1 
     DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
  DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
) ISCR Case No. 16-00028 
) 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
February 17, 2017 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant is alleged to be delinquent on 17 debts, in a total exceeding $128,107. 
He resolved two of his debts, totaling $5,596. Those debts were resolved through a 
March 2010 Chapter 13 bankruptcy plan, which was later dismissed in August 2011. 
Applicant failed to introduce documentation to show his remaining delinquencies have 
been resolved. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.  
Statement of the Case 
On May 21, 2015, Applicant submitted a signed Electronic Questionnaires for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP.) On June 8, 2016, the Department of Defense issued 
a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline 
F, Financial Considerations. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 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) effective September 1, 2006.  
 
2 
 
Applicant answered the SOR on July 1, 2016 (Answer), and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on August 17, 2016. The 
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on August 
23, 2016, scheduling the hearing for September 19, 2016. The hearing was convened 
as scheduled. The Government offered Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5, which were admitted 
without objection. Applicant testified and offered three exhibits (AE), marked AE A 
through AE C, which were also admitted without objection. DOHA received the 
transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on September 28, 2016. The record was left open for 
Applicant to submit additional exhibits until close of business October 19, 2016. 
Applicant did not present anything further, and the record then closed on October 20, 
2016. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is 37 years old. He has been employed by his current employer, a 
defense contractor, since September 2014. Applicant lives with his fiancée and has 
three children, ages 16, 11, and an infant. His 16-year old and 11-year old are from a 
prior relationship and are the subjects of the child support dispute discussed below. (GE 
1; Tr.  
 
 As listed in the SOR, Applicant was alleged to be delinquent on 17 debts in a 
total exceeding $128,107, and to have filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2010. 
Applicant admitted SOR allegations 1.b, 1.c, 1.g, 1.h, 1.i, 1.j, 1.k, and 1.l. He denied 
SOR allegations 1.a, 1.d, 1.e, and 1.f. He failed to admit or deny subparagraphs 1.m 
through 1.r, and as a result, those subparagraphs are treated as denials. His debts are 
identified in the credit reports and bankruptcy record entered into evidence. (Answer; 
GE 3; GE 4; GE 5.) After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and 
testimony, I make the following findings of fact.  
 
 Applicant attributes his financial delinquencies to a series of events beyond his 
control. In 2007, he purchased a home. He saved up a down payment on the property 
while deployed, but financed the rest of the purchase with a mortgage of over $600,000. 
He was not financially savvy and did not understand the terms of the adjustable rate 
mortgage he used to finance the purchase of the home. Applicant’s mother passed 
away in 2009, and he missed mortgage payments because he unexpectedly had to pay 
for the funeral. As a result of the missed mortgage payments, the mortgage company 
adjusted his interest rate upward and his monthly payments changed from $2,500 to 
$5,000. Additionally, in 2010 Applicant was laid off. He was unemployed and attending 
school from 2010 to 2012. He attempted to find employment during that time, but no 
permanent positions materialized. (Tr. 31-32.) 
 
 Applicant is indebted on a tax lien in the amount of $64, as stated in SOR 
subparagraph 1.a. He testified that this debt was resolved and referred to AE A, a 
receipt from the city showing a payment of $46.80 was made on June 28, 2016, as 
proof of its resolution. However, the court and case numbers identified with this debt in 
GE 3 do not match any of the numbers on AE A. This debt is not resolved. (GE 3; AE A; 
Tr. 46-48.) 
 
3 
 
Applicant filed Chapter 13 Bankruptcy in March 2010, as stated in SOR 
subparagraph 1.b. It was dismissed in August 2011 for failure to make plan payments. 
Applicant explained that the amount of his monthly payments adjusted upward and he 
could no longer afford those payments. (Tr. 44.) 
 
Applicant was past due on a $611,013 mortgage in the amount of $80,726, as 
stated in SOR subparagraph 1.c. This mortgage was for the property discussed above. 
He testified that the property has been foreclosed upon and he no longer owes anything 
on this property. However, he failed to support his claim with documentation. It is 
unresolved. (Tr. 41-42.) 
  
Applicant is indebted for a charged-off account in the amount of $5,586, as 
stated in SOR subparagraph 1.d. Applicant testified that he was not aware of this debt. 
It is unresolved. (Tr. 48-49.) 
 
Applicant is indebted on a collections account in the amount of $918, as stated in 
SOR subparagraph 1.e. Applicant testified that this debt was resolved through the “G.I. 
Bill.” A credit report dated August 2016 reflected this account had a remaining balance 
of $293. Applicant indicated he would submit post-hearing documentation to show it 
was fully resolved. However, he failed to produce documentation to support his claim. It 
is unresolved. (Tr. 49-50.) 
 
Applicant is indebted on a delinquent account in the amount of $585, as stated in 
SOR subparagraph 1.f. Applicant testified he was unable to locate this debt and did not 
know its status. It is unresolved. (Tr. 50-51.)  
 
Applicant is indebted to a city in the amount of $98, as stated in SOR 
subparagraph 1.g. Applicant claimed this debt was resolved but failed to produce 
documentation to support his claim. This debt is unresolved. (Tr. 51.) 
 
Applicant is indebted to a collection agent for a city on three accounts in the 
separate amounts of $554, $360, and $155 as stated in SOR subparagraphs 1.h, 1.i, 
and 1.j. Applicant testified that he is making monthly payments of $152.33 to resolve 
these accounts. He produced a payment receipt showing a $152.33 payment was made 
on June 29, 2016. He submitted no other documentation of payments. These debts are  
unresolved. (AE B; Tr. 52-53.) 
 
Applicant is indebted to a collection agent for a city for delinquent child support in 
the amount of $29,000, as stated in SOR subparagraph 1.k. Applicant testified that his 
pay is being garnished for his delinquent child support but that future child support 
obligations will not accumulate because he worked out a joint custody agreement with 
the mother of his children. He testified he owes $24,000 in delinquent child support. His 
Chapter 13 bankruptcy documentation reflects that his balance may have been reduced 
to $13,373 at the time of filing. This debt is not fully resolved.  (Tr. 25-26.) 
 
 
4 
 
Applicant is indebted on a tax lien against him in the amount of $23, as stated in 
SOR subparagraph 1.l. Applicant testified that this debt was related to his late mother’s 
estate. It is unresolved. (Tr. 56-57.) 
 
Applicant is indebted to a bank on a delinquent account in the amount of $3,530, 
as stated in SOR subparagraph 1.m. Applicant testified this debt was for a vehicle loan. 
He believed it was resolved through his bankruptcy. He claimed to have the deed for the 
vehicle, although the creditor “write like a couple hundred dollars off.” He provided no 
documentation to support his claim. It is unresolved. (Tr. 57-60.) 
 
Applicant is indebted on a consumer credit account in the amount of $480, as 
stated in SOR subparagraph 1.n. Applicant claimed he resolved this debt through 
bankruptcy. However, it does not appear that any funds were dispersed to this creditor 
upon examination of his Chapter 13 bankruptcy documentation. This debt is unresolved. 
(GE 5; Tr. 60.) 
 
Applicant was indebted to a bank in the amount of $2,174, as stated in SOR 
subparagraph 1.o. This debt was resolved through Applicant’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy 
for $691.34. It is resolved. (GE 4; GE 5; Tr. 61-64.) 
 
Applicant is indebted on a delinquent account in the amount of $291, as stated in 
SOR subparagraph 1.p. Applicant does not recall what happened with this debt. It is 
unresolved. (Tr. 64-65.) 
 
Applicant was indebted on a delinquent account in the amount of $3,422, as 
stated in SOR subparagraph 1.q. This debt was resolved through Applicant’s Chapter 
13 bankruptcy for a payment of $3,422.49. It is resolved. (Tr. GE 4; GE 5; Tr. 65.) 
 
Applicant is indebted on a delinquent account in the amount of $141, as stated in 
SOR subparagraph 1.r. Applicant did not recognize this debt and indicated he would 
research this debt. However, he submitted nothing further with respect to this account. It 
is unresolved. (Tr. 65.) 
 
Applicant submitted a one-page performance review. It shows Applicant is 
dependable and is consistently a good employee. (AE C.) 
 
 Applicant provided no household budget showing monthly household expenses. 
He did not provide a copy of his earnings statement. I am unable to assess his current 
financial status and his ability or willingness to repay his past-due debts, without more 
information on his debt to income ratio. The record lacks any evidence of credit or 
financial counseling. (Tr. 67-69.) 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations 
for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and 
 
5 
 
mitigating conditions, which are to be used 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, administrative judges apply the guidelines in 
conjunction with the factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The 
administrative judge’s overarching 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 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The 
applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance 
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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or 
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 adverse 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).  
 
 
6 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18, as 
follows:       
 
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 describes two conditions that could raise security concerns and may be 
disqualifying in this case:  
 
(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
 Applicant has a history of financial indebtedness documented by the credit 
reports in evidence, which substantiate all of the allegations. He resolved two debts. He 
has been unable or unwilling to address the remaining delinquencies. The evidence 
raises security concerns under both of these disqualifying conditions, thereby shifting 
the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those concerns.  
 
 The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security 
concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties: 
 
(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; and 
 
7 
 
(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’s financial problems are ongoing. Of Applicant’s 17 delinquent 
accounts, 15 remain unresolved. He has not demonstrated that future financial 
problems are unlikely. Mitigation under AG ¶ 20(a) has not been established. 
 
 Applicant attributed his delinquencies to his unfair mortgage, unemployment, and 
the unexpected death of his mother. These are circumstances beyond his control. 
However, he failed to establish that he has acted reasonably or responsibly since 
gaining full employment with a defense contractor in 2014. He has not demonstrated 
that he addressed his debts in a timely manner. Mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b) has not 
been established. 
 
 Applicant provided no evidence of financial counseling. Further, there are no 
clear indications that his financial problems are being resolved or are under control. 
Mitigation under AG ¶¶ 20(c) or (d) has not been established. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(e) requires Applicant to provide documented proof to substantiate the 
basis of any dispute or provide evidence of actions to resolve the issue. Applicant has 
not provided evidence of any formal dispute or a basis for one. Mitigation under AG ¶ 
20(e) has not been established. 
 
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 relevant 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 considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments 
 
8 
 
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’s 
debts remain largely unresolved. While he was given the opportunity to document the 
current status of his debts, he failed to produce evidence of any actions on his 
remaining delinquent accounts. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions 
and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all 
these reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the Financial Considerations 
security concerns.  
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.b:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.c:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.d:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.e:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.f:    Against Applicant  
Subparagraph 1.g:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.h:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.i:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.j:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.k:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.l:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.m:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.n:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.o:    For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.p:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.q:    For Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.r:    Against Applicant 
 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security 
clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
 
________________________ 
Jennifer I. Goldstein 
Administrative Judge