1 
 
                                                              
                      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE    
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
  REDACTED )     ISCR Case No. 15-07721 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant was born and raised in the United States. His spouse’s mother, sister, 
and brother are resident citizens of India. The foreign influence concerns raised by his 
contacts and bonds with these foreign family members are mitigated by his lifelong ties 
to the United States. Applicant became delinquent on a secured line of credit, two credit 
cards, and some medical debts, but he has made progress stabilizing his finances. 
Clearance is granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On April 11, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing the security concerns under Guideline B, Foreign 
Influence, and Guideline F, Financial Considerations, and explaining why it was unable 
to grant him a security clearance. The DOD acted under Executive Order 10865, 
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended 
(EO); DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review 
Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines for 
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG) effective within the DOD 
on September 1, 2006. 
 
 
 2 
Applicant responded to the SOR on May 20, 2016, and he requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals 
(DOHA). On July 20, 2016, the case was assigned to me to consider whether it is 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant a security clearance for Applicant. I 
scheduled a hearing for August 10, 2016. 
 
I convened the hearing as scheduled. Four Government exhibits (GEs 1-4) and 
11 Applicant exhibits (AEs A-K) were admitted into evidence without objection. 
Applicant testified, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on August 18, 2016. 
 
At the Government’s request and on expressed concerns from Applicant about 
the dated nature of some of the information relied on by the Government, I agreed to 
take administrative notice of pertinent facts related to India.1 The Government’s request 
for administrative notice, dated June 28, 2016, was based on excerpts of publications 
from the Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive, the National 
Counterintelligence Center, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, the U.S. 
Department of Justice, the Congressional Research Service, and the U.S. State 
Department. Excerpts from some of the documents were provided to me at the 
hearing.2 
 
I held the record open after the hearing for Applicant to submit a response to the 
Government’s June 28, 2016 administrative notice request and to propose some facts 
for administrative notice. On August 16, 2016, Applicant submitted his response, which 
included a DOD press release about the Secretary of Defense’s visit to India in April 
2016; a White House Press Office report of a Joint Statement between the U.S. 
President and India’s Prime Minister of June 7, 2016; and a transcription of a May 4, 
2016 proceeding before the Council on Foreign Relations. The Applicant’s August 16, 
2016 administrative notice response with source documentation was incorporated in the 
                                                 
1
The Government’s formal request and the attached documents were not admitted into evidence but were 
included in the record. I agreed to take administrative notice, subject to my obligation to make accurate 
and timely assessments of the political landscape in foreign countries when adjudicating Guideline B 
cases. See e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-11292 (App. Bd. Apr. 12, 2007). 
 
2
 For some of the source information referenced by the Government in its Request for Administrative 
Notice-India, I was not provided the publication but was given the URL where the information could be 
accessed, i.e., the 2015 special report from the U.S. Trade Representative; the Department of Justice’s 
(DOJ) Summary of Major U.S. Export Enforcement, Economic Espionage, Trade Secret and Embargo-
Related Criminal Cases, reportedly updated on January 23, 2015; and from the State Department’s 
Bureau of Consular Affairs, Passports & International Travel Country Information India, updated on April 
24, 2015, and a Worldwide-Caution Alert dated July 29, 2015. I accessed the DOJ and U.S. Trade 
Representative documents online and incorporated them in the record. The travel alert was no longer 
available on the Internet, so the latest update of September 9, 2016, was reviewed consistent with my 
obligation to consider updated information. Additionally, I note that some of the source information cited 
by the Government had been updated before its June 28, 2016 Administrative Notice request. For 
example, the State Department’s Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 2015-India and its 
Country Report on Terrorism for 2015 were released respectively on April 13, 2016, and June 3, 
2016.The updated reports of the U.S. State Department are available at www.state.gov. 
 
 
 3 
record without any objection from the Government. The facts administratively noticed 
after review of the parties’ submissions are set forth in the Findings of Fact, below. 
 
Summary of SOR Allegations 
 
 The SOR alleges under Guideline B that Applicant’s mother-in-law (SOR ¶ 1.a), 
sister-in-law (SOR ¶ 1.b), and brother-in-law (SOR ¶ 1.c) are resident citizens of India. 
Applicant is alleged under Guideline F to owe a charged-off debt of $20,981 (SOR ¶ 
2.a), credit card delinquencies of $486 (SOR ¶ 2.b) and $1,052 (SOR ¶ 2.c), and four 
medical collection debts totaling $567 (SOR ¶¶ 2.d-2.g).  When he answered the SOR, 
Applicant admitted the foreign contact with his spouse’s mother, sister, and brother, but 
he indicated that these foreign relatives had not held any position or affiliation with 
India’s government. Applicant admitted the debt in SOR ¶ 2.a, which was the deficiency 
balance of a secured loan on a previous residence that he sold in a short sale. He 
explained that he understood the debt was resolved in the short sale, and that he was 
working with the lender to “determine the issue and resolve it.” He did not recognize 
either of the credit card debts and indicated that he needed more information. As for the 
medical collection debts, Applicant admitted that he had “missed” paying the alleged 
medical bills before they were placed for collection, although he added that they have 
been paid. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I make the following 
findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is a 51-year-old electrical engineer, who has held his current position 
with a defense contractor since January 2015. He previously worked for the company 
from June 1996 to February 2005. He was first granted a DOD clearance in 
approximately July 1996, which was at the secret level. In July 2010, he was granted a 
top secret clearance. (GEs 1, 2; AE A.) 
 
Foreign Influence 
 
 Applicant is the son of Indian immigrants who came to the United States before 
he was born in 1966. Raised and educated in the United States, Applicant earned his 
bachelor’s degree in June 1987 and two master’s degrees, which were awarded in June 
1990 and June 2001. (GE 1; AE A.) 
 
 Applicant married his first wife, a native of India, in July 1991. They divorced in 
June 1994. (GEs 1-2; AE A.) Applicant has had no contact with his ex-wife in over 20 
years. (GE 2.) Applicant and his current spouse married in January 1999 in the United 
States. His spouse is a native of India who became a naturalized U.S. citizen. Applicant 
and his spouse have three children; twin sons now age 12 and a 14-year-old daughter. 
(Tr. 52.) Their children are U.S. citizens from birth. (GE 1; AE A.) 
 
 
 4 
 Applicant’s parents became naturalized citizens in 1980. They reside in the 
United States. Applicant has two siblings, both of whom are U.S. resident citizens. (GE 
1; AE A.) 
  
 Applicant’s spouse has family ties to India. Her mother, her sister, and her 
brother are resident citizens of the country. Her mother has never worked outside the 
home. Her father was a consulting engineer before his death in 2012. (Tr. 38.) Her 
sister is employed in the hospitality industry in India. She works for an international hotel 
chain. Her brother is a marketing consultant “in the Internet space.” Neither of her 
siblings has ever worked for the government of India or its affiliates. (GE 2; Answer.) 
Applicant’s spouse also has a niece in India, who is age 24 and employed as a 
journalist with a local newspaper. (GE 2.) 
 
 Applicant has ongoing monthly contact with his spouse’s mother, siblings, and 
niece in India by telephone or electronic media. He and his spouse traveled to India on 
trips lasting more than 30 days from November 2004 to January 2005, December 2007 
to February 2008, and in July 2012. (GEs 1, 2.) 
 
 Applicant disclosed his foreign contacts on a Questionnaire for National Security 
Positions (SF 86) completed on October 22, 2014. Applicant indicated that he did not 
know the names of the employers for his spouse’s family members in India. (GE 1.) On 
January 29, 2015, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for the Office 
of Personnel Management (OPM). Applicant indicated that he had no lasting foreign 
contacts with anyone in India as a circumstance of his parents’ birth. Applicant related 
that he was unaware whether his mother-in-law had ever been employed. Applicant 
stated that he was still unaware of his sister-in-law’s position with the hotel in India. He 
learned after he completed his SF 86 that his brother-in-law worked as a marketing 
consultant and that his spouse’s niece worked as a journalist. Applicant admitted that 
his spouse’s foreign family members were aware that he was under consideration for a 
position that would allow him access to national security sensitive or classified 
information. Applicant acknowledged loyalty ties to his spouse’s family members, but he 
denied they could be a source of blackmail or coercion. (GE 2.) 
 
 At his hearing, Applicant reiterated that he could not be coerced or influenced to 
act contrary to U.S. interests because of his interactions with his spouse’s family 
members in India. (Tr. 35.) Applicant described his mother-in-law as a “happy 
homemaker [whose] biggest passion is talking to her daughter every day.” (Tr. 38.) His 
spouse initiates the calls to her mother. (Tr. 61.) Applicant described his brother-in-law’s 
occupation as a “serial entrepreneur” in marketing for small, commercial ventures. 
Applicant indicated that he knew little of his sister-in-law’s employment other than that 
she was a manager in a hotel. (Tr. 38.) Applicant’s spouse contacts her brother on 
average once a month. Applicant has contact with his brother-in-law “once every three 
months at best.” (Tr. 62.) Applicant has not traveled to India since 2012. (Tr. 39.) 
 
 5 
Administrative Notice 
 
 After reviewing U.S. government publications concerning India and foreign 
relations, I take administrative notice of the following facts: 
 
 India is the world’s largest democracy and its government generally respects the 
rights of its citizens. India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, became head of the Indian 
government following May 2014 general elections that were considered free and fair, 
despite isolated instances of violence. Even with its free press and robust democratic 
political system, a lack of accountability for misconduct in all levels of government 
persists. Widespread corruption in the government and police forces, caste-based 
discrimination, and domestic violence and other abuses against women and children 
remain significant human rights problems. Separatist insurgents and terrorist groups 
remain active in areas of conflict, such as Jammu and Kashmir, the northeastern states, 
and the Maoist (“Naxalite”) belt. Insurgents were responsible for numerous cases of 
kidnapping, torture, rape, extortion, and the use of child soldiers. 
 
 Anti-Western terrorist groups, including Islamic extremist groups on the U.S. 
government’s list of foreign terrorist organizations, continue to plan attacks that could 
take place in locations throughout India, including where U.S. citizens or Westerners are 
known to congregate or visit. In November 2008, coordinated terrorist attacks in 
Mumbai targeting areas frequented by Westerners killed at least 183 people, including 
eight Americans. Approximately 400 people were killed as a result of terrorist activities 
in India in 2014, although the extremist Maoists, who were responsible for about 160 of 
the deaths, have not specifically targeted U.S. interests. Recent incidents include an 
explosion in Bangalore outside of a busy restaurant on December 28, 2014, and an 
attack by three Lashkar-e Tayyiba (LeT) on a bus and police station in the Punjab on 
July 27, 2015, which killed four police officers and three civilians and injured 15. 
 
 India’s size, population, and strategic location give it a prominent voice in 
international affairs. India remains a leader of the developing world and is a member of 
several international organizations, including the United Nations, G-20, Association of 
Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Regional Forum, International Monetary Fund, World 
Bank, and World Trade Organization. India is a founding member of the Global 
Counterterrorism Forum. 
 
 The United States has had longstanding economic issues with India regarding 
protection of intellectual property rights and trade in dual-use technology. As of 2000, 
India was listed as one of many countries actively engaged in economic intelligence 
collection and industrial espionage directed at the United States. More recently, the 
concerns involve possible illegal exports to India by U.S. firms. In June 2008, the owner 
of an international electronics company was sentenced to 25 months in prison for 
conspiring to illegally export 500 controlled microprocessors and other electronic 
components to government entities in India that participate in the development of 
ballistic missiles, space launch vehicles, and combat fighter jets. A co-conspirator was 
sentenced in federal court to four years of probation and a $5,000 fine. In September 
 
 6 
2008, an Indian national and an Indian corporation were indicted in U.S. District Court 
on charges of illegally supplying the government of India with complex electronic 
instruments used in the research and development of launching and ballistic missile 
delivery systems. In November 2011, a senior scientist with a U.S.-based scientific 
company was arrested for stealing propriety information and providing it to a relative in 
India who was starting up a competing company. In October 2012, the former export 
control manager of a U.S.-based company involved in amplifier research pleaded guilty 
to exporting without required licenses microwave amplifiers with applications in military 
systems to China and India between 2007 and 2011. In April 2015, the former owner of 
two U.S.-based defense contracting businesses pleaded guilty to one count of 
conspiracy to violate the Arms Export Control Act by exporting to India between June 
2010 and December 2012 sensitive military technical drawings without prior approval of 
the U.S. government. India was still on the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s 
Priority Watch List in 2015 because of concerns about copyright infringement; patent 
and regulatory protections; and the production of counterfeit pharmaceuticals shipped to 
the United States. 
 
 The United States recognizes India as key to its strategic interests. Indian 
counterterrorism cooperation with the United States continued to increase in 2015. In 
September 2015, the United States and India issued a joint declaration on combatting 
terrorism. The two countries share common values in the rule of law, respect for 
diversity, and democratic government. They share security perspectives on China and 
Asia with regard to the balance of power, on terrorism, Afghanistan, and maritime 
issues. They have a common interest in the free flow of global trade and commerce, 
including through vital sea lanes in the Indian Ocean. India continued its engagement 
with the United States on intellectual property issues by establishing with the Obama 
Administration a high-level working group on intellectual property that operates under 
the auspices of the United States-India Trade Policy Forum. Through bilateral dialogue 
with India, the United States is committed to working with India to achieve its important 
domestic policy goals of increasing investment and stimulating innovation through 
intellectual property protection and enforcement. 
 
 Since 2002, the United States and India have held increasingly substantive 
combined exercises involving all military services. In June 2005, the two countries 
signed a ten-year defense pact outlining planned collaboration in multilateral operations, 
expanded two-way defense trade and increasing technology transfer opportunities. In 
July 2009, the Obama Administration launched a “Strategic Dialogue” calling for 
collaboration on energy, trade, education, and counterterrorism issues. In 2015, it 
expanded to become the “U.S.-India Strategic and Commercial Dialogue,” to strengthen 
cooperation in these areas as well as on climate change. In June 2015, the United 
States and India signed a new Framework to deepen bilateral defense ties. 
 
 During an official visit to India in April 2016 by the then U.S. Secretary of 
Defense, the United States and India discussed priorities for the upcoming year, which 
included expanding collaboration under the Defense Technology and Trade Initiative. 
 
 7 
They welcomed the efforts by the Indian and U.S. Armed Forces to further expand 
collaboration, including developing plans for more complex maritime exercises. 
 
 During a visit by India’s Prime Minister to the White House in June 2016, the 
United States and India welcomed the significant progress made in bilateral relations 
and affirmed the increasing convergence in their strategic perspectives and emphasized 
the need to remain closely invested in each other’s security and prosperity. The two 
countries committed to efforts to combat climate change globally and advance clean 
energy initiatives in India; to work together to strengthen global nuclear nonproliferation; 
and as “priority partners” to promote maritime security in the Asia-Pacific and Indian 
Ocean regions. Recognizing the increasingly strengthening cooperation in defense, the 
United States formally designated India as a Major Defense Partner. As such, the Modi 
and Obama administrations reached an understanding under which India would receive 
license-free access to a wide range of dual-use technologies in conjunction with steps 
India committed to take to advance its export control objectives. In support of India’s 
“Make in India” initiative, the United States committed to facilitate the export of goods 
and technologies, consistent with U.S. law, for projects, programs, and joint ventures in 
support of official U.S.-India defense cooperation. Both governments committed to 
expand the co-production and co-development of technologies under the Defense 
Technology and Trade Initiative, and to deepen cooperation on cybersecurity issues 
and combatting terrorism. The United States and India pledged to explore opportunities 
to bolster bilateral trade. People-to-people linkages between India and the United States 
through education, private business opportunities, and tourism were applauded as the 
foundation for a flourishing bilateral partnership. As Travel and Tourism Partner 
Countries for 2017, the United States and India committed to facilitate visas for each 
other’s nationals. The United States and India reaffirmed their support for a reformed 
United Nations Security Council with India as a permanent member. 
 
Financial 
 
 In February 2005, Applicant moved his family to another state for a new job with 
a defense contractor. (GE 1; AE A.) He and his spouse bought a home in May 2005 for 
$519,000 (AE A), obtaining a conventional 30-year mortgage for $404,000, to be repaid 
at $2,685 monthly. In October 2007, they obtained a line of credit secured by their home 
(SOR ¶ 2.a). (GEs 2-4.) 
 
  Applicant was laid off in April 2010. He and his family lived on their savings, his 
unemployment, and apparently credit cards, until November 2010. He testified that once 
he became unemployed, he was faced with the choice of paying the mortgage or 
feeding his family, and he chose to provide for his family. (Tr. 40.) Available credit 
records show that he stopped paying their mortgage almost immediately. (GE 3.) In 
June 2010, he accepted a contingent job offer that did not materialize. He was 
unemployed until November 2010. After a couple of months of contract work, in 
February 2011, he obtained a full-time job back home, which required the family to 
relocate. (GEs 1, 3: AE A.) 
 
 8 
 Applicant and his spouse rented a single-family home in their new locale at 
approximately $2,000 a month (Tr. 58), and they listed their previous residence for sale. 
They were seriously delinquent on their mortgage loan and secured line of credit for the 
home. Their mortgage lender obtained a lien of $299,054 against them. (AE B.) 
Available credit records show no activity on the secured line of credit after July 2011. 
(GE 3.) In April 2012, the lender holding the secured line of credit charged off their 
account for $21,428 (SOR ¶ 1.a). (GE 3.) On June 30, 2012, Applicant and his spouse 
sold the house for $335,000 in a short sale, which settled the mortgage and also 
released a $1,714 lien obtained by the creditor holding the line of credit.3 (AE B.) 
Applicant was not told at settlement that he had to pay anything on the secured loan, so 
he assumed the debt had been resolved. (Tr. 42-44.) 
 
 Applicant earned around $120,000 in annual salary in 2011 and in 2012. (Tr. 57.) 
After being placed on a performance improvement plan at work around October 2012, 
Applicant lost his job in January 2013. He collected unemployment compensation 
totaling around $3,000 for a couple of months. (Tr. 51, 57.) In March 2013, he began 
working for a company at $90,000 in annual salary. (Tr. 57.) In May 2014, he was laid 
off for business reasons. Applicant again accepted unemployment benefits and lived off 
savings. (GEs 1, 2; AE A.) He earned $50,000 in 2014 before he was laid off and 
collected about $8,000 in unemployment. (Tr. 57.) He relied on consumer credit to meet 
expenses when he was unemployed, which he now believes was a mistake. (Tr. 36, 54-
55.) 
 
 In October 2014, Applicant was placed by a technical recruiter in a contract 
position at $50 an hour with a defense contractor. (Tr. 58.) On his October 22, 2014 SF 
86, Applicant responded affirmatively to an inquiry into whether he had failed to pay 
federal, state, or other taxes in the last seven years, and explained that he incurred a 
federal tax debt of $23,000 for tax year 2011 (not alleged in SOR) because he was 
given erroneous information by his tax advisor. He indicated that he has been repaying 
the debt since 2013 under an established tax agreement. Applicant also responded 
“Yes” to any delinquency involving routine accounts. He listed only his and his spouse’s 
mortgage that was resolved by the short sale in 2012. (GE 1.) At his hearing, Applicant 
explained that the tax delinquency was incurred because he had withdrawn funds from 
his 401(k) account to pay for daily expenses, and he had relied on tax software that 
failed to indicate a tax liability. (Tr. 44.) He began repaying the debt in 2013 at $280 a 
month. A year later, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) raised his repayment to $380 a 
month. (Tr. 53.)  
 
 As of November 19, 2014, the lender that held the line of credit was reporting an 
outstanding balance of $20,981 after a charge-off of $21,428 (SOR ¶ 2.a). Applicant 
was reportedly past due $1,500 on a credit card with a balance of $12,889 (SOR ¶ 2.c). 
                                                 
3 
The settlement statement from the short sale shows that a $1,714 bank lien was released. (AE B.) It is 
administratively noticed that the bank named in the settlement statement was acquired by the bank 
identified in SOR ¶ 2.a in January 2009. It is unclear whether the $1,714 was the past-due amount or fees 
or another obligation. The settlement statement does not indicate that the line of credit was paid off or 
settled in the short sale, although the lender had apparently not contested the short sale. 
 
 9 
Applicant was making timely payments on other credit card debts totaling $41,546. 
Three medical debts of $201, $201, and $147 from 2012 were in collection (SOR ¶¶ 
2.d-2.f). (GE 3.) 
 
 In January 2015, Applicant began his current employment at a starting salary of 
$118,000. (AE A; Tr. 58.) During his January 29, 2015 interview with the OPM 
investigator, Applicant indicated that he was paying the IRS $380 a month. With his 
annual tax refunds being applied to his delinquency, he expected to resolve his debt by 
2018. Applicant then discussed the delinquent mortgage on his former home that had 
been resolved in the short sale. After Applicant verified his negative responses to all 
other financial inquiries, he volunteered that his spouse has had medical issues for the 
past seven years and that there may have been an account placed in collection. When 
confronted about the reported outstanding delinquency on the secured line of credit, 
Applicant expressed his understanding that the debt had been satisfied through the 
short sale. He indicated that he would make payments if he owes anything on the loan, 
although he had not been contacted about the debt. As for the $1,500 past due on a 
credit card account (SOR ¶ 2.c), Applicant expressed no knowledge of any delinquency, 
but he would review his credit history and pay any delinquency by late 2015. Applicant 
did not dispute the three medical collection debts. He attributed the delinquencies to the 
fact that his spouse handles their finances. Also, they receive many medical bills at 
once and may have overlooked them. Applicant indicated that he had not had any credit 
counseling, and while his financial situation could be better, he was able to pay his bills. 
(GE 2.) 
 
 On September 29, 2015, Applicant completed an SF 86 for security clearance 
eligibility with his current employer. He listed his income tax delinquency from 2011, 
which he indicated was now about $18,000. In contrast to his October 2014 SF 86, he 
responded affirmatively to an inquiry concerning whether he was currently utilizing or 
seeking assistance to resolve financial difficulties. He explained that he and his spouse 
were working with their tax and financial planner to get their large credit card debt 
balance under control and consolidate repayment into one loan at a low interest rate. 
Concerning routine financial delinquencies, Applicant listed the mortgage settled 
through the short sale; the line of credit debt for $21,000, indicating that the lender was 
a party to the short-sale agreement; and $348 in medical collection bills. He gave a date 
of October 2014 for resolution, but also stated, “Talking to the company to settle the 
debt.” (AE A.) 
 
 As of October 15, 2015, the line of credit debt (SOR ¶ 2.a) was on his credit 
record as past due for $5,186 on a balance of $20,981 as of August 2015. He reportedly 
owed outstanding balances on three closed credit card accounts with the same lender: 
of $10,812 (SOR ¶ 2.b, $486 past due), $10,566 (SOR ¶ 2.c, $1,052 past due),4 and 
$6,737 (current account, not alleged). He had some open credit card accounts with 
                                                 
4 
Applicant testified at his hearing that he resumed making payments on his delinquent credit card 
accounts (SOR ¶¶ 2.b and 2.c) around March 2015, after a collection entity contacted him (Tr. 54), but 
the accounts were listed on his credit record as seriously delinquent over the summer of 2015. (GE 4.) 
 
 10 
balances totaling $20,366. The medical debts were still on his credit record as unpaid. 
(GE 4.)  
 
 Applicant inquired about his and his spouse’s line of credit debt (SOR ¶ 2.a) to 
determine whether they owed a debt after the short sale. The lender had not responded 
to his inquiries as of mid-August 2016. (Tr. 66-67.) As of July 2016, Applicant was 
making payments exceeding his monthly minimum payments on his closed credit card 
accounts alleged in SOR ¶ 2.b and ¶ 2.c. Creditor billing records show outstanding 
current balances of $8,536 (SOR ¶ 2.b) (AE E), $8,500 (SOR ¶ 2.c) (AE C), and $5,819 
(not alleged) (AE C).  
 
 Available medical billing statements (AE F) show that Applicant and his spouse 
incurred more than $3,200 in medical copays between April 2015 and June 2016 on 
medical expenses totaling approximately $18,000.5 (AE F.) Applicant testified that 
because they are dealing with several different medical providers, they may miss a bill, 
but they “usually catch up.” (Tr. 47-48.) He presented documentation showing medical 
payments around $890 since January 2015. Uncorroborated handwritten annotations on 
billing statements indicate another $2,457 in payments, mostly by check. Additionally, 
Applicant arranged for monthly payments of $102 per month starting in mid-March 2016 
to an orthodontist. Billing records show that Applicant and his spouse’s account with a 
hospital was past due as of September 28, 2015, and the creditor placed $454 for 
collection by February 2016. As of July 20, 2016, another healthcare provider was 
reporting a $126 balance as seriously delinquent. The bill is annotated as paid on July 
29, 2016. (AE F.) 
 
 Applicant claimed when he answered the SOR that he had paid the medical 
collection debts alleged in the SOR. None of the account statements in evidence 
indicate that Applicant had paid the debts. Applicant testified discrepantly that he had 
left messages with the collection entity, and that his plan as of mid-August 2016 was to 
wait for a response from the collection entity to resolve the $567 in debts. (Tr. 46.) 
 
  Applicant is currently repaying his tax debt to the IRS at $380 per month. (Tr. 45.) 
His installment plan is scheduled to continue until 2021. (Tr. 45.) He continues to rely on 
his spouse to handle their finances because he works long hours. She manages the 
household and has not worked outside the home since they married in 1999. (Tr. 52, 
56.) He relies on overtime income to meet the household expenses. (Tr. 59.) He pays 
$160 per month for his cell phone. His spouse and children are on a separate plan that 
is $150 a month. (Tr. 60.) His children’s extracurricular activities cost about $300 a 
month. (Tr. 61.) After paying the IRS, his credit card and other bills, and recurring living 
expenses, Applicant and his spouse had nothing left over at the end of the month as of 
mid-August 2016. (Tr. 59.) 
  
                                                 
5 
An accurate figure is not possible in part because Applicant presented duplications of some account 
statements and incomplete copies of account statements.  
 
 11 
Character References 
 
 A friend of Applicant’s since college in 1984 described Applicant as principled in 
that he has integrity and is faithful to his values. He also found him to be honest and 
trustworthy. He is confident that Applicant would never allow himself to be 
compromised. (AE H.) 
 
 An engineer who became acquainted with Applicant in 1991 has seen no reason 
to question Applicant’s integrity. He described Applicant as a diligent worker, and he 
does not believe he could be compromised in any way. (AE I.) 
  
A former co-worker, who mentored Applicant during Applicant’s first tenure with 
his current employer starting in 1996, indicated that Applicant was a fast learner, very 
adaptable, diligent, and ethical with him and their team. Applicant successfully 
contributed to the team while learning from others to meet project milestones. This 
former co-worker also had social interaction with Applicant at each other’s homes for 
festive and religious occasions. He found Applicant to be a dedicated son, committed 
husband and father, and a great friend. Fully confident in Applicant’s character, ethics, 
and capabilities, he expressed no hesitation in recommending Applicant. (AE J.) 
 
 Applicant has continued to conduct himself without reproach in his current 
position. A senior principal engineer on their team indicated that Applicant “continually 
demonstrates he is a dedicated team-oriented employee.” He has been loyal and 
forthright in his work activities. (AE G.) 
 
Applicant’s overall performance for 2015 met his employer’s requirements. He 
was well organized, needed minimal supervision, managed suppliers well, and 
demonstrated reliability, conscientiousness, and flexibility. (AE K.) 
 
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  
emphasizing that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy 
v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a 
security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. 
In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative 
guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are 
required to be considered in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified 
information. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overall adjudicative 
goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. 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 
 
 12 
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.” In reaching this 
decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based 
on the evidence contained in the record. 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 to 
obtain a favorable security decision. 
 
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary 
relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This 
relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The 
Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it 
grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of 
the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the 
national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the 
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information). 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline B, Foreign Influence 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for foreign influence is articulated in 
AG ¶ 6: 
 
Foreign contacts and interests may be a security concern if the individual 
has divided loyalties or foreign financial interests, may be manipulated or 
induced to help a foreign person, group, organization, or government in a 
way that is not in U.S. interests, or is vulnerable to pressure or coercion by 
any foreign interest. Adjudication under this Guideline can and should 
consider the identity of the foreign country in which the foreign contact or 
financial interest is located, including, but not limited to, such 
considerations as whether the foreign country is known to target United 
States citizens to obtain protected information and/or is associated with a 
risk of terrorism. 
 
 
 13 
Applicant has foreign connections through his spouse that present a potential risk 
of divided loyalties or undue foreign influence. Applicant’s mother-in-law, brother-in-law, 
and sister-in-law are resident citizens of India. Three disqualifying conditions under AG 
¶ 7 are potentially applicable: 
 
(a) contact with a foreign family member, business or professional 
associate, friend, or other person who is a citizen of or resident in a 
foreign country if that contact creates a heightened risk of foreign 
exploitation, inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion; 
 
(b) connections to a foreign person, group, government, or country that 
create a potential conflict of interest between the individual’s obligation to 
protect sensitive information or technology and the individual’s desire to 
help a foreign person, group, or country by providing that information; and 
 
(d) sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of 
citizenship status, if that relationship creates a heightened risk of foreign 
inducement, manipulation, pressure, or coercion. 
 
The salient issue under AG ¶¶ 7(a), 7(b), and 7(d), is whether there is substantial 
evidence of a “heightened risk” of foreign influence or exploitation because of the 
respective foreign tie, contact, or interest. The “heightened risk” denotes a risk greater 
than the normal risk inherent in having a family member living under a foreign 
government or owning property in a foreign country, but it is nonetheless a relatively low 
standard. The nature and strength of the family ties or other foreign interests and the 
country involved (i.e., the nature of its government, its relationship with the United 
States, and its human rights record) are relevant in assessing whether there is a 
likelihood of vulnerability to government coercion. The risk of coercion, persuasion, or 
duress is significantly greater if the foreign country has an authoritarian government; a 
family member is associated with, or dependent on, the foreign government; or the 
country is known to conduct intelligence operations against the United States. In 
considering the nature of the foreign government, the administrative judge must take 
into account any terrorist activity in the country at issue. See generally ISCR Case No. 
02-26130 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 7, 2006). 
 
India and the United States have a strategic partnership of increasing importance 
to both countries. They have common values in the rule of law, respect for diversity, and 
democratic government and share interests in promoting global security, stability, and 
economic prosperity. India is an ally in counterterrorism efforts. The military-to-military 
relationship has grown in the last decade, and the United States has become one of 
India’s largest trade and investment partners. However, even friendly nations may have 
interests that are not completely aligned with the United States. As noted by the DOHA 
Appeal Board, “the United States has a compelling interest in protecting and 
safeguarding classified information from any person, organization, or country that is not 
authorized to have access to it, regardless of whether that person, organization, or 
country has interests inimical to those of the United States. See ISCR Case No. 02-
 
 14 
11570 at 5 (App. Bd. May 19, 2004). India was among the most aggressive collectors of 
U.S. economic intelligence as of 2000. There is no recent report showing direct 
involvement by the Indian government targeting the United States. However, U.S. 
government contractors have been implicated in economic espionage activity in the 
United States to benefit India as recently as December 2012. The United States 
remains concerned about India’s inadequate protection of U.S. intellectual property. 
 
There is no evidence that Applicant’s spouse’s close family members in India 
have been targeted or pressured. Nothing about his spouse’s family members’ previous 
or present occupations or activities creates a heightened risk. To Applicant’s 
knowledge, none of them had a direct affiliation with the Indian government, or any 
military, security, or intelligence responsibilities. Considering the democratic nature of 
the Indian government and society, it may be unlikely that the Indian government would 
resort to coercive means to obtain sensitive information. India faces threats by terrorist 
groups that have demonstrated a willingness and ability to strike civilian targets, 
including places frequented by foreign tourists. However, a distinction must be made 
between the risk to physical security that may exist and the types of concern that rise to 
the level of compromising Applicant’s ability to safeguard national security. Since the 
Mumbai attacks in 2008, India has taken security measures designed to combat and 
minimize the risk presented by terrorism.  
 
Yet, there are several factors, which collectively if not on their own create a 
heightened risk of undue foreign influence. Applicant’s spouse calls her mother daily. 
Applicant has at least monthly contact with his mother-in-law and quarterly contact with 
his spouse’s siblings. Primarily through his spouse, Applicant has close bonds to and 
frequent contact with family members in India. “[T]here is a rebuttable presumption that 
a person has ties of affection for, or obligation to, the immediate family members of the 
person’s spouse.” See ISCR Case No. 01-03120 (App. Bd. Feb. 20, 2002). Applicant 
has not rebutted that presumption. AG ¶¶ 7(a), 7(b), and 7(d) apply. 
 
Concerning potential factors in mitigation, AG ¶ 8(a), “the nature of the 
relationships with foreign persons, the country in which these persons are located, or 
the positions or activities of those persons in that country are such that it is unlikely the 
individual will be placed in a position of having to choose between the interests of a 
foreign individual, group, organization, or government and the interests of the U.S.,” is 
difficult to satisfy, given the ongoing risk of terrorist activity by rogue elements in India, 
although there is no evidence that Applicant’s spouse’s family members have been 
targeted or victimized. 
 
There is nothing unusual about the nature and extent of Applicant’s contacts with 
his spouse’s family members in India. Even so, AG ¶ 8(c), “contact or communication 
with foreign citizens is so casual and infrequent that there is little likelihood that it could 
create a risk for foreign influence or exploitation,” cannot reasonably apply in light of the 
close bond his spouse has with her mother, as evidenced by their daily contact. 
 
 
 15 
A heightened risk of undue foreign influence may also be mitigated under AG ¶ 
8(b), “there is no conflict of interest, either because the individual’s sense of loyalty or 
obligation to the foreign person, group, government, or country is so minimal, or the 
individual has such deep and longstanding relationships and loyalties in the U.S., that 
the individual can be expected to resolve any conflict of interest in favor of the U.S. 
interest.” Applicant has no loyalty to India, although during his OPM interview, he 
professed loyalty to his spouse’s family members in India. Applicant’s ties to India 
through his spouse cannot reasonably be characterized as “so minimal” to not pose a 
risk of a conflict of interest. 
 
However, Applicant has persuaded me that he can be expected to resolve any 
conflict of interest in favor of the United States. He has no ties of his own to India apart 
from ethnic heritage. Applicant and his three children are lifelong resident citizens of the 
United States. Applicant obtained his education in the United States and has pursued 
his career as an engineer in the United States. There is nothing about his present 
lifestyle that is inconsistent with his U.S. citizenship. He has no foreign assets and his 
travel to India has been infrequent and only to visit his spouse’s relatives. 
 
 As with many immigrants to the United States, Applicant’s spouse has ongoing 
ties of affection and obligation to immediate family members in India. It would be 
unreasonable to expect otherwise. Applicant’s ties to these foreign nationals have not 
been shown to be closer than one would ordinarily expect of an in-law relationship. 
Applicant had only limited knowledge of his brother-in-law’s work when he applied for 
security clearance eligibility. He knows that his sister-in-law works in hotel management, 
but is unaware of her specific position, so their relationship does not appear to be 
particularly close. Applicant has not sought to establish ties of his own to India that 
could cast some doubt about his commitment to the United States. The foreign 
influence concerns have been mitigated. 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 The security concerns about financial considerations are articulated in AG ¶ 18: 
 
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. 
 
 Applicant and his spouse became seriously delinquent on the mortgage 
payments for the home that they purchased in May 2005 and on the secured line of 
credit they obtained in October 2007 as a second mortgage. Their primary mortgage 
was satisfied through a short sale in June 2012. The lender for the secured line of credit 
received only $1,714 in the short sale after charging off their account for $21,428. As of 
 
 16 
August 2015, the creditor was reporting the account as $5,186 past due on a balance of 
$20,981 (SOR ¶ 1.a). It is unclear whether Applicant will be pursued for the debt, given 
the creditor’s charge off, consent to the short sale, and no apparent recent attempts at 
collection. Even so, disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to 
satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” apply 
because of Applicant’s loan default and the delinquencies alleged in SOR ¶¶ 2.b-2.g. As 
of September 2015, Applicant was $486 (SOR ¶ 2.b) and $1,052 (SOR ¶ 2.c) past due 
on two credit cards with respective balances of $10,812 and $10,566. Four medical 
debts were in collection totaling $567 (SOR ¶¶ 2.d-2.g). 
 
  The evidence also establishes that Applicant incurred a federal income tax 
liability of approximately $23,000 for tax year 2011 because of his premature withdrawal 
of 401(k) funds to pay living expenses when he was unemployed.6 Applicant’s income 
tax delinquency was not alleged, presumably because he was making payments of 
$380 per month under an established installment agreement with the IRS. Debts not 
alleged cannot provide a basis for disqualification, but they are relevant when assessing 
mitigation, including whether he has taken steps to resolve debts other than those 
alleged in the SOR as part of a reasonable plan to address financial issues of security 
concern.7 
  
 Mitigating condition AG ¶ 20(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,” 
does not fully apply. While the secured line of credit account became delinquent around 
2011, the credit card accounts in SOR ¶¶ 2.b and 2.c did not become seriously past due 
until 2015. The medical debts in SOR ¶¶ 2.d-2.f are from 2012, but the $18 medical 
collection debt (SOR ¶ 2.g) is from May 2014. 
 
 Applicant’s financial struggles began after he was laid off in April 2010. He 
supported his family on his unemployment compensation, savings, and reliance on 
consumer credit cards until February 2011. Applicant’s unexpected job loss is a 
circumstance contemplated in AG ¶ 2(b), which provides: 
 
(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely 
beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business 
                                                 
6 
Applicant still owed approximately $54,435 in credit card debt as of November 2014. (GE 3.) 
 
7 
The DOHA Appeal Board has long held that the administrative judge may consider non-alleged conduct 
to assess an applicant’s credibility; to evaluate an applicant’s evidence of extenuation, mitigation, or 
changed circumstances; to consider whether an applicant has demonstrated successful rehabilitation; to 
decide whether a particular provision of the Adjudicative Guidelines is applicable; or to provide evidence 
for a whole-person analysis under Section 6.3 of the Directive. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 03-20327 (App. 
Bd. Oct. 26, 2006); ISCR Case No. 09-07219 (App. Bd. Sep. 27, 2012). As to whether an applicant has 
demonstrated a reasonable debt resolution plan, the DOHA Appeal Board has also indicated that there is 
no requirement that the first debts paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt resolution plan be the debts 
listed in the SOR. See ISCR Case No. 07-06482 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008). 
 
 17 
downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or 
separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances. 
 
 Applicant gained employment in February 2011 at an annual salary of 
approximately $120,000. He and his spouse had high living costs in their new area 
while owing more on their previous residence than it was worth. Even so, 
unemployment appears to be less of a factor in their default on the secured line of credit 
than their decision to pursue a short sale to resolve their delinquent first mortgage. 
Applicant exacerbated his financial problems by relying heavily on credit cards when he 
was out of work. Nondiscretionary medical expenses can trigger AG ¶ 20(b). Applicant 
did not elaborate as to the extent of his medical copayments in 2012 when the medical 
collection debts in SOR ¶¶ 2.d-2.f were incurred, although his spouse had been having 
medical problems for about four years. Applicant provided evidence of his spouse’s 
ongoing medical issues and copayment responsibility for at least $3,200 of $18,000 in 
medical expenses between April 2015 and June 2016. The medical debts at issue went 
to collections because they were overlooked and not because of unemployment. 
 
 Applicant’s evidence falls somewhat short of demonstrating the financial 
responsibility required for full application of AG ¶ 20(b). Concerning the secured line of 
credit (second mortgage), Applicant acted reasonably to pursue a short sale, and the 
lender in SOR ¶ 2.a accepted $1,714 in the short sale to release the lien against 
Applicant’s property. Yet, the secured line of credit still appears on his credit record as a 
delinquent account for $20,981 as of June 2015. Applicant provided no detail about 
when he inquired about the debt, which he believes was resolved in the short sale. 
Applicant exercised poor financial judgment when he allowed credit card accounts to go 
to collections in 2015, despite having a steady income amounting to $118,000 annually. 
He has an obligation to his creditors to ensure that debts are paid on time, even if his 
spouse handles their finances. Applicant has not credibly explained his failure to pay the 
medical collection debts that total only $567. Applicant was informed about the debts 
during his OPM interview in January 2015, notwithstanding his recollection to the 
contrary. His current plan for resolution is to wait for a response from the collection 
entity. Whether because of other financial burdens, an unwillingness to confront his 
spouse, or other cause, he failed to take timely action to address his delinquencies. 
 
 Concerning AG ¶ 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,” recent billing statements from July 2016 show that Applicant was paying 
more than the monthly minimums on the credit card accounts in SOR ¶ 2.b and ¶ 2.c, 
and that the accounts had been brought up-to-date. AG ¶ 20(c) applies to the credit 
card debts in the SOR. However, where those payments were in response to collection 
efforts, AG ¶ 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors 
or otherwise resolve debts,” has less applicability. AG ¶ 20(c) may apply to the secured 
line of credit in SOR ¶ 2.a in that the creditor wrote off his debt and then accepted 
$1,714 to release its lien. Neither AG ¶ 20(c) nor ¶ 20(d) applies to the medical 
collection debts without some proof of payment. 
 
 
 18 
 In evaluating an applicant’s overall financial situation, the DOHA Appeal Board 
has held that an applicant is not required to establish that he has paid off each debt in 
the SOR, or even that the first debts paid be those in the SOR.8 In that regard, Applicant 
has been repaying the IRS since 2013, initially at $280 per month. His payments have 
been $380 per month since 2014. He and his spouse may well have paid some $4,000 
toward their medical bills since January 2015. Applicant is managing to pay his current 
expenses on time while also reducing his overall credit card debt from $54,435 in 
November 2014 to $48,414 in October 2015. With respect to his closed credit card 
accounts (SOR ¶¶ 2.b and 2.c), Applicant had paid another $2,000 toward each debt as 
of July 2016. He had paid $918 toward his third account with the creditor. Applicant is 
not likely to engage in criminal activity to generate funds to pay $567 in medical 
collection debt. Applicant’s reliance on overtime income to meet his household 
expenses and debt payments as of mid-August 2016 engenders some concern. He is 
still burdened by large credit card balances, by approximately $18,000 in outstanding 
federal tax debt for 2011, and by medical bills. One has to question Applicant’s financial 
priorities, given he is paying around $310 per month for cell phone services while some 
medical debts are overlooked, including an $18 raised as an issue for his security 
clearance eligibility. That being said, the DOD is not in the business of debt collection, 
and Applicant has demonstrated a willingness to satisfy his debts within his means. 
Unwanted medical expenses continue to stress their finances, but Applicant and his 
spouse are paying their living expenses and credit card bills on time. The financial 
considerations security concerns are mitigated. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the 
totality of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine 
                                                 
8 The DOHA Appeal Board stated in ISCR Case No. 07-06482, decided on May 21, 2008, in part: 
 
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the concept of 
“‘meaningful track record’ necessarily includes evidence of actual debt reduction through 
payment of debts.” See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 05-01920 at 5 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2007). 
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. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 02-25499 at 2 (App. 
Bd. Jun. 5, 2006). All that is required is that an applicant demonstrate[s] that he has “. . . 
established a plan to resolve his financial problems and taken significant actions to 
implement that plan.” See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 04-09684 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 6, 2006). 
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 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. 
See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 06-25584 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr.4, 2008). 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. 
 
 
 19 
adjudicative process factors in AG ¶ 2(a).9 The analyses under Guideline B and 
Guideline F are incorporated in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 
2(a) warrant additional comment. 
 
 The security clearance adjudication is not aimed at collecting an applicant’s 
personal debts. Rather, it involves an evaluation of an applicant’s judgment, reliability, 
and trustworthiness in light of the security guidelines in the Directive. See ISCR Case 
No. 09-02160 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010). Applicant’s finances have been negatively 
impacted by periods of unemployment and medical expenses for the past seven years. 
Applicant took an early withdrawal of 401(k) funds to cover living expenses when he 
was unemployed. Applicant did not elaborate about the amount of the 401(k) 
withdrawal, but he incurred a tax debt of approximately $23,000 that he has paid down 
to $18,000. He still owes a substantial amount of credit card debt, but it is current. The 
positive recommendations from character references weigh in his favor and provide 
confidence that he will continue to make the payments on his debts. For the reasons 
noted, I conclude that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant security 
clearance eligibility for Applicant. 
  
Formal Findings 
 
Formal finding for or against Applicant on the allegation set forth in the SOR, as 
required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, is: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline B:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.c: For Applicant 
 
  Paragraph 2, Guideline F:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
   Subparagraphs 2.a-2.g: For Applicant 
    
  
                                                 
9 
The factors under AG ¶ 2(a) 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. 
 
 20 
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. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge