DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
          
            
In the matter of: )
)
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX )       ISCR Case No. 15-05164 
)
Applicant for Security Clearance )
Appearances
For Government: Bryan J. Olmos, Esquire, Department Counsel
For Applicant: Pro se
______________
Decision
______________
METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:
Based on the record in this case,  I deny Applicant’s clearance.1
On 2 March 2016, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent Applicant a Statement
of Reasons (SOR) raising security concerns under Guideline F, Financial
Considerations.  Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a decision without2
hearing by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The record in this case
closed 11 August 2016, when Applicant’s response to the FORM was due. Applicant
provided no additional documents. DOHA assigned the case to me 22 May 2017.
Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-6 .1
DoD acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20,2
1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DoD on
1 September 2006. On 10 December 2016, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) signed Security
Executive Agent Directive 4, implementing new AG, effective with any decision issued on or after 8 June 2017. 
1
Findings of Fact
Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations. She is a 29-year-old work order
clerk, employed by a U.S. defense contractor since October 2013. She was
unemployed September-October 2013, was previously employed in another defense
contractor job from July 2010 to September 2013. She is the never-married mother of a
six-year-old son, who lives with her parents and the child’s father in her parents’ house.
She has not previously held a clearance.
The SOR alleges, Government exhibits (Items 3-6) establish, and Applicant
admits 11 delinquent debts totaling nearly $27,000. The debts consist of two unpaid
judgments, four delinquent medical accounts, two delinquent education accounts,  two
unpaid utility accounts, and a charged-off automobile repossession. Applicant disclosed
the automobile repossession and her education accounts on her September 2014
clearance application (Item 3). She was confronted with all the remaining SOR debts,
except for SOR 1.c during a January 2015 interview with a Government investigator
(Item 4), based on her October 2014 credit report (Item 5). She told the investigator that
she would research the delinquent debts and resolve them.
Applicant attributes her financial problems to her irresponsible lifestyle until she
had her son in March 2011. However, she has documented no contacts with her
creditors since her September 2014 clearance application, her January 2015 interview,
her May 2016 Answer, or her June 2016 FORM.
      Applicant provided no budget or financial statement. She has not documented
any financial or credit counseling. She provided no work or character references, or any
evidence of community involvement.
Policies
The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability
for access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and
mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented.
Each decision must also reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the
factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Any one disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself,
conclusive. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case
can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to
classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole,
the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).
Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the
national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government
must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, 
the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case.
Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden
of persuasion.
2
Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship
with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a
compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.
The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any
reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.3
Analysis
The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and
Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has an extensive history of
financial difficulties that have remained unaddressed since at least September 2014.4
Applicant meets none of the mitigating conditions for financial considerations. 
given that she has taken no action to address them.  She has provided no evidence that5
her financial problems were due to circumstances beyond her control, and her inaction
since at least September 2014 has not been responsible.  Applicant has had no credit6
or financial counseling, and there is no evidence to show that any of the debts are being
resolved.  Her lack of effort does not constitute a good-faith effort to address her debts.7 8
In addition, Applicant has not demonstrated a track record of living within her means. 
Accordingly, I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.
 Formal Findings
Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT
Subparagraphs a-k: Against Applicant
See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).3
19(a) inability to satisfy debts; (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; (c) a history4
of not meeting financial obligations;
¶20(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that5
it is unlikely to recur . . . 
¶20(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and6
the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;
¶20(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that7
the problem is being resolved or is under control;
¶20(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.8
3
Conclusion
Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly
consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for
Applicant. Clearance denied.
                                              
                                             
JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR
Administrative Judge
4