1
 
                                                             
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 15-04221
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant’s financial problems were caused by a job layoff and a corresponding
period of homelessness several years ago. Since her employment and living situation
have stabilized, she has gradually been satisfying her delinquent debts. Applicant has
mitigated the security concern. Clearance is granted.
Statement of the Case
On December 8, 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. 
Applicant’s employment downturn also corresponded with the period that she stopped pursuing her Ph.D.1
(GE 1 at 11)
2
 
On January 14, 2016, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting the allegations
and requesting a hearing before an administrative judge from the Department of
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), and the case was assigned to me on
August 11, 2016. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on September 14, 2016, scheduling
the hearing for October 26, 2016. The hearing was held as scheduled. At the hearing, I
received four Government exhibits (GE 1 - GE 4), and nine Applicant exhibits (AE A -
AE I). Also, I considered the testimony of Applicant and three character witnesses. At
the close of the hearing, I held the record open at Applicant’s request, without objection,
to allow her to submit additional exhibits. Within the time allotted, she submitted seven
additional exhibits that I incorporated into the record as AE J through AE P. DOHA
received the transcript (Tr.) on November 2, 2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 44-year-old single woman with an adult child. A marriage, lasting
from 1992 to 1998, ended in divorce. In 1990, Applicant declined an admission to an Ivy
League school, choosing instead, to enlist in the U.S. Marine Corps. (AE C) She served
in the Marines through 1998 when she was honorably discharged. After leaving the
Marines, she pursued a higher education, earning an undergraduate degree in 2003, a
master’s of business administration in 2006, and working towards a Ph.D between 2006
and 2008. (GE 1 at 11; Tr. 26)
Applicant is an accountant. Since December 2009, she has been working for a
defense contractor on its audit readiness team.(GE 1 at 12) She has held a security
clearance during her entire stint with this employer. (GE 1 at 40) Applicant worked for
her previous employer between October 2007 and August 2008. (GE 1 at 14) She was
laid off after testifying against her supervisor in an embezzlement case. (GE 1 at 14; Tr.
32) For the next 16 months, Applicant was either underemployed or unemployed. 
A single mother who was raising her then teenage daughter, Applicant struggled
to make ends meet.  Applicant spent much of this employment hiatus either homeless1
or in transition, moving from one friend’s residence to another. Correspondingly,
Applicant struggled to pay her bills. 
By 2013, Applicant had incurred approximately $160,000 of delinquent debt, as
alleged in the SOR. Nearly all of the debts constitute delinquent student loans that she
incurred to help pay for her Ph.D studies (subparagraphs 1.a - 1.g), totalling $31,000 as
of the date of the SOR, or to pay for Applicant’s graduate education (subparagraphs 1.h
- 1.aa), totalling $122,000, as of the SOR date.
Applicant’s student loans were deferred while she was unemployed. (Answer at
1) After Applicant gained full-time employment in 2009, she successfully applied for a
3
 
temporary hardship forbearance for the loans alleged in subparagraphs 1.h through
1.aa. This enabled her to focus on her unsettled housing situation. By February 2011,
Applicant had secured a stable residence, and began focusing on her debt repayment.
Applicant “hit a roadblock” when the student loans for her daughter became due in
2013. (Answer at 1; AE 4 at 4) They are not alleged in the SOR and total approximately
$16,600. (Tr. 25) Applicant satisfied them in May 2015. (Tr. 25; AE G at 2)   
In 2013, Applicant completed a comprehensive financial counseling course
through her church. The course met two hours each week for 13 weeks. (AE A) Per the
counselor, Applicant eagerly participated, coming to each session with her budget,
adhering to her plan, and making steady progress. (AE A) She was equally committed
to generating extra income, as she obtained a part-time job as a Zumba instructor, and
she organized a rummage sale for her and her classmates. Using the proceeds from the
sale, Applicant and her classmates collectively reduced their debts.
By September 2016, Applicant had satisfied the two miscellaneous delinquencies
alleged in the SOR (subparagraphs 1.bb and 1.cc), totaling approximately $6,000, in
their entirety. (AEs E - F, M) As for the consolidated student loans set forth in
subparagraphs 1.a through 1.g, Applicant paid them approximately $680 per month
through a wage garnishment from August 2013 to October 2016. (AE L at 5-6 ) As of
October 2016, Applicant was in the process of removing the wage garnishment so that
she “can make payments on her own.” (Tr. 29) Using the federal loan rehabilitation
program, Applicant’s payments will be reduced to $11 monthly from November 2016 to
July 2017. (AE I at 7) Once she completes these payments, a new lender will purchase
the loan and establish a new payment based on the remaining balance. (AE I at 1)
Since the SOR date, Applicant has reduced the balance from approximately $31,000 to
$25,000. (AE I at 1)
Applicant’s delinquent student loans alleged in subparagraphs 1.h through 1.gg
remain in forbearance. (Tr. 27) Payments were scheduled to have resumed in January
2017. (AE G) 
 Applicant earns $78,500 per year. (Tr. 17) Recently, she began saving
approximately $600 per month of discretionary income. (Tr. 32) She has accrued
$1,000 in savings. (Tr. 32)
According to a co-worker who has become a friend of Applicant over the years,
she is a hard worker who at times works “countless overtime hours,” and has “take[n] on
multiple jobs as a means to helping her get caught up on payments due,” in the past.
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
4
 
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 delinquent debt 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 debts.
Applicant’s financial problems were not the result of foolish or irresponsible
overspending. Instead, they occurred after a layoff and a lengthy period of
unemployment and underemployment. Applicant’s financial distress was severe, as she
was homeless for much of the time that she was unemployed. Since gaining full-time
work in 2009, her living situation has stabilized, and with the help of a counselor, she
5
 
has been addressing her debts. Currently, she has satisfied her daughter’s student
loans, unalleged in the SOR, totaling $16,600, together with subparagraphs 1.cc and
1.dd, totalling approximately $6,000. The remaining SOR debts are student loans.
Applicant has been steadily making payments for the student loans alleged in
subparagraph 1.a through1.g, and the debts alleged in subparagraphs 1.h through 1.aa
are in forbearance. Applicant maintains a budget, and judging by the amount that she is
depositing into a savings account each month, appears to be managing her money
responsibly. All of the mitigating conditions, as referenced earlier in the decision, 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.
Considering the circumstances surrounding Applicant’s financial problems, and
the significant presence of rehabilitation, I conclude she has mitigated the security
concerns. In reaching this conclusion, I was particularly impressed with the reference
from Applicant’s financial counselor.
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.cc: For Applicant
6
 
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