1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 15-03689
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Kevin M. McNeil, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s financial problems were caused by circumstances beyond his control.
He has either paid his delinquent debts or caught up with the monthly bills that were
delinquent. I conclude that he has mitigated the security concern. Clearance is granted.
 Statement of the Case
On January 17, 2016, 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 March 11, 2016, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting the
allegations and requesting a hearing, whereupon the case was assigned to me on June
6, 2016.  DOHA issued a notice of hearing on June 23, 2016, scheduling the hearing for
July 19, 2016. The hearing was held as scheduled. Department Counsel submitted four
2
 
exhibits that I identified and received as Government Exhibit (GE) 1 through GE 4. Also,
I took administrative notice of Department Counsel’s discovery letter to Applicant, dated
April 8, 2016 (Hearing Exhibit (HE) I).  I received seven exhibits that Applicant submitted
(AE A - G).  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 five additional exhibits that I admitted and incorporated into the record as AE
H through AE L. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on July 27, 2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 63-year-old married man with one adult child and two adult
stepchildren.  He earned a bachelor’s degree in automated management technologies
in 1992. Since 2010, he has been working for a defense contractor as a systems
administrator. (Tr. 11)
Applicant is well-respected by his colleagues and supervisors. His current
supervisor characterizes him as an honest, reliable man of sound judgment. (AE C)
Coworkers describe him as a positive individual with a good work ethic. (AE D and AE
E) 
The SOR alleges seven debts totalling approximately $140,000. Approximately
$138,500 constitute student loans (subparagraphs 1.c-1.f) Applicant attributes his
difficulty handling his finances to the expenses associated with multiple back surgeries
that he underwent between 2000 and 2005. In sum, he paid approximately $15,000 to
$20,0000 in medical co-pay expenses. More recently in 2009, his stepdaughter was
diagnosed with complex reflex dystrophy syndrome, a degenerative disease that
rendered her wheelchair-bound. (Tr. 35) Applicant spent approximately $5,000 per year
helping to care for her. (Tr. 36) Currently, he is no longer responsible for supporting her.
(Tr. 35)
Applicant has gradually either satisfied his delinquent debts or is paying them
timely. Specifically, Applicant satisfied the debt alleged in subparagraph 1.a, a medical
bill for $680, several years ago. When he discovered that it still appeared on his credit
report, he formally disputed it. The credit bureau investigated the charge, resolved it in
Applicant’s favor, and removed it from the credit report. (AE I at 3; Tr. 27) Similarly, he
satisfied subparagraph 1.b, another old medical bill (totalling $416), and successfully
disputed its continued appearance on his credit report. (AE I at 1)
SOR subparagraphs 1.c through 1.e are student loan accounts. Applicant has
been making regular monthly payments on his student loan accounts since August
2014. (AE J, AE K) Per his federal income tax statements, he has paid nearly $10,000
of student loan payments since 2014.( AE L) His student loan payments are current.  
Applicant satisfied subparagraph 1.f, an old phone bill totalling $552. When he
discovered its continued appearance as delinquent on his credit report, he successfully
disputed it, whereupon the credit bureau removed it. (AE I at 2) Applicant contends that
3
 
he satisfied the debt alleged in subparagraph 1.g, totalling $247, but provided no
documentation.
Applicant earns $115,000 annually. He has $900 of monthly discretionary income
and approximately $40,000 invested in a retirement plan. (Tr. 30, 33)
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
4
 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debt; and
(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of a
past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides
documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides
evidence of action taken to resolve the issue.
The cost of multiple back surgeries, together with the cost of care for his
chronically disabled stepdaughter, contributed to Applicant’s financial problems. His
student loans, as alleged in subparagraphs 1.c through 1.e, are now current. After
paying subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b, and 1.f, he successfully disputed their appearance on
his credit bureau report. 
Applicant did not provide documentary evidence supporting his contention that
he satisfied the debt alleged in subparagraph 1.g. However, given its minimal amount,
and the fact that he provided comprehensive, documentary evidence that he has either
paid or is making payments on all of the other SOR debts, I consider his contention to
be credible. Ultimately, upon considering the conditions that resulted in the financial
problem, Applicant’s steps to remedy the problem, and his ample discretionary income,
I conclude that all of the mitigating conditions apply. Applicant has mitigated the
financial considerations security concern.
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.
In addition to the surrounding circumstances of Applicant’s incurrence of delinquent
debt, the presence of rehabilitation, and the minimal likelihood of recurrence, I also
considered Applicant’s sterling character references in reaching my decision. 
5
 
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: FOR APPLICANT
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.g: 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 eligibility for a security
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge