1 
 
 
   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
       DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
     )  ISCR Case No. 16-00094 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Aubrey M. De Angelis, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
___________ 
 
Decision 
___________ 
 
HARVEY, Mark, Administrative Judge: 
 
 Applicant made sufficient progress resolving the debts alleged in his statement of 
reasons (SOR). He paid three SOR debts; three SOR debts are in established payment 
plans; and one SOR debt is a duplication of another SOR debt. Applicant is seeking 
validation of a debt owed to an SOR creditor of about $1,970, and he assures he will 
establish a payment plan once the debt is verified. Financial considerations security 
concerns are mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.       
  
Statement of the Case 
  
On January 20, 2015, Applicant signed his Questionnaire for National Security 
Positions (SF 86) or security clearance application (SCA). (Government Exhibit (GE) 1) 
On June 10, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(CAF) issued an SOR to Applicant pursuant to Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, 
Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense 
Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive); and the 
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information 
(AG), which became effective on September 1, 2006.  
 
The SOR detailed reasons why the DOD CAF did not find under the Directive that 
it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance 
for Applicant, and recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether 
   
 
2 
 
 
a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. (Hearing Exhibit (HE) 2) 
Specifically, the SOR set forth security concerns arising under Guideline F (financial 
considerations). 
 
On July 11, 2016, Applicant responded to the SOR and requested a hearing. On 
July 20, 2016, Department Counsel was ready to proceed. On September 16, 2016, the 
case was assigned to me. On September 30, 2016, the Defense Office of Hearings and 
Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing, setting the hearing for October 25, 2016. (HE 
1) The hearing was held as scheduled.   
  
During the hearing, Department Counsel offered 10 exhibits; Applicant offered 8 
exhibits; and all proffered exhibits were admitted without objection. (Tr. 15-21; 
Government Exhibits (GE) 1-10; Applicant Exhibits (AE) A-H) On November 1, 2016, 
DOHA received a copy of the transcript of the hearing.  
 
Findings of Fact1 
 
 In Applicant’s SOR response, he admitted to at some point owing the debts in SOR 
¶¶ 1.a through 1.h and 1.j. He denied knowledge of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.i. He also provided 
extenuating and mitigating information. Applicant’s admissions are accepted as findings 
of fact.  
 
Applicant is a 45-year-old communications systems engineer, who has worked for 
his employer since 2003. (Tr. 6, 25-26; GE 1) In 1989, he graduated from high school. 
(Tr. 6) Applicant has an associate’s degree in science and an associate’s degree in arts. 
(Tr. 7) In 2003, he received a bachelor of science degree in electrical engineering. (Tr. 7) 
He served in the Army from 1989 to 1996. (Tr. 7-8) He left active duty as a specialist (E-
4), and he received an honorable discharge. (Tr. 8)  
 
In 1992, Applicant married, and in 1997, he divorced. (Tr. 8) In 2001, he married, 
and in 2005, he divorced. (Tr. 9) In 2012, he married his current spouse. (Tr. 9, 13) He 
has a 14-year-old son. (Tr. 9) He is current on his child support. (Tr. 9)  
 
Financial Considerations 
 
 For several years after Applicant completed college, he was financially stressed 
because of paying his student loans, and he used a debt consolidation plan to resolve his 
delinquent debts. (Tr. 30-31) Applicant fell behind on his finances because he sent his 
son to an expensive private school, and he lived in an expensive area of the country. (Tr. 
28, 36) Now that his son will be attending public school, he will have an additional $700 
available monthly for his debts. (Tr. 36-37, 39) He maintains a low balance on his credit 
cards, and he is trying to build his credit score. (Tr. 28) He is systematically reducing the 
amount of his debt. (Tr. 28) His student loans briefly went into a garnishment; however, 
                                            
1Some details have been excluded to protect Applicant’s right to privacy. Specific information is 
available in the cited exhibits.  
   
 
3 
 
 
they are current at this time. (Tr. 33-34) He owes $31,000 in student loans, and he has 
paid about $10,000 to address his student loans. (Tr. 35) His current monthly student loan 
payments are $431. (Tr. 36) His annual salary is $109,000, and his spouse’s annual 
salary is about $48,000. (Tr. 37-38) He has $61,000 in a 401(k) account. (Tr. 41) He has 
had financial counseling, and he utilizes an informal budget to control expenditures. (Tr. 
46-49) 
  
 Applicant’s history of delinquent debt is documented in his credit reports, SOR 
response, and hearing record. The status of his SOR debts is as follows: 
 
 SOR ¶ 1.a alleges a charged-off bank debt for $2,554. Applicant paid this debt in 
full on July 29, 2016. (Tr. 22-23; AE B; AE C) 
 
SOR ¶ 1.b alleges a collection account for a $308 debt. On June 27, 2016, 
Applicant settled and paid the debt for $200. (Tr. 23; AE B; AE D)  
 
SOR ¶ 1.c alleges a collection account for a $350 bank debt. On June 27, 2016, 
Applicant and the creditor agreed to establish a $29 monthly payment plan to address the 
$350 debt. (AE E) On October 19, 2016, Applicant paid $233 and resolved the $350 bank 
debt. (Tr. 23; AE E)  
 
SOR ¶ 1.d alleges a collection account for a $929 bank debt. On June 27, 2016, 
Applicant and the creditor agreed to establish a $77 monthly payment plan to address the 
$929 debt. (AE F) On October 18, 2016, the creditor wrote that Applicant had made the 
first four monthly payments, and the current balance owed is $619. (AE F) 
 
SOR ¶¶ 1.e through 1.h alleges four collection accounts for $1,375; $1,135; $73; 
and $42. Applicant has contacted the creditor for the four accounts, and he was told that 
he owed $1,970. (Tr. 23-24, 51) He asked the creditor to provide information so that he 
could verify the amount of the debt. (Tr. 24) Once the amount of the debt is verified, he 
intends to establish a payment plan. (Tr. 24) 
 
SOR ¶ 1.i alleges a collection account owed to a store for $303. Applicant said this 
debt was a duplication of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.c. (Tr. 24) 
 
SOR ¶ 1.j alleges a collection account for a $1,219 bank debt. On June 27, 2016, 
Applicant and the creditor agreed to establish a $102 monthly payment plan to address 
the $1,219 debt. (AE H) On October 18, 2016, the creditor wrote that Applicant had made 
the first four monthly payments, and the current balance owed is $812. (AE H)        
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive 
Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security emphasizing, 
“no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 
518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to control 
   
 
4 
 
 
access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual 
is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President 
has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicant’s eligibility for 
access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the 
national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.  
 
Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the 
criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules 
of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are 
applied in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s 
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An 
administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, 
past and present, favorable and unfavorable.  
 
The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with 
access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and 
endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the 
possible risk 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. Clearance 
decisions must be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a 
determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. 
Thus, nothing in this decision should be construed to suggest that it is based, in whole or 
in part, on any express or implied determination about applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or 
patriotism. It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the 
President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. 
  
 Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the 
personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from 
being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of 
establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 
“Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. 
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines 
presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria 
listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 
(App. Bd. May 2, 1996). 
 
Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial 
evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the 
facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it 
is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” 
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). The burden of disproving a 
mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 
(App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, 
on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b).   
   
 
5 
 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concern for financial problems:  
 
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.  
 
AG ¶ 19 provides two disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern 
and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;” and 
“(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.” Applicant’s history of delinquent debt 
is documented in his credit reports, SOR response, and hearing record. The Government 
established the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) requiring additional 
inquiry about the possible applicability of mitigating conditions. 
  
Five 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;2 and 
                                            
2The Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a “good faith” effort to repay overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts:  
 
In order to qualify for application of [the “good faith” mitigating condition], an applicant must 
present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or some 
other good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does 
not define the term “good-faith.” However, the Board has indicated that the concept of 
good-faith “requires a showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, 
prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.” Accordingly, an applicant must 
   
 
6 
 
 
(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. 
 
The Appeal Board concisely explained Applicant’s responsibility for proving the 
applicability of mitigating conditions as follows:  
 
Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance 
eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of 
a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th 
Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the Government 
presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the 
applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The 
standard applicable in security clearance decisions is that articulated in 
Egan, supra. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access 
to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” 
Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).  
 
ISCR Case No. 10-04641 at 4 (App. Bd. Sept. 24, 2013).  
 
AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(c), and 20(d) apply. Applicant’s delinquent debts were caused by 
living in an expensive area of the country; his support for his son; and the requirement to 
address his student loans. He acted responsibly by paying three SOR debts and 
establishing payment plans for two SOR debts.  
 
Applicant paid the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a ($2,554), 1.b ($308), 1.c ($350), and he 
has an established payment plan to address the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.d ($929) and 1.j 
($1,219). The debt in SOR ¶ 1.i ($303) is a duplication of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.c ($350). 
The four debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.e ($1,375), 1.f ($1,135), 1.g ($73), and 1.h ($42) are actually 
a single medical-collection debt for $1,970, and Applicant is waiting for verification of the 
debt to begin a payment plan.  
 
Based on Applicant’s credible and sincere promise to pay his debts and his track 
record of paying his debts, future new delinquent debt “is unlikely to recur and does not 
cast doubt on [Applicant’s] current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” and 
“there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control.” His 
payments of his debts showed good faith. He has sufficient income to keep his debts in 
current status and to continue making progress paying his remaining debts. I am confident 
that Applicant will conscientiously endeavor to maintain his financial responsibility. His 
efforts are sufficient to mitigate financial considerations security concerns.  
                                            
do more than merely show that he or she relied on a legally available option (such as 
bankruptcy) in order to claim the benefit of [the “good faith” mitigating condition]. 
 
(internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004) (quoting 
ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)).   
   
 
7 
 
 
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 the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine 
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):  
 
(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 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 a 52-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has been 
employed as a supervisor in shipping and receiving or in manufacturing support for 23 
years. There is no evidence of security violations. 
 
Applicant paid three SOR debts, and three SOR debts are in established payment 
plans. One SOR debt is a duplication. Applicant is seeking validation of a debt owed to a 
SOR creditor of about $1,970, and he assures he will establish a payment plan once the 
debt is verified. His 401(k) account contains about $61,000. His current family annual 
income is $157,000 and he has sufficient income to pay his expenses and debts. He 
assures he intends to pay his debts, and he understands the conduct required to retain 
his security clearance. The Appeal Board has addressed a key element in the whole-
person analysis in financial cases stating: 
  
. . . the concept of meaningful track record necessarily includes evidence of 
actual debt reduction through payment of debts. However, an applicant is 
not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and 
every debt listed in the SOR. All that is required is that an applicant 
demonstrate that he has . . . established a plan to resolve his financial 
problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan. The Judge 
can reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and 
his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for the 
reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. See 
Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (Available, reliable information about the person, past 
and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching 
   
 
8 
 
 
a determination.) There is no requirement that a plan provide for payments 
on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable plan (and 
concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such debts one at a 
time. Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually paid in 
furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the SOR.  
 
ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations and quotation 
marks omitted). Applicant has established a “meaningful track record” of debt re-payment, 
and I am confident he will maintain his financial responsibility. 
 
I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Egan, Exec. Or. 10865, the Directive, 
and the AGs, to the facts and circumstances in the context of the whole person. Financial 
considerations security concerns are mitigated. 
 
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.i:   For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly 
consistent with national security to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
_________________________ 
MARK HARVEY 
Administrative Judge