1 
 
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 16-01303 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Andre M. Gregorian, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant presented sufficient evidence to mitigate security concerns raised by 
his past financial problems. Clearance is granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On September 21, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated 
Adjudications Facility (CAF) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging 
security concerns under the financial considerations guideline.1 Applicant answered the 
SOR and requested a decision on the administrative (written) record (Answer). 
 
 On November 29, 2016, Department Counsel sent Applicant the Government’s 
written case, known as a file of relevant material (FORM). With the FORM, Department 
Counsel forwarded to Applicant five exhibits for admission into the record. Applicant 
submitted a response to the FORM (Response). The exhibits accompanying the FORM 
                                                          
1 The CAF took this action under Executive Order (E.O.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information 
within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial 
Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive).  
 
2 
 
and the documents Applicant submitted with his Answer and Response are admitted 
into the record.  On October 1, 2017, I was assigned the case for decision.2 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant, 59, is employed as a driver by a defense contractor. He is applying to 
retain a security clearance, which he was initially granted in 2010. He is single and has 
three children. He completed his security clearance application in 2015. (Item 2) 
 
After being employed from 1998 to 2005, Applicant was suddenly unemployed 
for over four years. His first period of unemployment was from October 2005 to 
November 2009, after he was in an accident in a company vehicle. He found odd jobs 
but could not pay all his bills. He used credit cards to pay for his expenses. He sought 
permanent employment and was hired by his current employer in 2012. However, in 
2014, he suffered a stroke, which left him unable to work. Applicant incurred a number 
of delinquent debts related to the two unemployment periods and the stroke. He 
underwent intensive rehabilitation to learn to walk and talk again. When he was 
interviewed, he explained that some of the accounts he could not remember due to the 
stroke. (Item 2)  
 
The credit reports confirm that Applicant had accounts go to collection in 2015, 
when he was just returning to work. He paid other non-SOR debts as reflected on his 
credit report. He also satisfied a 2010 judgment in 2013 and provided documentation 
(1.i). His credit reports reflect many account “pays as agreed.” He acknowledged that 
his wages were garnished from 2010 to 2013, because he could not negotiate a plan. 
This account has been resolved for four years. (1.o) As to the SOR alleged delinquent 
medical accounts (SOR 1.b-1.h and 1.l), Applicant provided receipts with his response 
to the FORM. He also researched the alleged debt in 1.n, and provided documentation 
that he does not owe any money on the account. (Response to FORM, Item 4)) 
 
 Applicant denied owing the medical account in SOR 1.a, but he researched the 
issue and learned from the insurance company that he was responsible for the debt. He 
paid the $864 and provided a letter. Applicant submitted documentation with his Answer 
and Response showing that he addressed and resolved each of the SOR debts, with 
the exception of SOR 1.j and 1.k. Initially, his lawyer told him he would not be 
responsible for 1.j, a 2013 judgment, but he is working with them to resolve the debt.  
 
 As of the submission of the case for decision, the majority of the SOR 
allegations are resolved. Applicant’s credit reports do not reflect any other delinquent 
accounts that are not resolved. (Item 5) 
 
                                                          
2 On December 10, 2016, the Director of National Intelligence issued Security Executive Agent Directive 4 
(SEAD-4), revising the Adjudicative Guidelines. The revised adjudicative guidelines are applicable to all 
security clearance decisions issued on or after June 8, 2017. Accordingly, I have applied the revised 
adjudicative guidelines (hereinafter “AG”). ISCR Case No. 02-00305 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 12, 2003) 
(security clearance decisions must be based on current DoD policy and standards). 
 
 
3 
 
Law & Policies 
 
“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. 
Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). Individuals are eligible for access to classified 
information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest” to 
authorize such access. E.O. 10865 § 2; SEAD-4, ¶ E.4. 
 
When evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance, an 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations, the guidelines list potentially disqualifying and mitigating 
conditions. The guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies the guidelines in a  
commonsense manner, considering all available and reliable information, in arriving at a 
fair and impartial decision. AG ¶ 2. 
 
Department Counsel must present evidence to establish controverted facts 
alleged in the SOR. Directive ¶ E3.1.14. Applicants are responsible for presenting 
“witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by 
the applicant or proven . . . and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a 
favorable clearance decision.” Directive ¶ E3.1.15.  
 
Administrative Judges make certain that applicants: (a) receive fair notice of the 
issues, (b) have a reasonable opportunity to address those issues, and (c) are not 
subjected to unfair surprise. Directive, ¶ E3.1.10; ISCR Case No. 12-01266 at 3 (App. 
Bd. Apr. 4, 2014). In deciding a case, a judge must resolve any doubt raised by the 
evidence in favor of the national security. AG ¶ 2(b). See also SEAD-4, ¶ E.4. Moreover, 
the Supreme Court has held that officials making “security clearance determinations 
should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.  
 
 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. 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 an applicant may 
deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions 
entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than 
actual, risk of compromise of classified information. 
 
     Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 Applicant incurred delinquent debt when he was unemployed on two separate 
occasions, and suffered a stroke in 2014. The presence of delinquent debt can raise the 
Guideline F security concern, which is explained at AG ¶ 18: 
 
 
4 
 
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. . . .  
 
Guideline F is not limited to a consideration of whether a person with financial 
issues might be tempted to compromise classified information or engage in other 
illegality to pay their debts. It also addresses the extent to which the circumstances 
giving rise to delinquent debt cast doubt upon a person’s judgment, self-control, and 
other qualities essential to protecting classified information.3 
 
 In assessing Applicant’s case, I considered all the disqualifying and mitigating 
conditions under Guideline F, including the following pertinent ones: 
 
AG ¶ 19(c): a history of not meeting financial obligations;  
 
AG ¶ 20(a): the behavior happened so long ago, . . . 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; 
 
AG ¶ 20(b): the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were 
largely beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business 
downturn, . . .), and the individual acted responsibly under the 
circumstances; and 
 
AG ¶ 20(d):  the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort 
to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
Applicant’s past financial problems were attributable to loss of employment and 
illness. He suffered a stroke, which did not allow him to work from February 2014 to 
August 2015. He paid many non-SOR debts and other recent medical debts that went to 
collection in 2015. He was not able to resolve other debts at that time or believed that 
he did not owe them. This, when coupled with the complications of his stroke and 
rehabilitation, led to Applicant’s inability to pay his debts.  
 
Applicant did not simply walk away from his debts. Instead, he responsibly 
addressed each of his debts, prioritizing them. He did not incur debt from not living 
within his means. He made good-faith efforts to to resolve his debts.  
 
The circumstances giving rise to Applicant’s past financial problems do not cast 
doubt on his ability and willingness to continue to properly handle and safeguard 
classified information. Additionally, the manner in which he addressed the debts that he 
incurred following his unemployment and stroke raises favorable inferences regarding 
his continued suitability. Applicant’s present financial situation does not raise a security 
concern. AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), and 20(d) apply.  
                                                          
3 ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May. 1, 2012).  
 
5 
 
 
After a complete and thorough review of the record evidence, including 
considering the whole-person factors set forth in AG ¶ 2, I find that Applicant met his 
heavy burden of proof and persuasion in mitigating the security concerns at issue. 
Furthermore, he established his eligibility for continued access to classified information. 
 
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 (Financial Considerations):      FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.o:         For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly 
consistent with the interests of national security to continue Applicant’s eligibility for 
access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security clearance is granted. 
 
 
 
____________________ 
Noreen Lynch 
Administrative Judge