1 
       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
   DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: )
)
 ) ISCR Case No. 15-07839 
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
October 12, 2016 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant mitigated the Financial Considerations security concerns raised by her 
past bankruptcy and delinquent accounts because they were incurred due to 
circumstances beyond her control and she has acted reasonably in addressing her 
delinquencies. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.  
Statement of the Case 
On May 29, 2016, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The action was taken under Executive Order 
(EO) 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) effective for cases after September 1, 2006.  
Applicant answered the SOR on June 30, 2016 (Answer), and requested a 
hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on August 17, 
 
2 
 
2016. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing 
on August 25, 2016, and the hearing was convened as scheduled on September 23, 
2016. The Government offered Exhibit (GE) 1 through 5, which were admitted without 
objection. The Applicant offered Exhibit (AE) A through X, which were admitted without 
objection, called one witness, and testified on her own behalf. She also submitted one 
post-hearing exhibit marked and admitted without objection as AE Y. DOHA received 
the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on October 7, 2016.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is a 37-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She is divorced 
from her first husband, and married her second husband in March 2015. She has three 
children, ages 1, 6, and 10. She also has a step-son, age 7. (Tr. 54-56.) 
 
 The SOR alleges Applicant filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which was discharged in 
May 2012, and is indebted on 16 additional delinquent debts in the total approximate 
amount of $69,260. In her Answer, Applicant admitted SOR subparagraphs 1.a, 1.b, 
and 1.p. She denied SOR subparagraphs 1.c through 1.o, and 1.q. (Answer; Tr. 8.) Her 
debts are found listed in credit reports dated June 4, 2015, and August 8, 2016. (GE 3; 
GE 4.).  
 
 Applicant filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy in January 2012. She identified liabilities 
totaling $107,649, including $71,504 in student loan obligations. Her debts, other than 
her student loans, were discharged in May 2012. The bankruptcy filing was preceded by 
two separate circumstances beyond her control. In 2009 her son was born with a 
“breathing issue,” and had to be hospitalized in a neonatal intensive care unit, which 
caused extensive medical bills. Additionally, in 2011 Applicant was assaulted by her 
then husband. The police were called and Applicant’s then husband, now ex-husband, 
was incarcerated as a result of the incident. She became the sole support for the family. 
The assault on Applicant led to the involvement of child protective services, because 
“the assault was so bad they were afraid for [her] children, that [she] wasn’t going to be 
able to protect them.” (Tr. 26.) As a result, Applicant was constantly in court, incurring 
costly legal fees, and suffering from stress that caused her to enter therapy. She lost 
her job in late 2011, which compounded her financial difficulties. (AE A; Tr. 24-27.) 
 
 Since 2012, Applicant has been employed in eight different jobs. She admitted 
that she was “fired” from one job, but the rest of the periods of unemployment were due 
to contracts that ended. She was unemployed from February to March 2014; April to 
June 2014; August to October 2014; January to March of 2015; and April to May 2015; 
because she was between contracts. She testified that she made efforts to repay her 
debts during periods of employment, but could not afford to do so when she was 
unemployed. (Tr. 29, 49-54, 64.) 
 
 The SOR alleged that Applicant was indebted on four student loan accounts, as 
stated in subparagraphs 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, and 1.e, totaling $65,537. These debts became 
delinquent between 2009 and 2010, and were listed on Applicant’s Chapter 7 
bankruptcy filing. A representative of the creditor testified that Applicant has had three 
 
3 
 
student loan accounts with their dispute resolution department. She currently owes on a 
$37,496.79 consolidated loan (subparagraph 1.b), and a $28,196.24 consolidated 
student loan (subparagraph 1.c). Applicant’s Pell grant is paid in full. The account 
number on the Pell grant matched the debt alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.d, which 
was duplicated in subparagraph 1.e. The remaining two delinquent accounts are 
identified by the creditor, using the same account number. Payments made to this 
creditor are applied to both of the remaining delinquent accounts. Applicant documented 
she has a payment agreement with this creditor. The terms of the agreement require 
her to make nine consecutive monthly payments of $323. The creditor will then take the 
loans out of default status. She has made five consecutive payments between June 
2016 and October 2016. She also provided documentation of prior payments of $323 in 
August 2015 through November 2015; and February 2016. She was unable to continue 
regular monthly payments at that time, due to periods of unemployment. However, she 
testified she intends to continue to make her monthly payments until this debt is 
resolved. (AE B; AE C; AE E; AE Y; AE T; AE V; Tr. 28-32, 57-58, 73-79.) 
 
 The SOR alleged that Applicant was indebted on five parking tickets and a library 
fine owed to her city government, as stated in subparagraphs 1.f, 1.g, 1.h, 1.i, 1.j, and 
1.k, totaling $719. These debts became delinquent between 2011 and 2014. Applicant 
had previously paid the underlying fines, but did not know of the additional interest 
assessed due to late payments. Applicant presented documentation that shows each of 
these debts have been fully resolved. (AE D; AE E; AE F; AE G; AE H; AE I; Tr. 35-37, 
58-61, 70-72.) 
 
 The SOR alleged that Applicant was indebted on a medical account, as stated in 
subparagraph 1.l, in the amount of $1,216. Applicant is making payments of $100 per 
month to this creditor. She documented four consecutive payments under this 
agreement. She intends to continue to make payments on this debt until it is fully 
resolved. (AE J; AE U; Tr. 37.) 
 
 The SOR alleged that Applicant was indebted on a medical account, as stated in 
subparagraph 1.m, in the amount of $823. Applicant contested this debt with the 
creditor because she had been “double billed” for this debt. On June 20, 2016, she 
received a letter from this creditor that stated the account had been removed from her 
credit file. This debt is resolved. (AE K; Tr. 38, 62.) 
 
 The SOR alleged that Applicant was indebted on a medical account, as stated in 
subparagraph 1.n, in the amount of $486. Applicant repaid this debt in full on June 20, 
2016. This debt is resolved. (AE L; Tr. 38.) 
 
 The SOR alleged that Applicant was indebted on a medical account, as stated in 
subparagraph 1.o, in the amount of $204. This debt became delinquent in 2014. 
Applicant presented a receipt that shows she repaid this debt in July 2016. This debt is 
resolved. (AE M; Tr. 38-40.) 
 
 The SOR alleged that Applicant was indebted on a child care debt, as stated in 
subparagraph 1.p, in the amount of $155. This debt became delinquent in 2014. 
 
4 
 
Applicant presented documentation that shows she resolved this debt in July 2016. This 
debt is resolved. (AE N; Tr. 40.) 
 
 The SOR alleged that Applicant was indebted on a collection account, as stated 
in subparagraph 1.q, in the amount of $120. Applicant testified she paid this debt and 
presented a letter from the creditor that shows a zero balance. (AE O; Tr. 40-41.) 
 
 Applicant introduced documentation to show she is current on all of her other 
monthly financial obligations, including her utility bills, cell phone bill, and car payment. 
Her landlord indicated in an email that she pays her rent on time and is a good tenant. 
Her most recent credit report reflects no new delinquencies. She has no credit cards. 
She participated in financial counseling during her bankruptcy. She has also watched 
YouTube videos on creating a budget and money management. She testified she 
employs the strategies she learned. Her monthly budget shows she has money left over 
after paying her expenses. (AE P; AE R; AE X, Tr. 64.) 
 
 Applicant presented a reference letter from her contracting officer that indicates 
she is reliable and trustworthy. Applicant’s sister and parents wrote letters on 
Applicant’s behalf, indicating Applicant is honest, trustworthy, and a good mother. 
Family friends wrote letters indicating Applicant is trustworthy, hardworking, and honest. 
Applicant has earned two certificates for her job performance. (AE Q; AE W.) 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used 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, administrative judges apply the guidelines in 
conjunction with the factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a), describing the adjudicative process. The 
administrative judge’s overarching 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 
 
5 
 
responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, 
or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The 
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance 
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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or 
safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally 
permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of 
classified information. 
 
Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that adverse 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 concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18, as 
follows:       
 
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 notes several conditions that could raise security concern under 
AG ¶ 19. Two are potentially applicable in this case:   
 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
 Applicant’s credit reports reflected 16 delinquent debts in the total amount of 
$69,260, after a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in 2012. These debts established a 
history of delinquencies. The evidence raises security concerns under the above 
conditions, thereby shifting the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those 
concerns. 
 
6 
 
 Five Financial Considerations mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially 
applicable:  
 
(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; 
 
(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;  
 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or 
otherwise resolve debts; and 
 
(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. 
 
 Applicant’s bankruptcy and subsequent financial problems occurred under 
unusual circumstances that are unlikely to recur, including: her son’s medical condition 
at birth; an incident of domestic abuse with her ex-husband that led to his incarceration 
and loss of his financial support; and periods of unemployment. Despite her financial 
setbacks and difficult life circumstances, she has diligently worked to address her debts 
as funds would allow. She successfully contested one duplicate debt (subparagraph 
1.m). She has fully resolved all but three of her SOR-listed debts. Those remaining 
debts, including two student loans and a medical account, are being repaid through 
monthly payments under agreements with the creditors. She has no credit cards or new 
delinquencies identified on her credit report. She maintains a monthly budget and has 
successfully made a series of payments to her remaining creditors. Her past 
indebtedness does not cast doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, or good 
judgment. All of the above mitigating conditions were established by Applicant’s 
evidence. 
 
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 the applicant’s 
conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the 
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):  
 
 
7 
 
(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. 
 
Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security 
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration 
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.        
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments 
under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) were 
addressed under that guideline, but some warrant additional comment.  
 
Applicant is well respected by those that wrote letters on her behalf. She has a 
reputation for honesty and trustworthiness. While she has experienced significant 
financial difficulties due to events beyond her control, she is working hard to resolve her 
remaining delinquencies. She is committed to continuing with her payment plans and 
resolving her remaining three accounts. While her student loan debt is significant, she 
has demonstrated a recent history of making payments. She can be trusted to continue 
making payments under those agreements. Overall, the record evidence leaves me 
without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security 
clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the Financial 
Considerations security concerns.  
 
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 through 1.q: For Applicant 
 
 
8 
 
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. 
 
 
 
________________________ 
Jennifer I. Goldstein 
Administrative Judge