DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 12-03423
          )
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Carroll Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:
Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concern.
Clearance is denied.
Statement of the Case
On December 5, 2014, 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. 
On January 13, 2015, 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). The case was initially assigned to
1
 
another administrative judge on April 11, 2016 who scheduled a hearing for June 2,
2016. On May 26, 2016, the case was continued, and then assigned to me on
October 19, 2016. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on November 8, 2016,
scheduling the hearing for December 7, 2016. The hearing was held as
rescheduled. At the hearing, I received five Government exhibits (GE 1 - GE 5),
and considered Applicant’s testimony. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on
December 15, 2016.
Findings of Fact
Applicant is a 52-year-old married man with an adult child from a previous
marriage. He is a veteran of the Navy, serving from 1982 through his honorable
discharge in 1991. He graduated from college in 2015, earning a bachelor’s
degree in information technology.  He is currently working toward a master’s
degree. Since October 2016, he has been working for a defense contractor.  (Tr.
12)
Between 2007 and 2012, Applicant incurred approximately $62,000 of
delinquent debt. Approximately $36,000 of this debt constitutes unpaid federal
and state income taxes that he incurred over multiple years (subparagraphs 1.a
and 1.b). Approximately $8,500 constitutes delinquent medical debt
(subparagraphs 1.c - 1.v). Approximately $17,000 constitutes a delinquent auto
loan for a car that Applicant voluntarily surrendered (subparagraph 1.x), and the
remainder is delinquent credit card accounts (subparagraphs 1.w and 1.y).
Applicant attributes his financial problems to bouts of unemployment and
unsteady employment, together with a history of medical problems. (Answer at 2-
3) 
 The tax lien totaling $6,187, as alleged in subparagraph 1.a, is owed to
Applicant’s state taxing authority. He contends that he has reduced this
delinquency by approximately $1,000 through automatic withdrawals from
paychecks from his previous job. (Tr. 14) He provided no supporting evidence for
this assertion. He is not currently making any payments.
SOR subparagraph 1.b is a federal tax lien totaling $29,924. Applicant
contends that he has reduced this debt by $18,000 through annual tax refund
offsets. (Tr. 22) He provided no documentary evidence.
As for the remainder of the debts, Applicant met with a representative of a
debt consolidation company and developed a plan, but was unable to afford the
required monthly payments. (Tr. 16) Now that his court-ordered child support has
ended, he plans to apply $400 a month toward his debts.
Applicants’ current plan is to apply $400 per month, constituting the money
previously earmarked for his adult daughter’s child support for which he is no
longer responsible, to his delinquencies. He has not yet begun making payments. 
2
 
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and
mitigating conditions. These guidelines are flexible 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 ¶ two(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 history of 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;
3
 
(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 contends that his financial problems were caused by unsteady
employment and unemployment, and that his financial problems were
exacerbated by serious health problems. Although these problems constitute
circumstances beyond his control, he provided minimal evidence that he
addressed these problems responsibly. AG ¶ 20(b) is only partially applicable.
Applicant acknowledges that he has not made any payments towards the
resolution of his commercial debts or his medical bills, and his contention that he
has reduced his tax delinquencies, either through refund offsets or wage
garnishments, are unsubstantiated. None of the remaining mitigating conditions
applies.
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.
Applicant’s longstanding and extensive financial delinquencies,
particularly his income tax debts, generate unresolved doubt as to whether it is
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him a security clearance.
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: A G A I N S T
APPLICANT
4
 
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.y: 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.
________________________________
MARC E. CURRY
Administrative Judge
5