1 
 
 
                                                              
                           DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
         DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 15-07572 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Charles C. Hale, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MURPHY, Braden M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant provided sufficient documented evidence that he is making a good-faith 
effort to resolve his delinquent debts, which largely occurred following several job losses, 
reductions in income, and a divorce. He mitigated the security concerns under Guideline 
F, financial considerations. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is 
granted.  
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On May 31, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial 
considerations. The action was taken under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, 
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; 
DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program 
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines effective 
within the DOD for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.  
 
 
2 
 
 
Applicant answered the SOR on June 27, 2016, and elected to have his case 
decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. On August 22, 2016, Department 
Counsel submitted the Government’s file of relevant material (FORM), including 
documents identified as Items 1 through 7. Applicant received the FORM on September 
12, 2016. He was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in 
refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant responded on September 19, 2016. He 
did not object to the Government’s evidence. His FORM response and the documents 
included are marked as Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A through F, and admitted without 
objection. The SOR and the answer (Items 1 & 2) are the pleadings in the case.1 Items 3 
through 7 are admitted into evidence without objection. The case was assigned to me on 
July 31, 2017.  
 
 On December 10, 2016, the Director of National Intelligence issued new National 
Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG). The new AGs are effective June 8, 2017, for all 
decisions after that date, and they supersede the AGs that Applicant received with the 
SOR. 
 
 Since the information in the file was almost a year old when I received the case, I 
e-mailed the parties on September 7, 2017, and re-opened the record to allow Applicant 
the opportunity to submit more recent information. I also provided him a copy of the new 
AGs.2 On September 21, 2017, Applicant submitted an e-mail response and 26 pages of 
documents, which were marked as AE F through AE P. He submitted additional materials 
on October 3, 2017, including two new documents, which are marked as AE Q and AE 
R. AE F through AE R are admitted without objection. The record closed on October 5, 
2017.3  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant admitted SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.c, 1.d, 1.f, 1.j, and 1.k. He denied SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 
1.e, 1.g, 1.h, 1.i, and 1.l, with explanations and documents.4 I have incorporated his 
admissions into the findings of fact. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings 
and exhibits, I make the following findings of fact.  
                                                          
1 With his answer to the SOR, Applicant submitted 37 pages of documents, which are also included in the 
record. 
 
2 Hearing Exhibit (HE) I, HE II, HE III.  
 
3 Applicant’s October 3, 2017 submission included 31 pages of materials, most of which are duplicative of 
his September 21, 2017 submission. The October 3 filing is included in the casefile for review, but is not 
marked as an additional exhibit (but for the two new documents, AE Q and AE R). 
 
4 In his answer to the SOR and in his FORM response, Applicant addressed each debt in order, but his 
“labelling” of each debt (2.a, 2.b, 2.c, etc.) was mistakenly off by one for each debt from SOR ¶ 2.b onward. 
(Debt ¶ 2.a in the answer is actually SOR debt ¶ 2.b, and so on). Compare Items 1, 2 and FORM Response.  
He corrected the error in his September 2017 “Updated Response to the SOR.” (AE I) The debts are 
labelled here as they are listed in the SOR. 
 
3 
 
 
 Applicant is 38 years old. He was married from 2001 to February 2004, and again 
from August 2004 to 2012. He has one son (age 15) from his first marriage, and a 
daughter (age 11) from his second marriage. He also has a son (age 18) from a previous 
relationship. Applicant graduated from high school in 1998, and has a semester of 
technical education. (Items 3, 4)  
 
 In November 2006, Applicant began working as an engineer for a defense 
contractor at an Air Force base in his home state (State 1). In February 2007, his employer 
lost the contract at the base, so Applicant was transferred to a job in another state (State 
2). He worked there until the contract ended, in March 2011. He then took a job in State 
3, where he worked until February 2015. (Items 3, 4) His salary at this job was about 
$25,000 less than at his previous position, where he made about $85,000 a year. (AE F) 
 
 In March 2015, Applicant returned to State 1 for a job with another defense 
contractor at the base where he had worked originally. He has worked there ever since. 
Applicant held a security clearance between 2006 and 2011. He submitted his most 
recent security clearance application (SCA) in March 2015. (Items 3, 4; AE B, AE F) 
  
 The SOR alleges 12 delinquent debts. They are listed on Applicant’s credit reports 
from April 2016 and May 2015. (Items 5, 6)5 
 
SOR ¶ 1.a is a mortgage account allegedly in foreclosure, with $19,033 past due, 
and a total balance of $139,355. The account relates to the home Applicant purchased in 
State 2 after he moved there in 2007. In his answer, he indicated that he was unable to 
afford both the mortgage on that home and also his rent in State 3, where he had begun 
working in 2011. The mortgaged property was foreclosed on in early 2012, around the 
time of Applicant’s divorce. He provided documentation from the creditor indicating that 
the home was conveyed back to federal housing authorities in early 2013, and no money 
is owed. (AE D). This account is resolved.  
 
SOR ¶ 1.b ($16,665) is a child support account for Applicant’s youngest child. 
Applicant explained that the child support owed is past due because it was calculated 
retroactively from the date of the divorce decree. He stated that he has been making 
payments of $79 a month against the delinquency (in addition to his monthly child support 
requirement) since October 2014 and that he also makes payments through re-
channeling of his tax refunds. He is to pay $288.46 every two weeks. As of October 2016, 
he owed $12,040 in past-due child support. (Court order provided with Answer, AE A, AE 
E, AE K) 
  
Applicant’s most recent submissions establish that he has made bi-weekly 
payments of $288.46 since early 2015. He also made large payments in the spring of 
                                                          
5 Item 5 lists SOR ¶¶ 1.a - 1.d, 1.f, and 1.l as delinquent. Item 6 lists SOR ¶¶ 1.a – 1.e, and ¶¶ 1.g – 1.k as 
delinquent.  
 
 
4 
 
 
2015, 2016 and 2017, which are likely redirected tax refunds. He still owes an arrearage 
of $9,247, though he has made child support payments of almost $25,000 in this manner 
over the last three years. (AE F, AE Q) This account is being resolved.  
 
SOR ¶ 1.c ($1,545) is a credit card debt in collection. Applicant provided 
documentation indicating that he makes regular $25 payments on the debt, and now owes 
$820. (AE R). This debt is being resolved.  
 
SOR ¶ 1.d ($878) is another credit card debt in collection. Applicant provided 
documentation that he regularly pays $26 a month on the account, and now owes $97. 
He will finish paying this debt in December 2017. (AE F, AE M) This account is being 
resolved.  
 
Applicant denied SOR ¶ 1.e (a $738 charge off) and said he did not borrow money 
from that bank. His May 2015 credit report indicates that the account was opened in 
January 2009, and became past due two years later. The bank’s address is in Applicant’s 
home state (State 1). (Item 6 at 3) Applicant took a similar position in his background 
interview. He indicated that he was contacted by the bank, and informed that a loan 
account had been set up for him. Applicant went to the bank to challenge it but was not 
able to obtain verifying information. (Item 4 at 5)  
 
SOR ¶ 1.f ($2,753) is a rental/leasing account from an apartment where Applicant 
lived after his divorce. Applicant acknowledged that he broke the lease. He stated in his 
answer and FORM Response that he had been paying on the debt for the last 15 months, 
but provided no documentation. More recently, he indicated that he has now arranged a 
$125 monthly payments to resolve the debt. The debt is now being resolved.  
 
SOR ¶ 1.g ($471) is a child support account for Applicant’s eldest son. It was listed 
as delinquent on his April 2015 credit report. (Item 6 at 4)  His April 2016 credit report 
reflected that the account was current, with a balance due of $422. (Item 5 at 3) Applicant 
explained in his answer that the debt was due to a delay in starting payments from a new 
job. His son graduated from high school in May 2017, so Applicant no longer has a child-
support obligation, no arrearage is owed, and money is no longer being taken out of his 
pay at $600 a month. (AE F, AE I, AE O). This debt is resolved.  
 
SOR ¶ 1.h ($520) is a phone bill. Applicant was not aware it was past due until he 
received the SOR. The debt has been paid. (AE P)  
 
SOR ¶ 1.i ($450) is a past-due medical debt related to dental treatment for 
Applicant’s son. Applicant has denied responsibility for the debt on the grounds that his 
ex-wife arranged the appointment without authorization from Applicant. (Item 6 at 7). 
 
SOR ¶¶ 1.j ($387) and 1.k ($128) are medical debts owed to the same collection 
agency. Applicant admits both debts but questions the amount the collection agency says 
he owes. He indicated that he is in contact with the creditor to determine what he owes. 
 
5 
 
 
With his answer and more recently, he provided several invoices from the collection 
agency regarding multiple accounts, including debt ¶ 1.j (acct. # ending 2749) but not 
debt ¶1.k (acct. # ending 2750). These accounts are being resolved.  
 
SOR ¶ 1.l ($358) is a past-due medical debt, listed on Applicant’s April 2016 credit 
report. Applicant denied the debt, and said he did not recognize it. The creditor is not 
sufficiently identified on Item 6 for Applicant to attempt to resolve the debt.  
 
Applicant indicated that he earns about $55,000 a year in his current position. He 
indicated that he lives within his means and is able to pay his rent, utilities, and the debt 
he owes. He has access to more funds now that his son has aged out of child support, 
which saves Applicant $600 a month. (AE F) 
 
 Applicant’s supervisor for the last two years indicated that Applicant is a solid, 
consistent performer who brings years of experience to his job. He has high standards 
and is quality-oriented. He assumes responsibility and accountability for his work 
assignments. He has good judgment and is trustworthy. (AE H)  
 
Policies 
 
 It is well established that no one has a right to a security clearance.6 As the 
Supreme Court noted in Department of the Navy v. Egan, “the clearly consistent standard 
indicates that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”7 
 
 The adjudicative 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 the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(a), 
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 national 
security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the 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, an “applicant is 
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the 
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.”  
                                                          
6 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988) (“it should be obvious that no one has a ‘right’ 
to a security clearance”).  
 
7 484 U.S. at 531.  
 
6 
 
 
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 
that an 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. 
 
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. . . .  
 
This concern is broader than the possibility that an individual might knowingly 
compromise classified information in order to raise money. It encompasses concerns 
about an individual’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting 
classified information. An individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handing and safeguarding classified 
information.8 
 
AG ¶ 19 provides conditions that could raise security concerns. The following are 
potentially applicable:  
 
(a) inability to satisfy debts; and 
 
 (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.  
 
 Applicant accrued multiple financial delinquencies after his divorce as well as 
several moves and job changes. The above disqualifying conditions apply. SOR ¶ 1.l, 
which Applicant denied, is not established, since it was not identified beyond being an 
unspecified medical debt.  
 
                                                          
8 See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012). 
 
 
7 
 
 
The financial considerations guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate 
security concerns arising from financial difficulties. The following mitigating conditions 
under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable: 
 
(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, a death, divorce or separation, clear 
victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the 
individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; 
 
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and  
 
(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 debts were due to several circumstances beyond his control. They 
included job losses, reductions in income, and a divorce. The first prong of AG ¶ 20(b) 
applies. For full application of AG ¶ 20(b), Applicant must establish that he acted 
responsibly under the circumstances. Applicant’s efforts to resolve his various debts are 
well documented. He is adhering to his court-ordered child support requirements as to 
debt SOR ¶ 1.b, and has been paying down his arrearage for the last three years. Most 
of his other debts have been, or are being, resolved through regular payments. Applicant 
has acted responsibly in resolving his debts, and AG ¶ 20(b) fully applies.  
 
 The DOHA Appeal Board has noted that:  
 
An applicant is not required to be debt-free nor to develop a plan for paying 
off all debts immediately or simultaneously. All that is required is that an 
applicant act responsibly given his circumstances and develop a 
reasonable plan for repayment, accompanied by “concomitant conduct,” 
that is, actions which evidence a serious intent to effectuate the plan. ISCR 
Case No. 07-06842 at 3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008).9 
 
                                                          
9 ISCR Case No. 08-06567 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 29, 2009); see also ISCR Case No. 09-08462 at 4 (May 31, 
2011). 
 
 
8 
 
 
 Under that precedent, Applicant has acted responsibly in resolving his debts. He 
established a significant track record of steady payments or other evidence of financial 
stability to show that he “initiated and is adhering to good-faith effort to repay overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts” as required under AG ¶ 20(d).10 
 
 Applicant documented that several of the debts he denied have been paid or 
otherwise resolved. This includes SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.g and 1.h. He made a reasonable effort 
to resolve other debts he denied, such as SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.i. AG ¶ 20(e) therefore 
applies.  
  
 Applicant established that his financial problems are unlikely to recur. He acted 
responsibly in resolving them, and has established that his financial issues no longer cast 
doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness and good judgment. AG ¶ 20(a) applies. 
 
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(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 AG ¶ 2(a), 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 under 
Guideline F in my whole-person analysis. Applicant provided sufficient documented 
information that he is resolving his debts in a good-faith, responsible manner. Overall, the 
record evidence leaves me with no questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and 
suitability for a security clearance. I conclude Applicant mitigated the financial 
considerations security concerns.  
 
                                                          
10 ISCR Case No. 98-0445 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 2, 1999). 
 
 
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 -1.l:   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 access to 
classified information. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.  
                                                   
 
_____________________________ 
Braden M. Murphy 
Administrative Judge