1 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) --- ) ISCR Case No. 16-04042 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: David F. Hayes, 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 March 30, 2016, Applicant applied for a security clearance and submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) version of a Security Clearance Application.1 On January 30, 2017, 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 Access to Classified Information (December 29, 2005) applicable to all adjudications and other determinations made under the Directive, effective September 1, 2006.2 The SOR 1 GE 1 (e-QIP, dated March 30, 2016). 2 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 February 13, 2017. On February 20, 2017, he responded to the SOR and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel indicated the Government was prepared to proceed on March 23, 2017. The case was assigned to me on May 26, 2017. A Notice of Hearing was issued on August 4, 2017. I convened the hearing as scheduled on August 23, 2017. During the hearing, 3 Government exhibits (GE) 1 through GE 3, and 13 Applicant exhibits (AE) A through AE M were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified. The transcript (Tr.) was received on September 1, 2017. 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 AE N through AE S, without objection. The record closed on September 13, 2017. Findings of Fact In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant failed to admit or deny any of the factual allegations pertaining to financial considerations (¶¶ 1.a. through 1.c.) of the SOR, although he offered comments regarding each allegation. During the hearing, Applicant stated that he had intended to admit all of the allegations.3 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 44-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has been a truck driver with the company since May 2016. He previously held positions with other employers as an operator or senior mechanic recovery element. From January 2001 until January 2010, he was self-employed purchasing, selling, transporting, and exporting vehicles. He is a recipient of a 1990 General Educational Development (GED) diploma, and he has received some vocational training, but no advanced degrees. Applicant has never served in the U.S. military. He has never been granted a security clearance. Applicant was married in August 1991. He has a daughter, born in February 1992 (currently enrolled in a master’s program), and a son, born in October 1997 (currently on active duty with the U.S. Air Force). 2 Effective June 8, 2017, by Directive 4 of the Security Executive Agent (SEAD 4), dated December 10, 2016, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) for all covered individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position, were established to supersede all previously issued national security adjudicative criteria or guidelines. Accordingly, those guidelines previously implemented on September 1, 2006, under which this security clearance review case was initiated, no longer apply. In comparing the two versions, there is no substantial difference that might have a negative effect on Applicant in this case. 3 Tr. at 13-15. 3 Financial Considerations4 It is unclear when Applicant first started experiencing financial problems. In 2007, when the economy was “pretty good,” Applicant was busy buying, selling, and exporting vehicles. Two years later, the economy faltered and exports slowed down to a point where he had unsold inventory. At about the same time, Applicant’s mortgage payments on his residence ballooned up from $1,300 per month to $2,700 per month. When his daughter graduated from high school, Applicant was confronted with a choice: keep a motorcycle or maintain his family and household. Applicant chose the latter option. In an attempt to generate additional funds to help his family, Applicant obtained employment with a company that sent him overseas. From January 2010 until February 2011, Applicant was stationed in a combat zone in Iraq where he served as a senior mechanic recovery element, picking up damaged or destroyed military vehicles. During his service in Iraq, Applicant came under hostile fire every three or four missions. Applicant subsequently joined his current employer, essentially taking a pay cut, but he was afforded more stability, benefits, and time at home. On September 4, 2017, Applicant submitted a Personal Financial Statement to reflect his monthly income; monthly expenses; or any monthly remainder that might be available for discretionary spending or savings. His net monthly income is $4,500.76, and his monthly expenses are $3,780, leaving a monthly remainder of $720.76.5 Other than one collection account alleged in the SOR as unpaid (SOR ¶ 1.b.), and listed in a recent Equifax credit report as unpaid, and one account alleged in the SOR as unpaid (SOR ¶ 1.a.), but not listed in his recent credit report,6 Applicant has no other delinquent accounts. The SOR identified three purportedly delinquent accounts that had been placed for collection or charged off, as generally reflected by Applicant’s May 2016 credit report. Those debts total approximately $19,764. The current status of the three accounts, according to the credit reports, other evidence submitted by the Government and Applicant, and Applicant’s comments regarding same, is that two of the debts have been resolved by settlements and payments, and the third debt is currently being negotiated for possible settlement. The debts are as follows. (SOR ¶ 1.a.): In October 2007, Applicant purchased the above-referenced motorcycle for $26,927, requiring monthly payments of $430. Two years later, with the faltering economy and an unsold inventory, and his mortgage payments increasing, he called the motorcycle company to discuss the possibility of lowering his payments, but that offer was rejected. Applicant voluntarily surrendered the motorcycle to the dealership in September 2009.7 Applicant eventually relocated to Iraq, and also changed his 4 General source information pertaining to the financial accounts discussed below can be found in the following exhibits: GE 1, supra note 1; GE 2 (Personal Subject Interview, dated August 31, 2016); GE 3 (Combined Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax Credit Report, dated May 27, 2016); and Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, dated February 20, 2017. 5 AE S (Personal Financial Statement, dated September 4, 2017). 6 AE O (Equifax Credit Report, dated August 23, 2017), at 33. 7 AE R (Letter, dated August 28, 2017). 4 residence address. Until recently, he never received written acknowledgment that the motorcycle had been repossessed, and he was never informed that he had a deficiency remaining. He never received a charge-off notice, collection letters, a Form 1099-C, or auction sales information. Although Applicant had made monthly payments for the period that he owned and possessed the motorcycle, when the value of the motorcycle was raised by him, the motorcycle company gave him credit for only $7,000. Applicant contended that the book value for the same year and model was $20,000. He first learned that there was a deficiency when he was interviewed by an investigator from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) in August 2016. The creditor reported the unpaid balance as $18,660 – the same amount that was charged off in December 2009. During his OPM interview, Applicant acknowledged that he had made no effort to resolve the account, and stated that he would make no effort to do so.8 Applicant disputed the account with the credit reporting agencies, and it was removed from Equifax.9 On September 1, 2017, the collection agent informed Applicant that it was authorized to settle the account for a lump-sum payment of $5,600, provided that payment was made no later than September 8, 2017.10 The settlement offer was modified by the collection agent, and it offered a payment plan calling for six months of payments for $938, totaling $5,628.11 Applicant failed to submit any documentation to support proof of any such plan or payments. The account has not been resolved. (SOR ¶¶ 1.b. and 1.c.): These refer to two medical accounts with unpaid balances of $694 and $410 that were placed for collection. Applicant reached out to the only listed collection agent and he was told there was only one delinquent medical account under his Social Security number, date of birth, or address, and it was in the amount of $211.40. On August 8, 2017, Applicant paid the collection agent $211.40 – the remaining balance on the account(s).12 While the two accounts appear separately in Applicant’s May 2016 Equifax credit report, only one account for $211 appears in his August 2017 Equifax credit report. The account(s) have been resolved. Applicant acknowledged that if the bills had actually been $694 and $410, he would have paid those balances as well. There is no evidence of financial counseling. Nevertheless, Applicant has made significant progress in stabilizing his finances and avoiding other financial delinquencies. He resolved two of the SOR accounts and is focusing on the one remaining delinquent SOR account, the one related to the motorcycle. Applicant’s finances are under control. 8 GE 2, supra note 4, at 5. 9 AE M (Equifax Credit Report Review, dated February 12, 2017); Tr. at 34. 10 AE P (Letter, dated September 1, 2017). 11 AE N (E-mail, dated September 5, 2017). 12 AE C (Letter, dated August 8, 2017). 5 Work Performance and Character References The commander and the command sergeant major of the task force recovery team in Iraq presented Applicant with a certificate of appreciation for his meritorious and selfless service and willingness to take on all risks assigned to the recovery team.13 In 2016, Applicant was presented with The President’s Volunteer Service Award in recognition and appreciation for his commitment to strengthen the nation and communities through volunteer service.14 In 2016 and 2017, he was also awarded a variety of awards and recognitions for his service to his employers and coworkers.15 Applicant’s senior program manager and his program lead are both very supportive of him. His senior program manager noted that in 2016 alone, Applicant had recorded over 200 volunteer hours. Since he joined the company, Applicant was named the employee of the month for his department. Applicant has been identified as an employee with great potential for positions of greater responsibility with the company as a result of his superb work ethic.16 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.”17 As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to 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.”18 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the guidelines in SEAD 4. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the guidelines 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 13 HE F (Certificate of Appreciation, dated July 10, 2010). 14 AE D (Certificate, dated 2016); AE E (Letter, undated). 15 AE G (Certificate, dated November 30, 2016); AE H (Certificate, dated July 25, 2017); AE I (Certificate, dated August 10, 2017); AE J (Certificate, dated June 28, 2017); AE K (Certificate, dated July 12, 2017). 16 AE A (Character Reference, dated April 14, 2017). 17 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 18 Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended and modified. 6 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.”19 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.20 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 than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Furthermore, “security clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”21 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.”22 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. 19 “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). 20 See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). 21 Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 22 See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. 7 Analysis Guideline F, Financial Considerations The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 18: Failure 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 or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling, mental health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern insofar as it may result from criminal activity, including espionage. The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under AG ¶ 19(a), an “inability to satisfy debts” is potentially disqualifying. In addition, AG ¶ 19(b) may apply if there is an “unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so.” Similarly, under AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations” may raise concerns. Applicant voluntarily surrendered a motorcycle to the dealer for repossession, and he failed to pay the remaining deficiency. The account was placed for collection. According to his 2016 credit report, two medical accounts became delinquent and they too were placed for collection. At one point, Applicant expressed a position that he would make no effort to resolve the motorcycle deficiency. AG ¶¶ 19(a), 19(b), and 19(c) have been established. 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, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.” Evidence that “the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and 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 and is 8 adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.”23 In addition, AG ¶ 20(e) may apply if “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.” I have concluded that ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), 20(c), 20(d), and 20(e) all partially or fully apply. The nature, frequency, and recency of Applicant’s financial issues make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago” or “was so infrequent.” Applicant’s financial situation differs somewhat from the normal financial issues in that, when he was confronted with the deteriorating economy that left him with unsold inventory, Applicant immediately took steps to forestall or avoid any financial difficulties by reducing expenses and volunteering for service in a dangerous combat zone in Iraq to generate additional income. While he was overseas, and thereafter until he was informed by the OPM investigator that there were continuing issues with regard to the motorcycle, Applicant was unaware that there was a deficiency remaining. He never received a charge-off notice, collection letters, a Form 1099-C, or auction sales information. Once he learned of the reported deficiency amount, he disputed that amount. He initially indicated he would make no effort to resolve the account, but later altered his intention. The account was removed from his Equifax credit report. Negotiations then ensued with the collection agent. Seemingly acknowledging that the deficiency was perhaps too high, in September 2017, the collection agent informed Applicant that it was authorized to settle the account for a lump-sum payment of $5,600, provided that payment was made no later than September 8, 2017. The settlement offer was modified by the collection agent, and it recently offered a payment plan calling for six months of payments for $938, totaling $5,628. It is unclear what actions will result from that latest offer. Applicant turned his focus on the two other accounts alleged in the SOR. Those two medical accounts were resolved when Applicant paid off the remaining balance that the listed collection agent had indicated for the account(s). While there is no evidence that Applicant received financial counseling, his August 2017 Equifax credit report reflects no other delinquent accounts. Applicant has made significant progress in stabilizing his finances and avoiding other financial delinquencies. Applicant’s finances are under control. 23 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)). 9 Clearance decisions are aimed at evaluating an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. They are not a debt-collection procedure. The guidelines do not require an applicant to establish resolution of every debt or issue alleged in the SOR. An applicant needs only to establish a plan to resolve financial problems and take significant actions to implement the plan. There is no requirement that an applicant immediately resolve issues or make payments on all delinquent debts simultaneously, nor is there a requirement that the debts or issues alleged in an SOR be resolved first. Rather, a reasonable plan and concomitant conduct may provide for the payment of such debts, or resolution of such issues, one at a time. It is clear that Applicant now has funds remaining at the end of each month for discretionary use or savings, and there is evidence to reflect that Applicant’s financial problems are under control. When confronted with the issues that caused his financial problems, Applicant acted responsibly by seeking information from his creditors or collection agents.24 Applicant’s actions under the circumstances no longer cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.25 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 SEAD 4, App. A, ¶ 2(d): (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 SEAD 4, App. A, ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant 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.26 24 “Even if Applicant’s financial difficulties initially arose, in whole or in part, due to circumstances outside his [or her] control, the Judge could still consider whether Applicant has since acted in a reasonable manner when dealing with those financial difficulties.” ISCR Case No. 05-11366 at 4 n.9 (App. Bd. Jan. 12, 2007) (citing ISCR Case No. 99- 0462 at 4 (App. Bd. May 25, 2000); ISCR Case No. 99-0012 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 1999); ISCR Case No. 03-13096 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2005)). A component is whether he or she maintained contact with creditors and attempted to negotiate partial payments to keep debts current. 25 See ISCR Case No. 09-08533 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Oct. 6, 2010). 26 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). 10 There is some evidence against mitigating Applicant’s conduct. Three accounts, totaling $19,764 became delinquent and were placed for collection or charged off. He has not resolved one of his debts, the largest one associated with his repossessed motorcycle. The mitigating evidence under the whole-person concept is more substantial. There is no evidence of misuse of information technology systems, or mishandling protected information. His son is on active duty with the U.S. military. Applicant is a well- respected individual who voluntarily took an assignment in a combat zone in Iraq, risking his life as part of his duties on behalf of U.S. combat forces in Iraq picking up damaged or destroyed military vehicles. During his service in Iraq, Applicant came under hostile fire every three or four missions. These circumstances increase the probability that Applicant will recognize, resist, and report any attempts by a foreign power, terrorist group, or insurgent group to coerce or exploit him.27 Applicant’s honorable service as a contractor, including his service in Iraq, and his desire for continued employment, weigh heavily towards approval of his security clearance. His supervisors and colleagues are supportive. Once he became aware of the three delinquent accounts, he promptly resolved two of them and started negotiations with regard to the remaining debt. The remaining issues surrounding that debt involve the accuracy and appropriateness of the remaining balance. Although the reported deficiency was $18,660, Applicant disputed that amount. The debt was removed from Applicant’s credit report. Nevertheless, in a good- faith effort to resolve the issue, Applicant entered into negotiations with the collection agent. The proposed settlement balance is approximately $5,600. Applicant has a substantial monthly remainder, and his financial situation is under control. The Appeal Board has addressed a key element in the whole-person analysis in financial cases stating:28 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 27 See ISCR Case No. 07-00034 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 5, 2008). 28 ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations omitted). 11 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. Applicant has demonstrated a positive track record of debt reduction and elimination efforts. His August 2017 credit report has only one negative account (SOR ¶ 1.b.) and nine accounts that are reported as “pays as agreed” or “paid and closed.” With the exception of the motorcycle debt, Applicant has no other delinquent accounts. He has a substantial monthly remainder, and his financial situation is under control. This decision should serve as a warning that Applicant’s failure to continue his resolution efforts with respect to his unresolved motorcycle debt, or the actual accrual of new delinquent debts, will adversely affect his future eligibility for a security clearance.29 Overall, the evidence leaves me without questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all of these reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial considerations. See SEAD 4, App. A, ¶¶ 2(d)(1) through AG 2(d)(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: Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.c: For Applicant Conclusion In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. ________________________ ROBERT ROBINSON GALES Administrative Judge 29 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. Failure to comply with payment plans or other delinquent debt will raise a security concern. The Government has the option of following-up with more questions about Applicant’s finances. The Government can re-validate Applicant’s financial status at any time through credit reports, investigation, and interrogatories. Approval of a clearance now does not bar the Government from subsequently revoking it, if warranted. While the Defense office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) does not have the authority to grant an interim, conditional, or probationary clearance, the Government has the right to reconsider the security significance of past conduct or circumstances in light of more recent conduct having negative security significance. See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 10-06943 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 17, 2012). 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. 04-03907 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 18, 2006).