10 hours of work-study per 
week. (GEs 1, 5; Tr. 26-28.) In April 2010, he began working part-time in retail at a local 
outlet mall for extra income. (GE 1.) 
 
 To cover his room and board, Applicant obtained federal student loans of $3,500 
(SOR ¶ 2.e) and $2,000 (SOR ¶ 2.f) in October 2009. In October 2010, he obtained 
additional federal student loans of $4,500 (SOR ¶ 2.d), and $2,000 (SOR 2.g). Available 
credit reports list a student loan debt totaling $12,000 opened in October 2009, which was 
transferred as of September 2011, which is likely a consolidation of his loans and not a 
separate debt.1 (GEs 3, 4; Tr. 25.) 
 
After Applicant earned his associate’s degree, he had no success finding a job in his 
field of study because he lacked experience or a bachelor’s degree. (Tr. 31.) He continued 
his part-time job in retail while also working in a temporary full-time position at $9 an hour 
from July 2012 to March 2013. (Tr. 30-31.) Applicant could not afford to make payments on 
his student loans when they came out of deferment around October or November 2011. 
(GEs 3, 6; Tr. 29, 42.) He obtained a temporary forbearance, although he cannot now 
recall the new payment date. (Tr. 29.) According to his September 2015 credit report, his 
student loans were rated as current until April 2012 (GE 6), so they may well have been in 
forbearance until then. 
 
In conjunction with his application for employment with his current employer, 
Applicant completed and certified to the accuracy of a Questionnaire for National Security 
Positions (SF 86) on September 24, 2013. In response to inquiries concerning any 
delinquency involving routine accounts, Applicant indicated that he owed about $30,000 in 
federal student loans in collection because of insufficient income. (GE 1.) 
 
A check of Applicant’s credit on October 13, 2013, showed four federal student 
loans in collection since August 2013 with an aggregate balance of $13,626. Applicant also 
owed cable communications debts of $453 and $140 in collection since November 2011 
(SOR ¶ 2.c) and May 2012 (SOR ¶ 2.h), respectively. (GE 4.) According to Applicant, he 
was living with his mother, brother, and sister, when he opened the accounts in response 
to promotional offers, but his sister offered to pay for the cable services. (Tr. 33.)  
 
                                                 
1 Available credit reports confirm outstanding balances on only four student loans. While Applicant listed 
$30,000 in student loan debt on his SF 86, he testified that to his understanding, he has one student loan 
account totaling $14,000 with the lender identified in SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b. (Tr. 43.) The $12,000 is likely a 
consolidated balance of four unsecured student loans guaranteed by the U.S. government which were opened 
in October 2009 for $2,000 and $3,500 and in October 2010 for $2,000 and $4,500. Those loans were 
considered 120 days or more past due as of March 2013, but were also reported as having zero balances 
after transfer. As of October 2013, Applicant reportedly owed outstanding balances on four federal student 
loans (SOR ¶¶ 2.d-2.g). (GE 4.) Based on his testimony and his September 2015 credit report (GE 6), all four 
student loans are now held by the creditor identified in SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b. As of October 2014, only two of 
the accounts (SOR ¶ 2.a, duplicated in SOR ¶ 2.d, and SOR ¶ 2.b, duplicated in SOR ¶ 2.e) were on his credit 
record. (GE 3.) 
 
 4 
On November 12, 2013, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for 
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) about his debts in collection. Applicant 
admitted that he had defaulted on his student loans, which he estimated totaled between 
$30,000 and $40,000. He expressed his intent to begin repayment when he started 
working for the defense contractor. About the cable service debts in collection, Applicant 
admitted that he incurred cable and Internet debt in his name, and that he had received 
collection notices. He indicated that he would pay them when he could afford to do so. (GE 
5.) Available credit information shows that his student loans were rated as current for the 
first eight months of 2014 (GE 6), which would tend to indicate that they were again in 
forbearance. 
 
Applicant left his part-time job in retail in April 2014 for seasonal, full-time 
employment at $10 an hour with a swimming pool retailer. He was laid off in August 2014 
and collected unemployment from September 2014 through January 2015. Applicant took 
a basic emergency medical technician (EMT) class during the fall semester 2014 at a local 
community college. (Tr. 38.) In February 2015, he began his current employment with a 
defense contractor, after a criminal charge pending against him was dismissed. (Tr. 23-25.) 
 
Applicant was granted a recent forbearance of his federal student loans from 
October 2014 through May 2015.2 (GE 6; Tr. 32-33.) Applicant made student loan 
payments of $169.90 on June 24, 2015, and July 22, 2015. (AE A.) He missed a payment 
in August 2015 (Tr. 46) on his student loan balance totaling $12,893.3 (GE 6.) Applicant 
made additional student loan payments of $250 on September 1, 2015, $100 on 
September 29, 2015, $229.60 on October 27, 2015, and $100 on November 24, 2015. (AE 
A; Tr. 33.) 
 
Applicant satisfied the $140 cable service debt in SOR ¶ 2.h, and he made a partial 
payment of $200 toward the $453 cable service debt sometime before May 22, 2015. (GE 
6; Tr. 33-34.) He plans to pay the rest when he has the funds. (Tr. 33.) 
 
 Applicant works on second shift for his employer at an hourly wage of $16.09, which 
includes a shift differential. His take-home income averages between $430 and $550 per 
week depending on overtime. He contributes $100 to $200 per month toward the rent. (Tr. 
49.) He has recurring bills for car insurance and his cell phone, but he does not have a car 
payment. Applicant has had some repair costs for his 1998 model-year car that have 
compromised his finances. (Tr. 52.) 
 
 
                                                 
2 Applicant testified that he does not recall how many times that he asked for forbearance or the duration of his 
forbearances. (Tr. 32.) According to Applicant’s September 2015 credit report, his student loans were rated as 
current for the first eight months of 2014, were seriously delinquent in September 2014, but have been current 
since then. (GE 6.) 
 
3 As of late August 2015, Applicant owed student loan debts of $2,254 (SOR ¶ 2.g), $2,397 (SOR ¶ 2.f), 
$4,623 (SOR ¶ 2.a, duplicated in SOR ¶ 2.d), and $3,619 (SOR ¶ 2.b, duplicated in SOR ¶ 2.e). (GE 6.) He is 
supposed to pay $169.90 per month. He attributed the variation in payments to probably missing a payment, 
paying what he could, and then making a second payment to catch up. (Tr. 46.) 
 
 5 
Criminal Conduct 
 
 Applicant socialized frequently with his brother around June 2013 because they had 
the same group of friends. (Tr. 40.) While driving his brother and nephew on one occasion 
in June 2013, Applicant was stopped by the police, who were responding to gunshots 
being fired in the area. While frisking Applicant for weapons, the police found a gram of 
cocaine on his person, and he was arrested on a felony charge of cocaine possession. (GE 
5.) 
 
 Applicant disclosed his recent arrest for cocaine possession in response to the 
police record inquiries on his September 2013 SF 86. Applicant answered “no” to whether 
he had illegally used any drugs or controlled substances in the last seven years. (GE 1.) 
 
 During his November 2013 interview with the OPM investigator, Applicant admitted 
that he had been arrested after the police found a gram of cocaine on his person, but he 
indicated that he had been holding the drug for his brother, who is a gang member. 
Applicant explained that he was denied a drug diversion program because of a suspected 
gang affiliation, although he has never joined a gang. At his upcoming court appearance in 
December 2013, Applicant expected his attorney to request drug rehabilitation for him in 
the hope that the charge will be dismissed. Applicant admitted that he socializes with his 
brother, who continues to use cocaine, but he denied that their association would adversely 
affect him. In response to whether he had ever used an illegal drug, Applicant related that 
he had used cocaine about once a week for eight weeks in 2009 while socializing with 
friends. He denied any intent to use cocaine in the future. As for his failure to disclose that 
drug use on his SF 86, Applicant claimed that he had not understood the questions on the 
SF 86. Concerning any drug purchases, Applicant admitted that he had bought cocaine 
eight times in 2009 and once in June 2013, when he purchased the drug for his brother. 
Applicant denied any intent to purchase cocaine in the future. (GE 5.) 
 
 Applicant was accepted into an adult drug court program beginning in early January 
2014. In addition to weekly counseling (Tr. 68), he was required to maintain abstinence 
from alcohol and other drugs and refrain from criminal activity for one year. (Tr. 36-37.) 
Applicant attained clinical treatment goals, which are not specified in the record. On his 
completion of the adult drug program in early January 2015, his case was dismissed. 
According to Applicant, the charge was expunged. (AEs C, D; Tr. 36-37.) 
 
  At his security clearance hearing, Applicant admitted that he used cocaine eight 
times in 2009 when he was in college, although he claims to have no recall of the 
circumstances. (Tr. 39, 52-53.) He denied any use of cocaine since 2009. (Tr. 39.) He 
explained that he “just grew tired of it. [He] just wanted to change the habit.” (Tr. 54.) 
Concerning his June 2013 arrest for illegal possession, Applicant admitted that the police 
found cocaine in his pocket. He again maintained that the cocaine belonged to his brother 
(Tr. 36), but he denied he was present when the cocaine was purchased. (Tr. 54, 56.) As to 
how he happened to have the drug in his possession, Applicant responded that he took it 
from his brother. When pressed by Department Counsel about whether he took the 
cocaine because his brother had a 2005 felony cocaine charge on his record, Applicant 
 
 6 
indicated that he could not remember why he took possession of the cocaine. He denied 
being pressured to take the cocaine. (Tr. 54-55.) Applicant claimed to not remember telling 
the OPM investigator that he had bought the cocaine for his brother in 2013. (Tr. 56.) He 
claimed to have no recall of the events that preceded his arrest, to include whether he had 
purchased the cocaine for his brother. He testified discrepantly that he did not remember 
that he had cocaine on his person until the police told him to exit the vehicle only to then 
admit that he had possession of the drug before he entered the car that night. (Tr. 69-70.) 
Regarding the omission of his cocaine use in 2009 from his September 2013 SF 86, 
Applicant reiterated what he told the OPM investigator, i.e., he did not understand the 
question, although he did not elaborate further. (Tr. 60-61.) 
 
 Applicant denies being around anyone who was using cocaine, including his brother, 
since June 2013. (Tr. 59.) Applicant and his brother live at home with their mother and two 
of their sisters. Applicant testified that he has not seen or talked to his brother as much 
since his arrest because of their schedules and by choice (“I chose not to be around my 
friends or my brother during the time the case was being processed.”). (Tr. 40.) Applicant 
added that he and his brother “did have the same group of friends.” Subsequent testimony 
about his brother’s current gang ties suggests that Applicant still considers these gang 
members friends (“I mean they said that he’s an active gang member, but all he does is 
just go to work and just hang out with our friends.”). (Tr. 55) When asked whether he 
feared any gang members, Applicant responded, “No. We were all childhood friends 
growing up.” (Tr. 70.) About whether he had ever socialized with any of the gang members 
and his brother, Applicant responded, “I’ve hung out with numerous people, but whatever 
they do is not what I choose to do.” (Tr. 56.) 
 
 Applicant has not been arrested since June 2013. (Tr. 59.) He has not had any 
problems at work or been disciplined by his defense contractor employer. (Tr. 48.) He 
admitted that he “made a mistake,” but asserts that he has moved on from the June 2013 
incident and is looking forward to a better future. (Tr. 71.)  
  
Law, Regulation, and 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 
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 
 
 7 
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 J, Criminal Conduct 
 
 The security concern about criminal conduct is articulated in AG ¶ 30: 
 
Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and 
trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or 
willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations. 
 
 The police found cocaine on Applicant when he was stopped on reports of gunfire in 
his vicinity in June 2013, and he was charged with felony possession of cocaine. Although 
the charge was dismissed and apparently expunged in January 2015 after Applicant 
completed an adult drug court program, his criminal conduct raises security concerns. 
Disqualifying condition AG ¶ 31(c), “allegation of admission of criminal conduct, regardless 
of whether the person was formally charged, formally prosecuted or convicted,” applies. 
 
 Guideline J provides for mitigation under AG ¶ 32(a) when “so much time has 
elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual 
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s 
 
 8 
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.” As of the close of the evidentiary record, 
some 2.5 years had passed without a recurrence of criminal conduct. For one year of that 
time, Applicant was in an adult drug court program where he could have been prosecuted 
on the felony drug charge for any criminal violation. He had every reason to maintain good 
behavior during that time. Applicant has taken some positive steps toward a better future 
for himself, such as taking an EMT class. He has become employed by a defense 
contractor, and there is no evidence that his performance has been at an unacceptable 
level. Nevertheless, it cannot reasonably be said that so much time has passed to 
guarantee against recurrence. The circumstances of his criminal cocaine possession 
cannot be considered unusual. Applicant was with his brother, a cocaine user. Applicant 
had used and purchased cocaine himself in 2009, and there is evidence implicating 
Applicant in cocaine purchase in 2013. Applicant told an OPM investigator that he bought 
the cocaine found in his possession in June 2013 for his brother. At his hearing, he initially 
denied he was present when the cocaine was purchased in 2013. When I pressed him 
about the discrepancy, he claimed he does not now remember whether he purchased the 
cocaine for his brother. Applicant testified that he has not socialized with his brother since 
the incident and that their interaction has been limited, but they share living quarters and 
there is no evidence that his brother has stopped using cocaine. 
 
 Applicant cannot fairly be held responsible for his brother’s decisions to remain a 
gang member or to use cocaine. The salient issue is whether Applicant can be counted on 
to avoid any illegal activity in the future. Applicant asserts that he has moved on toward a 
better future for himself. His defense contractor employment, his pursuit of EMT 
certification, and his law-abiding conduct since June 2013, are significant steps in reform 
that implicate mitigating condition AG ¶ 32(d), which provides: 
 
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including but not limited to 
the passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, remorse or 
restitution, job training or higher education, good employment record, or 
constructive community involvement. 
 
 Yet, his reform is undermined to the extent that he remains unwilling or unable to 
provide a consistent, credible account of his criminal conduct in June 2013 and to fully 
accept responsibility for his actions that night. As noted, he told an OPM investigator that 
he purchased the cocaine for his brother that he had in his possession. At his security 
clearance hearing, he denied that he was present when the cocaine was purchased. As to 
how the drug ended up in his pocket, Applicant explained that he took the cocaine from his 
brother, even though he claimed to not recall why. He denied he was pressured to take the 
drug from his brother. (Tr. 54-55.) He claimed that he did not remember telling the 
investigator that he had bought the drug for his brother. (Tr. 57.) When I asked him about 
whether he had bought the cocaine, Applicant responded, “I remember the incident of me 
being arrested, but I don’t remember the stuff prior to that night.” (Tr. 68.) He later testified 
that he did not realize that he had the cocaine in his pocket until he was told by the police 
to exit his vehicle. He responded “Yes” when asked whether he had possession of the 
cocaine when he entered his car and so it was not passed to him by his brother in the car. 
(Tr. 70.) This scenario would be more consistent with his previous admission that he 
 
 9 
bought the cocaine sometime before he was stopped by the police. It makes no sense that 
he would take the cocaine from his brother unless he intended to use it himself, which he 
denies, or he feared trouble for his brother or was pressured by his brother to take 
possession as the police approached the vehicle. He would have known that he had 
cocaine in his pocket. 
 
 Although not alleged in the SOR, Applicant did not disclose any use of cocaine on 
his SF 86. His explanation is that he did not understand the drug inquiry, although he did 
not elaborate about the nature of his misunderstanding. Applicant’s disclosure on his SF 86 
of his then pending arrest for felony possession would not excuse him from having to report 
his 2009 cocaine use on his 2013 SF 86. The intentional omission of his cocaine use would 
be a criminal offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Even assuming he did not deliberately falsify 
his SF 86, it is difficult to find that he is fully rehabilitated because of his questionable 
candor at his hearing about his cocaine possession in June 2013. Applicant testified that 
despite his close relationship with his brother and their friends in the past, he has limited 
his contact with his brother and friends since June 2013. Yet, when discussing his brother’s 
friends, he referred to them as “our friends.” Applicant has not conclusively established that 
he is no longer in situations or associating with persons who do not pose a risk of 
recurrence by him of criminal activity. Applicant has yet to demonstrate adequate reform. 
AG ¶ 32(d) does not fully apply. 
 
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 
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 default of his student loans 
and by the two cable services debts in collection. As of October 2013, Applicant owed at 
least $13,626 in student loan debt in collection. Cable services debts of $453 from 
September 2011 (SOR ¶ 2.c) and $140 from May 2012 (SOR ¶ 2.h) were in collection. 
Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 
19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” are implicated. 
 
Concerning possible conditions in mitigation, the student loans were opened in 
October 2009 and October 2010. The cable services debts were incurred more than three 
years ago. 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,” applies in that the debts were not incurred recently 
and Applicant has not taken on new debt. 
 
 
 10 
Applicant attributes his student loan default to insufficient income. He had no 
success finding a job in his chosen field with only an associate’s degree. He held a part-
time job in retail at $9 an hour when his student loans came out of deferment. Applicant 
supplemented his income by a full-time temporary job from July 2012 to March 2013, but 
he then had only his part-time job in retail until April 2014, when he left for a seasonal job 
paying $10 an hour. After he was laid off in August 2014, he collected unemployment 
through January 2015. He did not provide any details about his income and expenses 
during that time, but his loans were apparently in forbearance. Available credit information 
shows that his student loans have been rated as current since October 2014. Applicant 
acted responsibly by obtaining forbearances of his student loans in recent years and by 
making payments when the latest forbearance ended in June 2015. Mitigating condition AG 
¶ 20(b) applies because the lack of consistent full-time employment was a significant factor 
in his student loan delinquency. 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. 
 
Applicant is credited with making payments toward his student loans since June 
2015, albeit at times less than the $169 scheduled payment. After missing his August 2015 
payment, he caught up with two payments totaling $350 in September 2015. He paid 
$229.60 in October 2015 and $100 in November 2015, so his loan was current as of his 
December 2015 hearing. Applicant’s claim that he paid the $140 cable services debt and 
$200 toward the other cable debt is corroborated by his September 2015 credit report, 
which reports a $253 balance of the larger cable debt and does not show any other 
outstanding collection debt. While I acknowledge the brevity of Applicant’s payment record, 
he demonstrated good faith before June 2015 by obtaining forbearances when he did not 
have a stable full-time income. His recent efforts to address his student loans and cable 
services 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. 
 
AG ¶ 20(e) has limited applicability in this case in that the evidence does not fully 
establish that Applicant owes the student loan balances in SOR ¶¶ 2.d and 2.e. They 
appear to be duplicate listings of the accounts in SOR ¶¶ 2.a and 2.b, respectively. AG ¶ 
20(e) provides: 
 
(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 
 
 11 
proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions 
to resolve the issue. 
 
Applicant owed $12,893 in student loan balances as of late August 2015. (GE 6.) He 
presented evidence of subsequent payments totaling $679.60. His student loan debt is a 
substantial burden in relation to his income. 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. He drives a 1998 model-year vehicle that he continues to repair when needed 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). 
Some concerns arise in that Applicant has not presented evidence of expenses that could 
reasonably explain his failure to pay the $253 in collection debt on his record. However, he 
has demonstrated that he can handle his finances responsibly provided he has adequate 
income. The financial considerations 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 his 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. 
 
The analyses under Guideline J and Guideline F are incorporated in my whole-
person assessment, but some aspects warrant additional comment. Applicant’s youth and 
family influences were likely factors in his criminal drug involvement. He has taken 
significant steps to move on from his mistakes by obtaining his associate’s degree, taking 
an EMT class, and complying with the adult drug program. While his desire to put his 
criminal drug involvement behind him is understandable, it does not excuse or justify a lack 
of full candor about his criminal past during the investigation or adjudication of his security 
clearance eligibility. The Government must be able to rely on the representations of those 
persons seeking classified access. Applicant has yet to demonstrate the sound judgment 
required for security clearance eligibility when he claims he cannot remember the 
circumstances that surrounded his arrest in June 2013. It is well settled that once a 
concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong 
 
 12 
presumption against the grant or renewal of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 
913 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990). 
 
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 J:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraph 1.a:  Against Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2, Guideline F:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a-2.h: For 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 continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
________________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge