1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 14-06042
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Although Applicant’s financial problems were partially caused by circumstances
beyond his control, there is not sufficient evidence indicating that they are either
resolved or under control. Clearance is denied. 
 Statement of the Case
On August 31, 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, and Guideline E,
Personal Conduct, 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 September 22, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting the allegations
in SOR Paragraph 1 and denying the allegations in SOR Paragraph 2. He requested a
As part of the eviction process, a judgment was entered against Applicant, whose name was on the lease.1
By 2014, he had satisfied it through a wage garnishment. (AE K)
2
 
hearing, and the case was assigned to me on December 1, 2015.  DOHA issued a
notice of hearing on April 19, 2016, scheduling the hearing for May 11, 2016. The
hearing was held as scheduled. 
Department Counsel withdrew Paragraph 2 and submitted four exhibits that I
identified and received as  Government Exhibit (GE) 1 through 4. Also, I took
administrative notice, at Department Counsel’s request, of two documents marked and
received as Hearing Exhibits I and II.  I identified and received ten exhibits that
Applicant submitted (AE A - K).  At the close of the hearing, I left the record open, at
Applicant’s request, to allow him the opportunity to submit additional exhibits. Within the
time allotted, he submitted one additional exhibit that I admitted and incorporated into
the record as AE L. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on May 23, 2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 34-year-old married man with three children, ages 12, 11, and 9.
He is also raising a four-year-old child that his wife had outside of their marriage. He
graduated from high school in 2003 and he has been working for a defense contractor
as a security guard for the past 13 years.
Between 2008 and 2012, Applicant incurred approximately $35,000 of delinquent
debt. Approximately $33,000 constitutes delinquencies on four car notes (SOR
subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d). The remainder of the debts consists of delinquent
parking tickets (SOR subparagraphs 1.e through 1.h, and 1.j through 1.l), and
delinquent utilities (SOR subparagraphs 1.i and 1.m).
Applicant’s financial problems corresponded with marital problems. Specifically,
in August 2008, Applicant and his wife separated. (Tr. 19) He remained in their
apartment and continued to provide financial assistance for her, taking legal
responsibility for her lease payments for the apartment where she moved. (Tr. 19) As
time progressed, Applicant realized that his estranged wife was not keeping up with the
rent payments. Unable to juggle two monthly rent payments, Applicant suggested to his
wife that they reconcile.
In March 2009, Applicant’s estranged wife returned home after being evicted
from the apartment.  (Tr. 40) When she returned, she was unemployed. Applicant1
purchased a car for her to assist her with finding a job (SOR subparagraph 1.a).  (Tr.
39-40) In the process of buying this car, he traded in his car that he had financed with
the creditor listed in SOR subparagraph 1.d. (Tr. 22, 35) SOR subparagraph 1.d alleges
that Applicant owes $464 to this creditor. Applicant contends that this amount was the
remaining balance on the car note when he purchased the new car, and that he paid off
3
 
this balance when he traded the car. (Tr. 24) He provided no documentary evidence to
support his claim.
In April 2009,  approximately one month after purchasing the vehicle financed by
the creditor alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.a, Applicant purchased another vehicle
(SOR subparagraph 1.b). (Tr. 24)  He anticipated that he could afford both car notes
because he was no longer paying the rent for two apartments, as his wife had
reconciled with him. Shortly after purchasing the second car, Applicant began struggling
to keep up with car payments, compelling him to obtain payday loans to help make ends
meet. (Tr. 24) By April 2010, both car notes had become delinquent. (GE 2 at 5) By
2013, the creditor of the delinquent debt alleged  in SOR subparagraph 1.b had forgiven
the debt and reported it to the IRS. (AE D) In 2014, the creditor of the debt alleged in
SOR subparagraph 1.a, reported the debt to the IRS, as forgiven, discharging the
$17,805 balance. (AE A, AE B)
In March 2011, Applicant and his wife separated again. (Tr. 46) He maintained
physical custody of their children. In April 2011, Applicant purchased another car. (GE 2
at 5) In May 2011, Applicant was in a motorcycle accident and suffered injuries that
incapacitated him. Unable to work for several months, he could not  make his rental
payments. Subsequently, he and his children moved to a relative’s home, and
ultimately, to a homeless shelter in August 2011, where he remained for five months,
through February 2012.  (Tr. 55) While Applicant was living in the homeless shelter, the
car loan for the car he had purchased in May 2011, as alleged in subparagraph 1.c,
totalling $5,855, went into default. Applicant voluntarily surrendered the car. In February
2015, Applicant entered a payment agreement with the creditor. (AE J at 2) Since then,
he has been making monthly payments of $25 to $75 per month, consistent with the
agreement. (AE J) He has reduced the balance by approximately $1,800.
Applicant owes all of the delinquent parking tickets, alleged in SOR
subparagraphs 1.e through 1.h, and 1.j through 1.l,  to the same municipal authority. In
September 2016, Applicant contacted the municipal authority and was informed that the
collective balance was $700. (Tr. 61) He made a $200 payment the day that he
contacted them. (AE I at 4) On May 4, 2016, he made a $220 payment. (AE I at 1 - 3)
The remaining balance on the delinquent tickets totals $375.
The delinquencies alleged in SOR subparagraphs 1.i and 1.m are utilities,
totalling $163 and $42, respectively. Applicant satisfied both of these debts. (Tr. 63, 64)
In November 2015, Applicant purchased a home for $223,000. He made half of
the $9,000 downpayment using money borrowed from his retirement account. (Tr. 7)
Currently, he has $4,500 in his retirement account, $2,500 in his savings account, and
approximately $100 of monthly, discretionary income. (Tr. 76-77) Applicant and his wife
reconciled in February 2016. She has a job. Now, Applicant and his wife manage their
finances separately. (Tr. 72)
4
 
As of the hearing date, Applicant had not filed his 2015 federal and state income
tax returns. (Tr. 69) On June 2016, he filed for an extension. (AE L)
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
Applicant’s history of financial problems triggers the application of AG ¶ 19(a),
“inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting
financial obligations.” 
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.
5
 
Although marital instability contributed to Applicant’s financial problems, he did
not always manage his finances responsibly during his marriage-driven financial crisis,
making poor decisions such as purchasing two cars within a two-month period following
his wife’s eviction for breach of a lease that he had signed. Nevertheless, Applicant’s
marital problems, considered together with his disabling injuries from a car accident in
May 2011, and the steps that he initiated to resolve his delinquencies persuade me to
conclude that  AG ¶¶ 20(b) and 20(d) apply partially, but do not mitigate the SOR
concerns.
Conversely, Applicant did not satisfy the largest delinquencies (SOR
subparagraphs 1.a and 1.b) Instead, they were discharged and forgiven. Under these
circumstances, the positive security inference generated by Applicant no longer being
responsible for them is limited.
In sum, there are some indications that Applicant is resolving his financial
problems. However, I remain troubled that he has not yet filed his 2015 income tax
returns, and just filed for an extension after the hearing. The circumstances beyond
Applicant’s control are compelling, but there is not enough evidence of rehabilitation to
conclude that Applicant’s problems may not recur. 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 is devoted to his family, sacrificing his financial well-being for the
preservation of his marriage. He deserves credit for overcoming homelessness to buy a
house. Given the nature, extent, and seriousness of his financial problems, it is too soon
to conclude that Applicant has rehabilitated his finances. I conclude that Applicant has
failed to carry 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
6
 
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.m: Against Applicant
PARAGRAPH 2, Guideline E: WITHDRAWN
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