1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 15-01995
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns caused by his
delinquent debt. Clearance is granted.
 Statement of the Case
On September 29, 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 1, 2006. 
The case was assigned to me on June 6, 2016. DOHA issued a notice of hearing
on June 27, 2016, scheduling the hearing for August 17, 2016. The hearing was held as
scheduled. Department Counsel submitted six exhibits that I identified and received as
2
 
Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 6, and Applicant testified. DOHA received the
transcript (Tr.) on August 25, 2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 39-year-old married man with one child, age nine. He has been
married to his current wife since 2013. He has been married twice previously. His first
marriage was from 1998 to 1999, and his second marriage lasted from 2003 to 2012.
Both prior marriages ended in divorce. Applicant’s child is from his second marriage. He
and his ex-wife share joint custody.
Applicant is a U.S. Army veteran who served honorably from 1996 to 2001. While
enlisted, he received the Army Achievement Medal. (Tr. 14) Applicant earned an
associate’s degree in 2006. Since 2003, Applicant has worked as a security officer at a
laboratory. He has held a security clearance for the entire duration of his employment.
(Tr. 16)
Between 2011 and 2014, Applicant incurred approximately $75,000 of delinquent
debt, including debt owed to multiple unsecured creditors (subparagraphs 1.b, 1.d-1.f,
and 1.h-1.k), a delinquent mortgage loan (subparagraph 1.c), and the deficiency from a
repossessed automobile (subparagraph 1.g). Applicant’s delinquencies stem from the
deterioration of his second marriage. When they separated, his wife refused to help pay
for the debts that they had jointly incurred. (Tr. 17) When Applicant remarried in 2012,
his current wife agreed to help him pay the delinquent debts. Shortly after they married,
however, she experienced medical problems that prevented her from working, and
ultimately resulted in the loss of her job. (Tr. 18) She was subsequently unemployed for
the next two-and-a-half years. (Tr. 18) This presented Applicant with the dual challenge
of satisfying the debts from his previous marriage and attempting to manage the
finances from his current marriage on one income. This challenge proved to be
insurmountable.
In 2015, Applicant filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection. (GE 6) After
struggling to make payments through the bankruptcy plan, Applicant concluded, with the
help of his attorney, that the plan was not feasible. (Tr. 19) Consequently, in February
2016, Applicant converted his case to a Chapter 7 discharge petition, and in May 2016,
all of his debt, except the mortgage, was discharged. (Answer; GE 5)
As of the SOR date, the mortgage was delinquent in the amount of $24,422.
(Answer at 1) Currently, the total delinquency including the principal totals $160,000.
(Tr. 33) Applicant has not made any mortgage payments since 2013 (Tr. 27) In that
time, he tried to obtain a loan modification, but his efforts were thwarted by his ex-wife
who refused to either authorize the loan modification or relinquish her property
ownership through a quitclaim deed. (Tr. 38) Shortly after the Chapter 7 discharge, the
bank moved to foreclose on Applicant’s mortgage. (Tr. 27) The foreclosure was
scheduled for August 20, 2016, three days after the hearing. The current fair market
value of the home is $120,000. (Tr. 33)
3
 
Applicant has “a couple hundred dollars” of monthly discretionary income. (Tr.
29) He has approximately $50,000 to $60,000 invested in a retirement account. (Tr. 29)
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 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debt. 
4
 
Applicant’s financial problems were not caused by irresponsible or profligate
spending. Instead, they began at or about the time he and his wife divorced, and were
exacerbated when his current wife experienced disabling medical problems that caused
her to lose her job. Applicant responded by organizing a payment plan through a
Chapter 13 bankruptcy. After struggling to make payments and consulting with an
attorney, he concluded that the Chapter 13 payment route was not feasible, and he
opted to file for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy debt discharge. Since May 2016, all of his debts
have been discharged except his home mortgage loan. AG ¶¶ 20(b) and 20(d) apply.
Now that the Chapter 7 bankruptcy process is complete, Applicant’s mortgagor is
moving forward with the foreclosure process. Applicant made efforts to resolve the
delinquent mortgage loan, but was unsuccessful, in part, because of the refusal of his
ex-wife, the joint owner of the home, to cooperate in the resolution of the delinquent
mortgage loan. Given the uncertain status of the mortgage loan, I cannot conclude that
AG ¶ 20(c) applies.
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.
Applicant’s financial problems occurred when his first marriage failed, and were
exacerbated when his second wife, upon whose income he was jointly dependent, was
unemployed for more than two years. He obtained a Chapter 7 discharge of his debts
only after he tried to satisfy them through the Chapter 13 bankruptcy process. The
status of Applicant’s home mortgage loan remains uncertain, as foreclosure
proceedings are in motion now that the discharge process is finished. Ultimately, the
security clearance adjudication process is not about Applicant’s financial stability or
credit worthiness. Rather, it is an analysis of whether any financial instability either
indicates bad character, whether it may deleteriously affect his judgment vis-a-vis
safeguarding classified information, or whether it generates a vulnerability to coercion.
Given the length of time Applicant has held a security clearance, the cause of his
financial problems, the steps that he took to allay them, and his reserve income, I
conclude that the uncertainty regarding Applicant’s unresolved delinquent mortgage
loan neither demonstrates bad character nor generates any vulnerability to coercion.
Applicant has mitigated the security concern.
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.k: 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