1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 15-01257
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s financial problems resulted from his failed business, which began
struggling shortly after the Great Recession in 2008, and the breakdown of his marriage,
which occurred shortly thereafter. Since then, he has organized his delinquent debts and
made substantive progress toward satisfying them. Under these circumstances,
Applicant has mitigated the financial considerations security concern. Clearance is
granted. 
 Statement of the Case
On September 23, 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. 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
In sum, the Response to the FORM, including copies of e-mail correspondence between Applicant and1
Department Counsel totals 11 pages. 
Response to Form, pages 12 through 28.2
2
 
1, 2006. On October 20, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR, denying the allegations and
requesting a decision on the written record rather than a hearing.
On January 28, 2016, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material
(FORM). Applicant received the FORM on February 5, 2016. He submitted a three-page
response by the March 6, 2016 deadline. On March 8, 2008, he e-mailed Department
Counsel informing him of his intention to submit additional documents. By March 14,
2016, he had submitted four pages of additional information. Department Counsel did not
object to their incorporation in the file.  1
On August 11, 2016, the case was assigned to me. On October 20, 2016, I
reopened the record through October 28, 2016 to afford Applicant the opportunity to
submit additional exhibits. Within the time allotted, he supplemented his FORM response
with 17 pages of additional information.2
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 48-year-old man with one child, age 14. He is divorced. He has a
bachelor’s and a master’s degree in the field of engineering, earned in 1991 and 1996,
respectively. (Item 2 at 10-11; Item 3 at 4) Applicant served honorably on active duty in
the U.S. Marine Corps from 1992 through 1994. (Item 3 at 19) Since 2006, he has been
working for a defense contractor as a systems engineering manager. 
In the mid-2000s, Applicant owned a part-time consulting business. His clients
were community service providers that were dependent on revenue generated from state
government contracts. When the recession occurred in 2008, many of the community
service providers that did business with Applicant lost revenue as state governments cut
their state government contracts. As these community service providers struggled,
Applicant gradually began experiencing a downturn in his business. By 2009, his
business had failed, and he had incurred approximately $5,700 of delinquent debt, as
alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.b. 
At or about the time that Applicant’s part-time business began struggling, his
marriage began deteriorating. In January 2012, Applicant and his wife separated, and in
May 2013, Applicant filed for divorce. (Item 2 at 4; Item 3 at 19) As part of a separation
agreement, Applicant’s estranged wife agreed to pay the debt alleged in subparagraph
1.a, totalling  $10,857. 
Applicant’s estranged wife did not pay the debt. In March 2016, Applicant
contacted the creditor and negotiated a payment plan. (Response at 10) Consistent with
3
 
the plan, he began making $150 monthly payments. (Response at 12-21) As of October
2016, he had reduced the balance by $2,500.  (Response at 26)
In March 2016, Applicant reached an agreement to satisfy the debt related to the
business failure, alleged in subparagraph 1.b, by making $200 monthly payments.
(Response at 5) He has been making the payments, as agreed. (Response at 23-24)
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
Under this guideline, “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.” (AG ¶
18) 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.” 
Applicant’s financial problems were caused by a business failure in 2009, followed
by a marital breakdown leading to his divorce in 2013. In the past year, he has contacted
both creditors alleged in the SOR, negotiated payment plans, and he has been adhering
to the plans. In sum, he has reduced his delinquent debt by approximately $4,000, which
constitutes approximately 25 percent of the total balance alleged in the SOR. Under
these circumstances, 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
4
 
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation),” 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,” and 20(d) “the
individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve
debts,” 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.
Upon considering the cause of Applicant’s financial difficulties, the steps that he
took to remedy them, and the progress that he has made toward debt reduction, I
conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concern.
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.b: 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
5