1 
 
 
 
                 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
       DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
  )   ISCR Case No. 14-06216 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Six financial judgments totaling $21,128 were filed against Applicant between 2007 
and 2008. He has not yet shown that he can handle his financial affairs responsibly. 
Clearance is denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On December 29, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications 
Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the 
security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, and explaining why it was 
unable to find it clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue security 
clearance eligibility for him. 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. 
 
On January 29, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR allegations and requested a 
hearing before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
 
2 
 
(DOHA). On February 23, 2016, 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 him.
1
 On February 25, 2016, I scheduled a hearing for March 23, 
2016. 
 
I convened the hearing as scheduled. Four Government exhibits (GEs 1-4) were 
admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified on his behalf, as reflected in a 
transcript (Tr.) received on April 4, 2016. I held the record open for three weeks after the 
hearing for documentary submissions from Applicant. I received two character reference 
letters, marked as Applicant exhibits (AEs A-B) on their respective receipt on April 8, 2016, 
and on April 11, 2016. The Government filed no objections by the April 22, 2016 deadline 
for comment, so the documents were admitted into evidence and the record closed on that 
date. 
 
Summary of SOR Allegations 
 
 The SOR alleges under Guideline F that, as of December 29, 2014, Applicant owed 
six financial judgments: of $4,024 (SOR ¶ 1.a) and $3,953 (SOR ¶ 1.b) from October 2008; 
$2,292 (SOR ¶ 1.c) from June 2008; $2,759 (SOR ¶ 1.d) from December 2007; and $362 
(SOR ¶ 1.e) and $7,738 (SOR ¶ 1.f) from October 2007. Additionally, a $225 medical debt 
was allegedly in collection (SOR ¶ 1.g). Applicant provided a detailed response in which he 
admitted the judgments but denied the medical collection debt. He explained that he made 
several “mistakes,” including taking a job at much lower pay in 2006 assuming that his 
income would increase. After he moved for another job, he fell behind on his rent twice. He 
indicated that the judgment in SOR ¶ 1.d has been paid, but he has been unable to verify 
SOR ¶ 1.c because his former landlord went out of business. With respect to the dental 
services for which his insurer denied coverage (SOR ¶ 1.g), Applicant related that claims 
were filed with an erroneous birthdate for him. Applicant expressed his intention to reduce 
or satisfy all of his debts in the next 18 months.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I make the following 
findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is a 40-year-old college graduate who has been employed by a defense 
contractor since early June 2014. He earned an Associate Degree from a community 
college in May 2012 and a Bachelor of Science, Magna Cum Laude, in computer science 
in May 2014. (GEs 1, 4; Tr. 24.) He seeks his first DOD security clearance to access a 
secured area and equipment that is classified. (Tr. 5, 34-35.) 
 
 
                                                 
1 
The file contains no explanation for the significant delay in assigning the case to a DOHA administrative 
judge. 
3 
 
Financial 
 
Applicant graduated from high school in June 1995. There is no evidence about 
Applicant’s employment before September 2001, when he began working in sales. By 
2005, Applicant was earning approximately $50,000 a year. Around January 2006, 
Applicant financed the purchase of a new car taking on a loan to be repaid at $360 per 
month. (GE 4; Tr. 20.) In May 2006, Applicant left his employment for a sales position with 
a flooring company with the prospect of higher income that failed to materialize. He also 
had unreimbursed costs, including for food, while on travel for work. (Tr. 20.) Applicant paid 
his car loan on time until August 2006, when he decided he could no longer afford the car 
and had it voluntarily repossessed. Applicant made no inquiry about a possible deficiency 
balance on his loan. (GE 4.) He was unaware that he could pay the balance and assumed 
“that it was just going to ruin [his] credit for quite some time.” (Tr. 24.) In October 2007, 
default judgments were filed against him of $7,738 for the balance of the auto loan (SOR ¶ 
1.f) and of $362 in unpaid repossession fees (SOR ¶ 1.e). (GEs 1, 3, 4.) 
 
Applicant earned approximately $36,000 in 2006. (Tr. 20.) He fell behind on his 
$705 monthly rent a few times because of insufficient income. (Tr. 22.) Each time, his 
landlord filed a notice of eviction. By the time Applicant appeared in court, he owed 
additional rent and fees. The landlord obtained judgments of $2,759 in December 2007 
(SOR ¶1.d) and $2,292 in June 2008 (SOR ¶ 1.c). He claims he paid the judgments (GE 1; 
Tr. 21), but he was evicted in September 2008. In October 2008, the landlord obtained 
judgments of $3,953 (SOR ¶ 1.b) and $4,024 (SOR ¶ 1.a). (GEs 1, 3, 4.) 
 
 In October 2007, Applicant enrolled in online classes at a for-profit university. In 
August 2008, the college withdrew Applicant from its distance learning program when he 
failed to log on to a class for which he had enrolled. When tuition fees came due in 
October 2008, Applicant could not afford to pay them. A $1,969 debt was charged off and 
placed for collection. Applicant eventually paid a collection agency $900 to settle the debt 
in August 2013.  (GEs 3, 4; Tr. 36.) 
 
In November 2008, Applicant was fired from his job for unsatisfactory performance. 
Applicant had argued with his new supervisor, whom Applicant believed advocated 
unethical behavior. (GE 1; Tr. 20-21.) 
 
Applicant was unemployed until January 2009, when he began working in sales for a 
retailer. In September 2009, he resigned and moved to his current area where he resided 
with a friend and his family. He paid his friend $350 per month in rent. (GE 4.) In October 
2009, Applicant began working in electronics/computer repair. While employed full time, he 
pursued college studies, at a local community college from September 2010 to May 2012, 
and at a state university from September 2012 to May 2014. (GE 1.) Applicant financed his 
college education through federal student loans totaling $40,500 and private student loans 
totaling $7,500. (GE 3.) In July 2013, Applicant traveled to Europe to visit a longtime friend 
and for tourism for ten days. (GE 1.) 
 
4 
 
 In March 2014, Applicant’s friend separated from his wife. Applicant moved with his 
friend to a new residence, although only his friend is on the lease. Applicant paid $300 a 
month for his room. Applicant traveled to Europe for about a week in May 2014, again to 
visit his friend and sightsee. (GE 4.)  
 
Shortly after Applicant earned his bachelor’s degree, he began working for his 
current employer in early June 2014 at a starting annual salary of $59,000. He also worked 
part time on nights and weekends for his previous employer for another month. (GE 4; Tr. 
35.) On May 28, 2014, he certified to the accuracy of a Questionnaire for National Security 
Positions incorporated within an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-
QIP). In response to a financial record inquiry concerning any delinquencies involving 
enforcement in the last seven years, Applicant disclosed the six judgments (SOR ¶¶ 1.a-
1.f) as shown on his credit report. About the judgment debt in SOR ¶ 1.a, Applicant stated, 
“I lost my job and had been evicted. Also there was some property damage.” Concerning 
any efforts to satisfy the debts, Applicant indicated that he had been in contact with his 
auto loan lender (SOR ¶ 1.f) to arrange for repayment now that his financial situation was 
improving. As for the repossession fees (SOR ¶ 1.e), he had tried to contact the attorneys 
about the debt and would resolve it “if given a chance.” About the four judgments to a 
former landlord (SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.d), Applicant indicated that he paid the $2,759 judgment by 
February 2008 under a payment plan. Concerning the June 2008 $2,292 judgment, 
Applicant indicated, “I believe that this was either taken care of or the balance of money 
owed was rolled into the next court judgment.” About the $3,953 October 2008 judgment, 
Applicant expressed uncertainty about whether it was the same debt as the $4,024 
judgment. His former landlord had declared bankruptcy, and he had no success to date in 
reaching the attorneys for the current property owner. In response to financial record 
inquiries into any delinquency involving routine accounts, Applicant listed the vehicle 
repossession (SOR ¶ 1.f); his tuition debt of $1,969, which he indicated was satisfied in 
July 2013; the judgment in SOR ¶ 1.a; a disputed dental debt of $275 that he asserted 
should have been covered by insurance (SOR ¶ 1.g); and a $100 credit card balance 
resolved in November 2011 that had been 60 days delinquent. (GE 1.) 
 
A check of Applicant’s credit on June 11, 2014, failed to confirm satisfaction of any 
of the four judgments awarded his former landlord or the judgments for the deficiency 
balance for his repossessed vehicle and repossession fees. A $225 medical debt in 
collection since January 2009 was still owed. Applicant was reportedly making timely 
payments on a new auto loan obtained in February 2014 for $21,243, on his private 
student loans, and on six credit card accounts with an aggregate balance of $3,132. His 
federal student loan was in deferment.  (GE 3.) 
 
On June 27, 2014, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM). About the financial judgments, Applicant 
indicated that he had been unaware of the judgment for the auto loan balance until he 
obtained his credit report. He contacted the lender, who confirmed that he owed $12,000. 
Applicant expressed an intention to repay the debt, although he could not say when he 
would be able to pay it. About the repossession fee, Applicant planned on paying that 
judgment in the near future. As for the judgments awarded his former landlord, Applicant 
5 
 
stated that the $2,759 judgment (SOR ¶ 1.d) was for two months of back rent and late fees 
and that he satisfied it in February 2008. He believed that the $2,292 judgment (SOR ¶ 1.c) 
for late rent and fees had either been paid or included in the $4,024 judgment (SOR ¶ 1.a). 
Similarly, he speculated that the $3,953 judgment (SOR ¶ 1.b) for unpaid rent could be 
included in the $4,024 judgment. Applicant indicated that his calls to the creditor and its 
lawyer had not been answered. He expressed a willingness to pay the judgments through a 
payment plan.  About the $225 medical debt in collection on his credit report, Applicant 
indicated that he paid the dentist $200 upfront to cover his cost for the procedure and that 
the dentist should have filed for reimbursement with Applicant’s insurer.  When he noticed 
the debt on his credit report, he contacted the dental office and learned that a claim had 
been submitted with an incorrect birth date for him. Applicant admitted that he had received 
a collection notice for $275 plus $100 in collection fees, which he was disputing.  Applicant 
indicated that he had never had any credit counseling and that his current financial 
situation was good. He expressed an intention to resolve his debts within the next 12 
months. (GE 4.) 
 
As of late November 2015, Applicant’s federal student loan had a balance of 
$46,406. His federal student loan was rated as current with a scheduled monthly payment 
of $201. There is no evidence that he has made any payments. Applicant owed $3,524 and 
$3,337 on private student loans. Those student loans were rated as current although they 
had been past due over 90 days in July 2015. (GE 2.) Applicant initially could not explain 
why his private student loans had been delinquent given his income. (Tr. 41.) He later 
stated that he had forgotten to pay them. (Tr. 42.) He was again late in making the $78 
monthly payment on his private student loans in January and February 2016. He “just 
forgot to pay them again.” (Tr. 43.) 
  
As of December 8, 2015, Equifax was reporting a history of late payments on an 
automobile loan obtained by Applicant for $21,243 in late February 2014. He had been late 
30 days four times and 60 days five times. His account was 60 days past due in October 
2015 before he paid $1,066 in November 2015 to bring it current. (Tr. 25.) In January 2016, 
Applicant arranged to pay his car loan automatically to ensure that his payment is made. 
(Tr. 46.) Applicant made no payments on his credit cards after April 2015. Balances of 
$451, $2,961, $1,444, and $792 were charged off. Three other credit cards with balances 
of $462, $863, and $724 were 150 days past due and closed. (GE 2.) His explanation for 
the delinquency is “very poor budgeting,” he was unfocused because of a breakup in a 
personal relationship, and he was away from early September 2016 to late October 2016. 
(Tr. 47-48, 50-51, 56-57.) 
 
At his hearing, Applicant claimed that the judgments in SOR ¶¶ 1.c and 1.d had 
“obviously” been paid because he continued to reside in the property. (Tr. 21, 28.) He 
provided no corroborating documentation. He testified that he paid cash. (Tr. 29.) Applicant 
admitted that he has not paid the October 2008 judgments awarded his former landlord 
(SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b), but then testified that he could not understand why there were two 
judgments. (Tr. 21-22, 30-31.) He had no success contacting his former landlord and has 
not considered contacting the court. (Tr. 23.) Applicant was given the opportunity after his 
6 
 
hearing to provide clarification about the status of the four judgments on his credit report. 
He submitted only character reference letters. 
 
With interest and fees, Applicant owed approximately $13,000 for the repossessed 
vehicle as of March 2016 (SOR ¶ 1.f). Applicant stated with respect to settling the debt the 
following: 
 
So my plan was actually to try to get about $7,000 or $8,000 and try to settle 
with the credit collection company that has it. So I’m actually currently paying 
half the amount of my 401(k) and I’m going to take a loan out against it once 
I hit that number and just pay it off with that. That is—I’m about halfway 
there. (Tr. 26.) 
 
The balance of his 401(k) was about $6,000 to $7,000 as of his hearing in March 2016. 
Around November or December 2015, Applicant increased his contributions to his 401(k) to 
increase its balance faster. He plans to borrow $7,000 to address his debts. (Tr. 53.) 
 
 Applicant earns $68,000 annually for his work with a defense contractor. (Tr. 35.) He 
moved to his current address in July 2015 and had to furnish his apartment. He has not 
been late on his rent of $500 a month. (Tr. 54-55.) Despite his income, he lives from 
paycheck to paycheck. (Tr. 42, 44-45.) Realizing that he has problems with budgeting and 
handling his finances, Applicant sought the assistance of a banker friend in February 2016. 
She was in the process of creating a budget for him as of March 2016. (Tr. 26, 38-39, 44-
45.) Applicant does not regard his financial mismanagement as a security risk. (Tr. 51.) 
 
Work References 
 
 Applicant did not allow his irresponsibility in handling his personal financial affairs to 
carry over into his work. Applicant’s supervisor in his previous employment found Applicant 
to be conscientious in performing his duties, including protecting customer’s private 
information. Applicant could be trusted handling sensitive information. (AE A.) 
 
 A senior engineer with Applicant’s employer worked with Applicant on the same 
project for the 15 months preceding February 2016. As project lead, this engineer found 
Applicant to be hardworking, extremely knowledgeable, and willing to work weekends to get 
the job done. He believes Applicant to be of good character. (AE B.) 
 
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 
7 
 
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 
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 F, Financial Considerations 
 
 The security concerns about financial considerations are set forth 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. 
 
8 
 
 Applicant’s June 2014 credit report (GE 3) shows that Applicant had four financial 
judgments filed against him totaling $13,028 in 2007 and 2008 for nonpayment of rent. 
Around August 2006, he had a vehicle voluntarily repossessed when he could no longer 
afford payment. In October 2007, judgments of $7,738 and $362 were entered against him 
for the deficiency balance on his loan for the surrendered vehicle and repossession fees. A 
$225 dental debt has been in collection since May 2009. Applicant claims that he paid two 
of the judgments (SOR ¶¶ 1.c and 1.d) in 2008, and that the $4,024 judgment (SOR ¶ 1.a) 
may well be an inclusive balance of the $3,953 alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b and late fees. He 
questions why two judgments were entered against him in October 2008, although he also 
indicated on his e-QIP that part of the $4,024 judgment was for property damage. It is 
possible although not conclusively established that one of the October 2008 judgments 
was for unpaid rent and the other for the property damage. He also disputes the dental 
debt in that it should have been covered by insurance. The DOHA Appeal Board has held 
that a credit report can be sufficient to meet the substantial evidence standard for the 
government’s burden of producing evidence of alleged delinquent debts. See ISCR 14-
03612 (App. Bd. Aug. 2015). Applicant’s uncorroborated assertions are not sufficient to 
overcome the evidence establishing the debts alleged in the SOR. Two disqualifying 
conditions, AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a 
history of not meeting financial obligations,” apply. 
 
 Applicant fully satisfies none of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20. While the 
delinquent debts are over five years old, they continue to cast doubt on Applicant’s 
reliability, judgment, and trustworthiness. He has known about the judgments since he 
obtained his credit report and listed them on his May 2014 e-QIP. Apart from calling the 
creditors for information about the balances and raising his contributions to his 401(k) 
toward borrowing from his account in the future, he has done little to resolve them. 
Mitigating condition AG ¶ 20(a), “the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or 
occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on 
the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” cannot reasonably 
apply in this case.  
 
 AG ¶ 20(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,” is implicated only in that the judgment debts were incurred 
because of insufficient income. That being said, Applicant’s financial problems were not 
entirely beyond his control. By taking a commission-based sales job in May 2006, Applicant 
assumed the risk that his income would not meet his expectations and could be less than 
in his previous job. Despite annual income of $59,000 starting in June 2014 and $68,000 
presently, Applicant inexplicably lives from paycheck to paycheck while making no 
payments toward his judgment debts. Applicant has not acted responsibly toward his 
creditors. 
 
 Evidence of ongoing financial mismanagement is replete in his credit card defaults 
during the summer of 2015. His credit cards were all delinquent and closed, some with 
balances charged off, due to nonpayment after April 2015. To his credit, Applicant 
9 
 
recognized in February 2016 that he needed help in budgeting, and he obtained the 
assistance of a friend, a banker, who was in the process of preparing a budget for him as 
of March 2016. While a positive first step in regaining financial stability, it would be 
premature to apply AG ¶ 20(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.” AG ¶ 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors 
or otherwise resolve debts,” is not established without any payments toward his delinquent 
debts. 
 
 As previously noted, Applicant was given an opportunity after his hearing to provide 
further evidence about the judgments, including clarification as to why two judgments were 
issued in October 2008 and whether any of the judgments for rent have been satisfied. 
Applicant provided no evidence in this regard that could arguably satisfy AG ¶ 20(e): 
 
(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 
proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions 
to resolve the issue. 
 
Concerning the $225 dental debt, I have no reason to doubt Applicant’s account that on 
noticing the debt on his credit report, he contacted the provider and learned that a claim 
had been filed and refiled with an erroneous birthdate for him. (GE 4.) Applicant indicates 
that he was contacted by a collection agency about the debt, and that he filed a dispute 
with one of the credit reporting agencies. Yet, he does not dispute that he received the care 
at issue. In that regard, he had an obligation to ensure that his debt was paid. He does not 
satisfy AG ¶ 20(e) without some proof of steps taken by him in 2008 or 2009 to address the 
issue. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the totality 
of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative 
process factors in AG ¶ 2(a).
2
 The analysis under Guideline F is incorporated in my whole-
person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) were addressed under that guideline, but 
some warrant additional comment. 
 
                                                 
2 
The factors under AG ¶ 2(a) 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. 
 
10 
 
 The concern for financial considerations is broader than the possibility that an 
individual might knowingly compromise classified information in order to raise money. It 
encompasses concerns about an individual’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities 
essential to protecting classified information. An individual who is financially irresponsible 
may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handing and safeguarding 
classified information. Co-workers from Applicant’s previous and current employments 
attest to Applicant’s dedication and to the high quality of his work. In his former job, 
Applicant handled sensitive information appropriately. Even so, the poor judgment he has 
continued to display in handling his personal finances raises concerns about his willingness 
or ability to follow rules and regulations. It is particularly troubling that he defaulted on all of 
his credit card accounts and fell behind on his private student loans in the summer of 2015, 
after he had been apprised in the SOR that the DOD was concerned about his finances. 
 
 It is well settled that once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security 
clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or renewal of a security 
clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1401 (9th
 
Cir. 1990). A determination of 
an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for 
specific past conduct, but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of the evidence to 
determine if a nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern. 
Applicant has not shown the good judgment that is demanded of persons with access to 
classified information. Applicant has not been proactive about resolving debts that he is 
legally liable to repay. After considering all the facts and circumstances, it is not clearly 
consistent with the national interest to grant him security clearance eligibility. 
 
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.g:   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. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge