1 
      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
 DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
)       ISCR Case: 17-00674 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
February 14, 2018 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant was alleged to have 12 delinquent debts totaling $21,410. She 
resolved three of her delinquencies to the satisfaction of the creditors and has hired a 
debt management firm to help her resolve the majority of her remaining debt. Based 
upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, national security eligibility is granted.  
Statement of Case 
On January 19, 2016, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-
86). On April 4, 2017, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DoD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), detailing security concerns 
under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The action was taken under Executive 
Order 10865 (EO), 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 for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information.  
 
 
2 
 
 
Applicant answered the SOR on May 1, 2017. The case was assigned to another 
administrative judge on June 6, 2017, and reassigned to me on July 5, 2017. The 
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on August 
7, 2017. I convened the hearing as scheduled on September 25, 2017. The 
Government offered Government Exhibits 1 through 4, which were admitted without 
objection. Applicant testified on her own behalf, and presented Applicant Exhibits (AE) A 
through D. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on October 4, 2017. The 
record was left open for the receipt of additional evidence. On November 13, 2017, AE 
E through AE K were submitted, and received without objection. The record then 
closed. 
 
The SOR in this case was issued under the adjudicative guidelines that came 
into effect within the DoD on September 1, 2006. Security Executive Agent Directive 
(SEAD) 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines, implements new adjudicative 
guidelines, effective June 8, 2017. All national security eligibility decisions issued on or 
after June 8, 2017, are to be decided using the new National Security Adjudicative 
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to 
Hold a Sensitive Position (AG), as implemented by SEAD 4. I considered the previous 
adjudicative guidelines, as well as the new AG, in adjudicating Applicant’s national 
security eligibility. My decision would be the same under either set of guidelines, 
although this decision is issued pursuant to the new AG. 
 
Findings of Fact  
 
 Applicant admitted to all of the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.l. After a 
thorough and careful review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I make the 
following findings of fact.  
 
 Applicant is 33 years old. She has worked for her employer since November 
2015. She served on active duty in the Air Force from January 2006 to March 2012, and 
achieved the rank of staff sergeant (E-5). She medically retired in March 2012. She was 
unemployed from July 2012 to July 2013 and from June 2015 to July 2015. She has two 
associate degrees. She is married, but separated from her husband in January 2013. 
She cannot afford the fee to file for divorce. She has two children, ages six and nine. 
(GE 1; Tr. 26-32, 62-64.) 
 
 Applicant attributes her debts to being forced to medically retire from the military, 
her periods of unemployment, and her separation from her husband. In April 2017, 
Applicant enrolled in a debt management plan. She is required to pay the plan $344 
monthly, which accumulates in an account until it is dispersed to a pay off a settled debt 
with a creditor. In that plan, she included debts totaling $15,392. She had resolved 
$2,914 of that debt, as of September 2017. (GE 1; GE 2; AE A; AE D.) 
 
  
 
 
3 
 
 
 Applicant was alleged to be delinquent on a loan account in the amount of 
$9,506, as stated in SOR ¶ 1.a. It has been delinquent since 2015. This debt is listed as 
enrolled in her debt relief program, and the status report of November 2017 reflected 
the company was “actively working” to negotiate this debt. Applicant intends to resolve 
this debt through her debt management plan. (GE 3; AE A; AE J; Tr. 36.) 
 
 Applicant was alleged to be delinquent on a medical account in the amount of 
$4,688, as stated in SOR ¶ 1.b. This debt has been delinquent since 2015. Applicant 
was injured at a soccer game and taken to the emergency room. The creditor did not 
give her the proper forms to fill out when she was in the emergency room. Once she 
received the proper form, she submitted it and her health care insurance covered this 
bill. She provided documentation that shows this debt has a zero balance. (GE 3; AE C; 
AE E; Tr. 37-38.)  
 
 Applicant was alleged to be delinquent on a collection account in the amount of 
$900, as stated in SOR ¶ 1.c. This debt has been delinquent since 2015. It was for a 
personal loan. This debt was listed as “active settlement/payment plan” in her debt relief 
program, through which the creditor has agreed to accept six monthly payments totaling 
$405. Her debt management company is dispersing the funds under this repayment 
agreement. This debt is being resolved. (GE 3; AE A; AE G; AE J; Tr. 39-41.) 
 
 Applicant was alleged to be delinquent on a collection account in the amount of 
$794, as stated in SOR ¶ 1.d. This debt has been delinquent since 2015. It was for a 
payday loan. This debt is enrolled in her debt relief program, through which the 
company will negotiate with the creditor to resolve it through agreed payments. (GE 3; 
AE A; AE J; Tr. 41.) 
 
 Applicant was alleged to be delinquent on a collection account in the amount of 
$786, as stated in SOR ¶ 1.e. This debt has been delinquent since 2013. It is listed as 
“resolved: payments pending” in her debt relief program, through which  the creditor has 
agreed to accept five monthly payments of $75 and one payment of $96.80. The debt 
management company is dispersing the monthly payments under this agreement. It is 
being resolved. (GE 3; AE A; AE F; AE J; Tr. 42.) 
 
 Applicant was alleged to be delinquent on a collection account in the amount of 
$612, as stated in SOR ¶ 1.f. It has been delinquent since 2015. This debt was listed as 
“active settlement/payment plan” in her debt relief program, through which the creditor 
has agreed to resolve this debt for $257, over five months. The debt management 
company is dispersing the monthly payments under this agreement. It is being resolved. 
(GE 3; AE A; AE H; AE J; Tr. 42.) 
 
 Applicant was alleged to be delinquent on a charged-off credit card account in 
the amount of $560, as stated in SOR ¶ 1.g. This credit card debt had been delinquent 
since 2015. It is listed as “payments completed” in her debt relief program. It was settled 
for $295.48. It is resolved. (GE 3; AE A; AE I; Tr. 43.) 
 
 
4 
 
 
 Applicant was alleged to be delinquent on a collection account in the amount of 
$518, as stated in SOR ¶ 1.h. This debt has been delinquent since 2015. It was for an 
unreturned cable box. Applicant testified she has now returned the cable box, and was 
awaiting a final receipt. (GE 3; Tr. 44-45.) 
 
 Applicant was alleged to be delinquent on a charged-off retail store credit card in 
the amount of $457, as stated in SOR ¶ 1.i. This debt is listed as “enrolled” in her debt 
relief program. The debt management company will negotiate with the creditor and then 
it will be resolved through payment. (GE 3; AE A; Tr. 45-46.) 
 
 Applicant was alleged to be delinquent on a charged-off account in the amount of 
$2,378, as stated in SOR ¶ 1.j. This is a credit card for which Applicant co-signed with 
her husband. She was unable to add this to her debt management plan since it was a 
joint debt. She is attempting to follow up with him on this debt. (Tr. 46-48.) 
 
 Applicant was alleged to be delinquent on two debts to a former state of 
residence, in the amounts of $116 and $95, as stated in SOR ¶¶ 1.k and 1.l. These 
debts were for a driver’s license renewal and vehicle registration fees that she incurred 
after she moved out of state. She resolved these debts as documented in a receipt from 
a collection agent for this state debt. (GE 4; AE K; Tr. 48-49.) 
 
 Applicant closely monitors her financial situation. She does not overspend. (Tr. 
49.) She now has a small amount of savings set aside for emergencies. (Tr. 51-52.) Her 
debt management company provided her financial counseling. She completed financial 
courses on-line because she wanted to understand what she was doing wrong with her 
finances. (Tr. 52-53.) 
 
 Applicant is considered trustworthy by those that know her. A friend of ten years 
indicated that Applicant is “a highly professional, trustworthy individual.” (AE B.) Her 
program manager indicated she is “completely reliable with privacy, classified 
information, rules and regulations.” (AE B.) Her coworker finds she has a “great work 
ethic and has exhibited admirable integrity.” (AE B.)  
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the 
administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) list 
potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in 
evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility. 
 
 These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the 
complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the 
factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s 
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The entire 
 
 
5 
 
 
process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context 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.” In reaching this decision, I 
have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the 
evidence contained in the record. I have not drawn inferences based on mere 
speculation or conjecture.  
 
 Directive ¶ E3.1.14 requires the Government to 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the 
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”  
 
 A person applying for national security eligibility seeks to enter 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 national security eligibility. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the 
possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified or 
sensitive information. Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of EO 10865, “[a]ny 
determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination in terms 
of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the 
applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites 
for access to classified or sensitive information.) 
 
 
 
6 
 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F: Financial Considerations 
 
 The security concerns relating to the guideline for financial considerations are set 
out in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:       
 
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 personal 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.   
 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under 
AG ¶ 19. Two are potentially applicable in this case:   
 
(a) inability to satisfy debts; and 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
Applicant was delinquent on 12 debts totaling $21,410. These debts became 
delinquent beginning in 2013. These facts establish prima facie support for the 
foregoing disqualifying conditions, and shift the burden to Applicant to mitigate those 
concerns. 
  
 The guideline includes four conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate the security 
concerns arising from Applicant’s alleged financial difficulties: 
 
(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; 
 
 
 
7 
 
 
(c) 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; and 
 
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
The 12 SOR-alleged debts were accumulated between 2013 and 2015. In the 
past three years, Applicant has not accumulated new delinquent debts. The evidence 
establishes mitigation under AG ¶ 20(a), as the circumstances that contributed to her 
financial delinquencies are unlikely to recur and do not cast doubt on her current 
trustworthiness. 
 
Applicant’s financial delinquencies were caused by circumstances beyond her 
control. She had several periods of unemployment and separated from her husband. 
Applicant has acted to responsibly manage the debts since obtaining her present 
employment, by enrolling in and complying with an effective debt management program 
while incurring no additional delinquencies. This establishes further mitigation under AG 
¶ 20(b).  
 
Applicant participated in financial and credit counseling, and there are clear 
indications that her financial delinquencies are coming under control. Further, Applicant 
initiated a good-faith effort to resolve the alleged debts through the debt management 
company, albeit after receiving the SOR. She paid three debts, and has been making 
payments to resolve the others to the debt management company since April 2017. 
Applicant’s budget can accommodate her agreed payments to repay the outstanding 
delinquent debts. AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) apply.  
 
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 relevant 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.  
 
 
 
8 
 
 
 According to AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant national 
security eligibility must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the applicable guidelines and the whole-person concept. 
    
 I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. 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 has paid off each and 
every debt listed in the SOR. All that is required is that an applicant 
demonstrates that he has ‘. . . established a plan to resolve his 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 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.1 
 
 Applicant provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a plan to resolve her 
outstanding delinquent debts within the standard defined in the above case. The 
likelihood that financial problems will recur, or Applicant will stop making payments on 
the plans she has initiated, is minimal based on her efforts to date and her knowledge 
that similar problems could jeopardize her employment. The potential for pressure, 
coercion, or duress is eliminated by Applicant’s efforts to resolve her debt. Overall, the 
record evidence leaves me without doubt as to Applicant’s judgment, eligibility, and 
suitability for a security clearance. She met her burden to mitigate the security concerns 
arising under the guideline for financial considerations. 
 
                                                 
1ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations omitted). 
 
 
9 
 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, 
as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
 Paragraph 1, Guideline F:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a through 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 national interest to grant Applicant national security eligibility 
and a security clearance. National security eligibility is granted. 
 
                                                   
 
Jennifer I. Goldstein 
Administrative Judge