1 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) --- ) ISCR Case No. 15-08516 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Douglas R. Velvel, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se ______________ Decision ______________ GALES, Robert Robinson, Administrative Judge: Applicant mitigated the security concerns regarding financial considerations. Eligibility for a security clearance and access to classified information is granted. Statement of the Case On June 23, 2015, Applicant applied for a security clearance and submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) version of a Security Clearance Application.1 On an unspecified date, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued him a set of interrogatories. He responded to those interrogatories on March 3, 2016.2 On March 25, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to him, under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended and modified; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended and modified (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility For 1 GE 1 (e-QIP, dated June 23, 2015). 2 GE 3 (Applicant’s Answers to Interrogatories, dated March 3, 2016). 2 Access to Classified Information (December 29, 2005) (AG) applicable to all adjudications and other determinations made under the Directive, effective September 1, 2006. The SOR alleged security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and detailed reasons why the DOD adjudicators were unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. The SOR recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. Applicant received the SOR on April 5, 2016. On April 7, 2016, he responded to the SOR and requested a hearing before an administrative judge.3 Department Counsel indicated the Government was prepared to proceed on May 16, 2016. The case was assigned to me on June 6, 2016. A Notice of Hearing was issued on June 28, 2016. I convened the hearing as scheduled on July 13, 2016. During the hearing, four Government exhibits (GE) 1 through GE 4 were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified. The transcript (Tr.) was received on July 21, 2016. I kept the record open to enable Applicant to supplement it. He took advantage of that opportunity and timely submitted several documents, which were marked and admitted as Applicant exhibits (AE) L through AE G, without objection. The record closed on August 10, 2016. Findings of Fact In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted a number of the factual allegations pertaining to financial considerations (¶¶ 1.b., 1.d. through 1.g., 1.l., and 1.m.).4 Applicant’s admissions and comments are incorporated herein as findings of fact. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of same, I make the following additional findings of fact: Applicant is a 31-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has been a computer technician with the company since June 2015. He previously held a number of disparate positions as a technical support technician, loss prevention officer, residential living assistant, correctional officer, and insulation technical manager with a variety of employers. He is a 2004 high school graduate. He earned some college credits and completed some certification programs, but he has not earned a degree. He has never served in the U.S. military. It is unclear if he was ever granted a security clearance other than on an interim basis in 2003. Applicant was married in 2007, separated in 2008, and divorced in 2013. He has three biological daughters with his wife, born in 2007, 2009, and 2014, as well as a biological daughter, born in 2012, from another relationship. He was 3 Applicant’s Answer to the SOR was erroneously dated April 7, 2015. It should be noted that the affidavit form upon which Applicant was to choose either a hearing or a decision based upon the administrative record, and list his contact information, and which the notary public was to sign, was a boilerplate-preprinted form with “2015” furnished to him. The correct date should be “2016.” 4 Two administrative errors were identified in the SOR, including two ¶ 1.b. allegations, and an erroneous creditor reference. Upon the motion of Department Counsel, and without objection by Applicant, the second ¶ 1.b. was amended to ¶ 1.c., and the identity of the creditor was corrected. See Tr. at 71, 75. 3 also under the impression that another child of his wife, born in 2011, was his biological child, but a paternity test proved he was not the father. Financial Considerations5 It is unclear when Applicant started to experience financial difficulties, but a review of his 2015 credit report reveals some delinquent accounts as early as 2008 and 2009. In addition, Applicant referred to conflicting dates of unemployment in 2008. He went through another brief period of unemployment in 2015. In addition, Applicant attributed some of his financial issues to his late father having the same name (his father was a senior, and Applicant is a junior), a difficult marriage, separation, contentious divorce, child custody litigation, and paternity test fees, as well as some activities by his ex-wife. Without his knowledge or approval, Applicant’s ex-wife opened some accounts in his name and failed to make the required payments. It is unclear if her actions took place while they were separated or divorced. He had given her the funds to pay normal household bills, but she did not do so. In addition, shortly after they were married, Applicant purchased an automobile for his wife with the understanding that she would be responsible for the monthly payments. She again failed to do so. The lender obtained a judgment against Applicant and sought to repossess the vehicle. Applicant learned where his wife was hiding the vehicle and furnished that information to the lender. The combination of additional expenses and reduced income left him without the financial resources to maintain his accounts in a current status. Some accounts became delinquent, the vehicle was repossessed, and child support slipped into arrears. He became aware of some financial problems and engaged the professional services of a credit repair organization to address his concerns. Applicant eventually reached out to his creditors in an effort to resolve his delinquent debts. He disputed, paid off, is currently making payments, or settled nearly all of his accounts. The SOR identified 13 purportedly delinquent debts that had been placed for collection or charged off, as reflected by the 2015 credit report. Those debts, totaling approximately $11,193, and their respective current status, according to the credit reports, other evidence submitted by the Government and Applicant, and Applicant’s comments regarding same, are described below: (SOR ¶ 1.a.): This refers to the automobile finance account with a high credit of $14,396, for which a judgment was filed in August 2008 in the amount of $3,857.6 Applicant contended that the vehicle was eventually repossessed and sold, leaving no deficiency.7 Although the account was paid in full to the satisfaction of the creditor on 5 General source information pertaining to the financial accounts discussed below can be found in the following exhibits: GE 2 (Combined Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax Credit Report, dated July 10, 2015); GE 1, supra note 1; GE 3, supra note 2; GE 4 (Personal Subject Interview, dated August 15, 2015); Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, dated April 7, 2016. More recent information can be found in the exhibits furnished and individually identified. 6 GE 2, supra note 5, at 6, 9. 7 Tr. at 32. 4 January 9, 20128 - over four years before the SOR was issued – the 2015 credit report continued to report the false narrative that the account was still outstanding. The account has been resolved. (SOR ¶ 1.b.): This refers to a power utility account with an unpaid and past-due balance of $514 that was placed for collection in 2008.9 Applicant contended that he had given his wife funds to pay the bill but she failed to do so.10 He had forgotten about the bill until it was brought up during his August 2015 interview with an investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Applicant immediately paid the creditor $250 before the SOR was issued, and he made the remaining payment on July 22, 2016, the week following the hearing.11 The account now has a zero balance.12 The account has been resolved. (SOR ¶ 1.c.): This refers to a furniture rental and installment sales account with an unpaid and past-due balance of $464 that was placed for collection and charged off in August 2009.13 Applicant stated that his wife had opened the account in his name without his knowledge. When he contacted the creditor, he was informed that the furniture had been repossessed, and there was no further balance. He also said that if there were an outstanding balance, he would pay it off.14 Applicant failed to submit any documentation to support his contentions, so I am unable to determine the true status of the account. The account has not been resolved. (SOR ¶ 1.d.): This refers to an unspecified credit union account with a high credit of $8,637 and zero unpaid and past-due balances that was placed for collection. An unspecified amount was charged off in August 2009.15 Applicant contended that this account is a duplicate of the account alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g., but he is in error, for he is confusing two separate credit union accounts.16 Applicant offered no documentary evidence that this particular account had been addressed or resolved. The account has not been resolved. (SOR ¶¶ 1.e. and 1.g.): These two allegations refer to snapshots of the same credit union credit card account with a $1,500 credit limit that was placed for collection. An 8 AE B (Letter, dated February 6, 2012). It should be noted that the creditor filed the satisfaction of judgment on February 8, 2012. 9 GE 2, supra note 5, at 7. 10 GE 4, supra note 5, at 4. 11 Tr. at 34. 12 AE F (Account Activity Statement, dated July 22, 2016). 13 GE 2, supra note 5, at 7. 14 Tr. at 37-39. 15 GE 2, supra note 5, at 7. 16 Tr. at 39. 5 unspecified amount was charged off, and the account was sold to a debt purchaser identified as a factoring company.17 The debt purchaser reported the unpaid balance to be $1,786.18 On July 15, 2016 – two days after the hearing – Applicant paid the debt purchaser $1,075, and the account is considered by that company to have a zero balance.19 The account has been resolved. (SOR ¶ 1.f.): This refers to a cellular phone account with an unpaid and past-due balance of $398 that was placed for collection.20 In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant stated that he was currently paying the creditor.21 While Applicant failed to submit documentation to specifically reflect payments made, such as receipts, cancelled checks, or bank account statements, it appears that the account was resolved on July 19, 2016. On that date, the creditor referred to amendments having been filed with the credit bureaus to report the account had been paid as a collection account.22 The account has been resolved. (SOR ¶¶ 1.h. and 1.i.): These refer to two medical accounts with unpaid balances of $501 and $358 that were placed for collection.23 Applicant disputed the debts, claiming that they were his late father’s debts, but he acknowledged that he never attempted to contact the creditors or collection agents to follow up on his disputes.24 In the absence of documentation to support Applicant’s contentions regarding the accounts being his father’s accounts, as well as no evidence of resolution efforts by Applicant, I conclude that the accounts have not been resolved. (SOR ¶ 1.j.): This refers to an unspecified type of education-related account with an unpaid balance of $253 that was placed for collection.25 Applicant claimed that the account had been paid in November 2015, before the SOR was issued.26 On an 17 GE 2, supra note 5, at 8, 12. It should be noted that a “factoring company” is a company that buys “accounts receivable” from a current creditor and then collects on those receivables from the debtor. A factored account is not supposed to be an account that is in collection or charged off. 18 GE 2, supra note 5, at 12. 19 AE G (Final Statement, dated July 18, 2016). The original account number reveals that the separate SOR allegations (¶¶ 1.e. and 1.g.) actually refer to the same account. 20 GE 2, supra note 5, at 8. 21 Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, supra note 5, at 2. 22 AE C (Letter, dated July 19, 2016). 23 GE 2, supra note 5, at 12. 24 Tr. at 43-44. 25 GE 2, supra note 5, at 12; GE 4, supra note 5, at 11. 26 Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, supra note 5, at 2; Tr. at 44. 6 unspecified date, the collection agent issued a paid in full letter.27 The account has been resolved. (SOR ¶ 1.k.): This refers to a nutrition company account with an unpaid balance of $62 that was placed for collection in 2011.28 Applicant claimed that his wife opened the account in his name without his knowledge after they separated.29 On January 5, 2016 – nearly three months before the SOR was issued – Applicant paid the collection agent, and that agent considers the account paid in full.30 The account has been resolved. (SOR ¶ 1.l.): This refers to a medical account with an estimated unpaid balance of $3,000 that arose in August 2010. The charges were associated with a motorcycle accident when a vehicle driven by an unknown driver ran Applicant off the road and fled the scene. Applicant did not have health insurance at the time and had insufficient funds to pay the hospital charges.31 In his e-QIP, Applicant said he had attempted to resolve the account by contacting the creditor, but he was unable to do so because all he got was “the run around.”32 During his OPM interview, Applicant estimated the unpaid balance.33 In his Answer to the SOR, he admitted that the $3,000 was still unpaid.34 However, during the hearing, Applicant disputed that estimate, and he questioned if there was any medical record to support the existence of an unpaid balance.35 Although offered the opportunity to give some closure to the allegation, Applicant failed to submit any documentation to support his contentions that the account had been resolved or that he had been cleared of responsibility for it. The account has not been resolved. (SOR ¶ 1.m.): This refers to Applicant’s state-mandated child support of $696.40 each month for the noncustodial support of his three daughters.36 Although there is documentation reflecting that amount, Applicant testified that he actually pays $710 plus $119 for arrearage each month for the three older children to his ex-wife, plus $700 to the mother of his youngest child.37 Applicant acknowledged that during periods of unemployment, he sometimes failed to make full monthly payments because he had 27 AE D (Paid in Full Letter, undated). 28 GE 2, supra note 5, at 13. 29 GE 4, supra note 5, at 11. 30 AE E (Letter, dated January 5, 2016). 31 GE 1, supra note 1, at 39-40. 32 GE 1, supra note 1, at 40. 33 GE 4, supra note 5, at 11. 34 Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, supra note 5, at 2. 35 Tr. at 46-48. 36 GE 3 (Child Support Worksheet, dated December 12, 2013). 37 Tr. at 24. 7 insufficient funds to do so.38 In 2014, Applicant’s ex-wife deposited the children with him at his mother’s residence (where he too was residing), and she left town to avoid an arrest warrant for a period initially estimated to be four months, but later described as nearly one year.39 During the period the children resided with him, he did not pay any child support.40 Applicant went to court to obtain physical custody of his children when his ex- wife returned, but the court refused to order the change. Applicant was not ordered to pay any child custody covering the period during which the children resided with him.41 Because of the way the allegation was framed, it merely alleges that Applicant failed to pay the state-mandated child support on multiple occasions, but there is no allegation that Applicant has failed to take steps to resolve the account as of the date of the SOR. The account is in the process of being resolved. During the hearing, Applicant testified that he had an estimated monthly net income of $4,000; and $3,214 in monthly expenses.42 That would leave an estimated monthly remainder of $786 available for discretionary saving or spending. On July 25, 2016, Applicant submitted a Personal Financial Statement that partially modified his earlier testimony. He recalculated his net monthly income as between $3,000 and $4,500, depending on his company travel requirements; added a monthly $100 student loan expense; and stated his child support payments totaled $1,500 rather than his earlier described $1,529.43 Those new figures might substantially alter his monthly remainder, especially during periods when his net monthly income was on the low estimate of $3,000. He indicated he had $500 in savings and an unspecified amount in his 401(k) retirement account. He maintains a mental budget rather than a written one.44 He has no other delinquent accounts.45 Applicant has made substantial progress in resolving his delinquent accounts. It appears that Applicant’s financial status has improved significantly, and that his financial problems are finally under control. Policies The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security emphasizing, “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”46 As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to 38 GE 3, supra note 5, at 2. 39 GE 4, supra note 5, at 13; Tr. at 49. 40 Tr. at 49-50. 41 Tr. at 52-53. 42 Tr. at 22-27. 43 AE A (Personal Financial Statement, dated July 25, 2016). 44 Tr. at 26-27. 45 Tr. at 40. 46 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 8 determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant an applicant eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.”47 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 AG list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. An administrative judge need not view the guidelines as inflexible, ironclad rules of law. Instead, acknowledging the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. 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 meaningful decision. In the decision-making process, facts must be established by “substantial evidence.”48 The Government initially has the burden of producing evidence to establish a potentially disqualifying condition under the Directive, and has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Once the Government has produced substantial evidence of a disqualifying condition, under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant has the burden of persuasion to present evidence in refutation, explanation, extenuation or mitigation, sufficient to overcome the doubts raised by the Government’s case. The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government.49 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 as well. It is because of this special relationship that the Government must be able to repose a high degree of trust and confidence in those 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 safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather 47 Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended and modified. 48 “Substantial evidence [is] such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all contrary evidence in the record.” ISCR Case No. 04-11463 at 2 (App. Bd. Aug. 4, 2006) (citing Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1). “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). 49 See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). 9 than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Furthermore, “security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”50 Clearance decisions must be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”51 Thus, nothing in this decision should be construed to suggest that I have based this decision, in whole or in part, on any express or implied determination as to Applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism. It is merely an indication the Applicant has or has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture. Analysis Guideline F, Financial Considerations The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set out 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. . . . The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under AG ¶ 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly, under AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations” may raise security concerns. Applicant’s financial problems arose in 2008, and increased during the ensuing years. Accounts became delinquent and some were placed for collection. A judgment was filed. A vehicle was repossessed. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) apply. The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition may be mitigated where “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.” Also, under AG ¶ 20(b), financial security concerns may be mitigated where “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.” Evidence that “the person 50 Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 51 See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. 10 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” is potentially mitigating under AG ¶ 20(c). Similarly, AG ¶ 20(d) applies where the evidence shows “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.”52 In addition, AG ¶ 20(e) may apply where “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.” AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), 20(c), 20(d), and 20(e) all apply. Applicant’s financial problems were not caused by his personal frivolous or irresponsible spending. In addition, it does not appear that he spent beyond his means. Instead, his financial problems arose at about the time he and his wife separated, and they continued beyond their eventual divorce. Some of those financial problems were attributed to a variety of combined factors that were largely beyond Applicant=s control: periods of unemployment; confusion over the legal responsibility of certain debts because of the similarity of names with his father; a difficult marriage, separation, and contentious divorce; child custody litigation, paternity test fees; as well as some activities by his ex-wife. Unexpected expenses as well as his wife’s failed promises to be responsible for some of the marital debts significantly affected his financial stability, causing him to miss some monthly payments. Applicant commenced his task of resolving his debts, limited largely by an inability to generate the funds to do so more expeditiously. He reached out to his creditors and, where possible, he negotiated settlements or paid accounts in full. He facilitated the repossession of a vehicle his wife had hidden, and resolved the judgment in 2012, over four years before the SOR was issued. He successfully disputed some accounts. Of the 13 SOR-related accounts, he either resolved, or is in the process of resolving, all but five accounts, and some of those are in doubt only because Applicant was unable to furnish supporting documentation. While he never received financial counseling, he did engage the professional services of a credit repair company. There are no other delinquent debts. Applicant’s financial status has improved significantly. His ex-wife no longer has a direct negative impact on his finances. His financial problems are finally under control. He appears to have acted prudently and responsibly. Applicant’s actions, under the 52 The Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts: In order to qualify for application of [the “good-faith” mitigating condition], an applicant must present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or some other good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does not define the term “good-faith.” However, the Board has indicated that the concept of good-faith “requires a showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.” Accordingly, an applicant must do more than merely show that he or she relied on a legally available option (such as bankruptcy [or statute of limitations]) in order to claim the benefit of [the “good-faith” mitigating condition]. (internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004) (quoting ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)). 11 circumstances confronting him, no longer cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.53 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 the 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. Moreover, I have evaluated the various aspects of this case in light of the totality of the record evidence and have not merely performed a piecemeal analysis.54 There is some evidence against mitigating Applicant’s conduct. Applicant failed to maintain his normal monthly payments to a number of his accounts, and, over multi-year period, a number of accounts became delinquent, and they were placed for collection. A vehicle was repossessed. The mitigating evidence under the whole-person concept is more substantial. There is no evidence of misuse of information technology systems, mishandling protected information, substance abuse, or criminal conduct. Applicant’s financial problems were attributed to a variety of combined factors that were largely beyond Applicant=s control. Without the financial resources to maintain his accounts in a current status, they became delinquent. As early as 2012, years before the SOR was issued, he contacted his creditors and collection agents to resolve them. He has nearly completed his task as all but a few of the accounts have been resolved. Applicant followed through on his promises to address his debts.55 53 See ISCR Case No. 09-08533 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Oct. 6, 2010). 54 See U.S. v. Bottone, 365 F.2d 389, 392 (2d Cir. 1966); See also ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006). 55 The Appeal Board has indicated that promises to pay off delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner and otherwise acting in a financially responsible manner. ISCR Case No. 07-13041 at 4 (App. Bd. Sept. 19, 2008) (citing ISCR Case No. 99-0012 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 1999)). 12 The Appeal Board has addressed a key element in the whole-person analysis in financial cases stating: 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.” However, an applicant is not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he [or she] has paid off each and every debt listed in the SOR. All that is required is that an applicant demonstrate that he [or she] has “. . . established a plan to resolve his [or her] financial problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.” The Judge can reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and his [or her] 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. 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. 56 Applicant has demonstrated a “meaningful track record” of debt reduction and elimination efforts, and he started to do so years before the SOR was issued. He keeps track of his expenses and maintains a budget. This decision should serve as a warning that Applicant’s failure to continue his resolution efforts with respect to his unresolved debts, or the actual accrual of new delinquent debts, will adversely affect his future eligibility for a security clearance.57 Overall, the evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s security worthiness. For all of these reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial considerations. See AG ¶ 2(a)(1) through AG ¶ 2(a)(9). 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: 56 ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations omitted). 57 While this decision should serve as a warning to Applicant as security officials may continue to monitor his finances, this decision, including the warning, should not be interpreted as a conditional eligibility to hold a security clearance. DOHA has no authority to attach limiting conditions to an applicant’s security clearance. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-06943 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 17, 2012) (citing ISCR Case No. 10-03646 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 28, 2011)). See also ISCR Case No. 06-26686 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 21, 2008); ISCR Case No. 04-03907 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 18, 2006); ISCR Case No. 04-04302 at 5 (App. Bd. June 30, 2005); ISCR Case No. 03-17410 at 4 (App. Bd. Apr. 12, 2005); ISCR Case No. 99-0109 at 2 (App. Bd. Mar. 1, 2000). 13 Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.m: 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. ________________________ ROBERT ROBINSON GALES Administrative Judge