Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government exhibits (GE) 1-4, hearing exhibit (HE) I,  and Applicant exhibits1
(AE) A-H.
DoD acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20,2
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
1 September 2006. 
1
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX )       ISCR Case No. 14-07025
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Nicole A. Smith, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  Applicant’s clearance is granted.1
On 1 June 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent Applicant a Statement of
Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial
Considerations.  Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a hearing before the2
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). DOHA assigned the case to me 17
September 2015 and I convened a hearing 18 November 2015. DOHA received the
transcript 3 December 2015.
A figure which reflects only the delinquent amounts. The total balance on the education loan at SOR 1.f is3
almost $25,000.
However, Applicant reported duplicate accounts. For example, he reported having an appointment the next4
day with W ells Fargo Bank to discuss consolidation of some education loans. But he had already consolidated
the two loans (SOR 1.a and 1.b, totaling $10,616) and had started a repayment plan with Allied Interstate, the
collection agent for American Student Assistance, a successor in interest to W ells Fargo. Applicant made an
initial payment of $150, was to make three $150 monthly payments, then $50 monthly until the account was
out of collections—an estimated 9-12 months. Similarly, he listed two delinquent Citibank education loans
totaling $26,728 that were guaranteed by Sallie Mae. But he also listed a debt to Sallie Mae in which he
acknowledged being $2,498 past due on a loan of which $23,636 had allegedly been charged off. This debt
is reflected in the SOR as debt 1.e—$2,654 past due on a total loan of $24,690.
AE C has copies of two cancelled checks for $500, that Applicant has incorrectly attributed to these two5
accounts. The two checks are properly attributed to the Sallie Mae debt at SOR 1.f.
However, as with AE C, the payment record included as the last two pages of the exhibit apply to the Sallie6
Mae debt at SOR 1.f. The payment record reflects the payments made by Applicant’s grandmother and co-
signer between October 2010 and October 2012, and Applicant’s resumption of payments in June
2014—including the $500 monthly payments for July-September 2015 documented in AE C, which Applicant
2
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations, except for SOR 1.d, a debt he
was unable to identify. He is a 29-year-old administrative assistant employed by a
defense contractor since May 2014. He has not previously held a clearance. He has
been continuously employed since leaving college in April 2007, but this is the first job
he has held with any significant salary or promotion prospects. His current employer has
positions of greater responsibility available to him if he obtains his security clearance
(AE G).
The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits substantiate, seven delinquent
accounts totaling over $17,000. Applicant denies one debt totaling $461. Over $13,000
of the debt is for three delinquent education loans.  Applicant reported significant debt3
on his May 2014 clearance application (GE 1).  He also noted that he was getting credit4
counseling through his company’s employee assistance program. Some of the debts he
was unaware of until he obtained a copy of his credit report to complete his clearance
application.
The two Federally-guaranteed education loans listed at SOR 1.a ($7,923) and
1.b ($2,693) originated with Wells Fargo Education Financial Services as disbursements
for $5,500 and $3,500 respectively (GE 3). The loans were later sold to ACS/Wells,
where they were reported as 120-days past due. They were later sold to American
Student Assistance, where they were in collection in the amounts alleged in the SOR.
Applicant began making $50 monthly payments in May 2014. In July 2015, Applicant
applied for rehabilitation of the two loans through Allied Interstate on behalf of American
Student Assistance (AE C).  Applicant completed the rehabilitation program and in5
November 2015, the lender established Applicant’s permanent repayment program, to
begin in December 2015 (AE E).  Applicant began repayment on his private education6
undertook because the lender would reduce the interest rate on the loan.
3
loans in June 2014 (SOR 1.f)(AE D). Beginning December 2015, the monthly payments
on both sets of loans will be adjusted: Applicant will pay $120 monthly on his Federal
loans and $157 on his private loan (Tr. 43; AE H).
Applicant has attempted to find the creditors at SOR 1.c, 1.d, and 1.g without
success. He was disputing SOR debt 1.e. SOR debts 1.c, 1.e, and 1.g appear to have
aged off his November 2015 credit reports (AE A, B), which does not necessarily
extinguish his liability for them, but which makes them more difficult to locate. He has
had no response to his effort to contact creditor SOR 1.d (AE A).
 Applicant’s financial problems were largely related to his lack of income from his
low-paying jobs from April 2007 to May 2014. However, he also acknowledges that he
made no effort to contact his creditors during that time (Tr. 32-33). Only after he
obtained his more responsible job in May 2014 did he realize the importance of having
his finances in order.
Applicant currently earns $42,000 and has about $200 positive monthly cashflow.
He lives with his significant other in a home she rents; he contributes to the rent and
utilities. She has a security clearance.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability
for access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Any one disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case
can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to
classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does,
the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).7
¶ 19 (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;8
¶ 20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that9
it is  unlikely to recur . . . 
¶ 20 (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and10
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶ 20 (c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications11
that the problem is being resolved or is under control;
¶ 20 (d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.12
ISCR Case No. 07-06482 (App. Bd. 21 May 2008).13
4
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.7
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, but
Applicant mitigated the security concerns. Applicant’s underemployment and inattention
to his debts between April 2007 and May 2014 created financial problems for him.8
          
The mitigating factors for financial considerations give Applicant substantial aid.
While his financial difficulties are both recent and multiple, Applicant’s employment is
now better paying and he has the prospect of a promotion if he obtains his clearance;
so the circumstances that caused them are less likely to recur.  Further, his financial9
problems were partly due to circumstances beyond his control, and he began
addressing his delinquent debts once he obtained better employment in May 2014. He
has continued to address his delinquent debts since then.  While there is no evidence10
that Applicant has had any financial counseling, beyond what he received through his
company’s employee assistance program, he has clearly acted to get his finances
under control.11
Applicant has been paying on his education loans since May and June 2014, and
has reorganized them into more manageable payments beginning December 2015. He
has had more difficulty resolving his other debts, one of which he is disputing, and
several others have either aged off his credit reports, or the creditors have been
unresponsive or unlocatable. Overall, substantial progress has been made addressing
his delinquent debt.  The Appeal Board has stated that an Applicant need not have12
paid every debt alleged in the SOR, need not pay the SOR debts first, and need not be
paying on all debts simultaneously. Applicant need only establish that there is a credible
and realistic plan to resolve the financial problems, accompanied by significant actions
to implement the plan.  Applicant’s efforts to date constitute such a plan, and his13
consistent payments reflect significant actions. I conclude Guideline F for Applicant.
5
Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-g: For Applicant
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance granted.
   
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR.
Administrative Judge