DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 15-05233
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Brian Bodansky, Esq.
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concern. Clearance is
granted.
Statement of the Case
On February 21, 2016, 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
Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. 
On March 29, 2016, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting all of the allegations
except subparagraphs 1.b and 1.d. He requested a hearing before an administrative
judge from the Department of Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), and the
1
 
case was assigned to me on August 11, 2016. The hearing was initially scheduled for
October 19, 2016, but was continued to December 5, 2016 after an illness rendered
Applicant too sick to attend the October hearing. The hearing was held as rescheduled.
At the hearing, I received three Government’s exhibits (GE 1 - GE 3), and four
Applicant’s exhibits (AE A - AE D). DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on December 13,
2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 33-year-old married man. He has a high school diploma and has
earned some college credits. Since the summer of 2016, he has worked for a defense
contractor as a systems engineer. (Tr. 10) He worked for his previous employer
between 2010 and 2016. 
Since 2005, Applicant has incurred five delinquent debts totalling approximately
$27,500.  He incurred the debt alleged in subparagraph 1.a, totaling $2,035, after he
was in a major car accident that totalled his recently purchased car. (Tr. 26) Although he
had purchased gap insurance, it did not cover the entire balance of the car loan. In
February 2016, Applicant contacted the creditor and began making monthly payments.
(Answer, Attachment B) By June 2016, Applicant had satisfied the debt. (AE A)
The debt alleged in subparagraph 1.b, a judgment totaling $981, relates to a
delinquent credit card that Applicant incurred when he in his late teens. Applicant
satisfied this debt in September 2016, with an automatic debit of $1,253, the amount
that it had accrued since March 2015. (GE 3 at 5)
The debt alleged in subparagraph 1.c is a delinquent car loan, totaling $15,233.
Applicant incurred this debt in 2008, when he lost his job several months after
purchasing the car. (Tr. 17-18) In September 2016, Applicant negotiated a settlement
for $6,426. Under the terms of the settlement, Applicant was to make a $2,500
payment, followed by monthly payments of $163. (AE D) Applicant made the $2,500
payment, as agreed. (AE D)
Subparagraph 1.d totals $9,073. Applicant denies this debt, contending that he
contacted the creditor, who told him they had no record of it. (Tr. 20) GE 3 indicates that
the contested debt was opened in February 2007, delinquent by 2009, and charged off
in March 2015. (GE 3 at 4)
The debt alleged in subparagraph 1.e is a delinquent cell phone bill totaling $311.
Applicant paid this bill in March 2016. (AE C)
Applicant earns $110,000 per year. He has between $10,000 and $12,000
invested in a 401k account, and he deposits approximately $300 per month into a
savings account.  (Tr. 21, 38)
2
 
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 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; 
(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or
otherwise resolve debts; and
3
 
(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 incurred the $15,233 debt, alleged in subparagraph 1.c, after losing his
job in 2008, and he incurred the $2,035 debt, alleged in subparagraph 1.a, in 2014 after
totaling his car and discovering that the gap insurance was insufficient to cover the
remaining amount of the car loan. The first debt clearly relates to circumstances beyond
his control. Although Applicant had a responsibility to carefully read the gap insurance
plan, the unexpected misfortune of being involved in a car accident so close to financing
the purchase of his automobile is enough for me to conclude that the first prong of AG ¶
20(b) applies.
Of the SOR debts that Applicant admits, he has satisfied all but one of them in
their entirety, and he has made significant progress towards satisfying the lone 
outstanding one through monthly payments. The remaining prong of AG ¶ 20(b) applies,
together with AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d).
Applicant testified that he contacted the creditor of the debt alleged in SOR
subparagraph 1.d, and that the creditor told him it had no outstanding debt on file.
However, he provided no documented proof supporting his testimony. AG ¶ 20(e) does
not apply. 
Applicant has no children, makes a six-figure salary, is investing in his retirement
plan, and saving $300 monthly. I conclude that the positive inference that these facts
generate outweighs the negative inference generated by the unresolved nature of SOR
subparagraph 1.d. 
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.
Of the four debts that Applicant admits to having incurred, one is nominal, and
two were incurred seven or more years ago. The most recent debt, incurred in  2014,
related to misfortune rather than irresponsible spending. Given the progress Applicant
4
 
has made in eliminating his debts, and his current financial stability, I conclude he has
mitigated the financial considerations 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.e: 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