1 
                                         
 
 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
       DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
         )  ISCR Case No. 17-00587 
  ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance   ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
___________ 
 
Decision 
___________ 
 
TUIDER, Robert, Administrative Judge: 
 
 Applicant mitigated security concerns pertaining to Guideline F (financial 
concerns). Clearance is granted.       
 
Statement of the Case 
  
On October 14, 2015, Applicant completed and signed a Questionnaire for National 
Security Position (SF-86). On May 3, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) 
Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to 
Applicant under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information 
within Industry, February 20, 1960; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel 
Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), January 2, 1992; and the Adjudicative 
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, effective on 
September 1, 2006 (Sept. 1, 2006 AGs).  
 
The SOR detailed reasons why the DOD CAF did not find under the Directive that 
it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue a security 
clearance for Applicant and recommended referral to an administrative judge to 
determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. 
Specifically, the SOR set forth security concerns arising under Guideline F.  
 
 
2 
                                         
 
On May 23, 2017, Applicant provided a response to the SOR. On June 26, 2017, 
Department Counsel was ready to proceed. On June 27, 2017, the case was assigned to 
me. On June 29, 2017, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a 
notice of hearing, setting the hearing for August 15, 2017. Applicant’s hearing was held 
as scheduled.  
  
During the hearing, Department Counsel offered three exhibits; Applicant offered 
nine exhibits; all of which were admitted into evidence. (Transcript (Tr.) 10-12; 
Government Exhibits (GE) 1-3; Applicant Exhibits (AE) A-AE I) On August 23, 2017, 
DOHA received a copy of the transcript of the hearing. The record was held open until 
December 28, 2017, to permit Applicant to submit additional documentation. (Tr. 56; AE 
CC) Applicant provided 20 post-hearing exhibits, which were admitted into evidence. (AE 
J-AE CC) 
 
While this case was pending a decision, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) 
issued Security Executive Agent Directive 4, establishing in Appendix A the new 
Adjudicative Guidelines (AGs), which are applicable to all covered individuals who require 
initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a 
sensitive position. The new AGs supersede the Sept. 1, 2006 AGs and are effective on 
June 8, 2017. I have evaluated Applicant’s security clearance eligibility under the new 
AGs.1 
 
Findings of Fact2 
 
 In Applicant’s SOR response, he admitted the SOR allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a 
through 1.d and 1.f. He denied the allegation in SOR ¶ 1.e. His SOR response also 
provided extenuating and mitigating information. His admissions are accepted as findings 
of fact.  
 
Applicant is 55-years-old, and he is the president and chief executive officer (CEO) 
of a corporation that provides personnel and logistical support for the DOD. (Tr. 12-16) 
He started his company in 2008. (Tr. 25) He does not have a security clearance. (Tr. 17) 
His current position will be enhanced if he has a security clearance. (Tr. 17) In 1980, he 
graduated from high school. (Tr. 18) In 1983, he received an associate’s degree in 
business, and in 1988, he received a bachelor of science degree in aviation management. 
(Tr. 18-19) In 2002, he received a master’s degree in business administration. (Tr. 20) He 
has taken some courses towards a Ph.D. (Tr. 20)  
 
Applicant served in the Marine Corps from 1984 to 2006. (Tr. 20-21) He honorably 
retired as a major. (Tr. 21-22, 58; AE R) He is receiving disability pay from the Department 
of Veterans Affairs (VA). (Tr. 58) He was previously married from 1985 to 1994 and from 
                                            
1 Application of the AGs that were in effect as of the issuance of the SOR would not change my 
decision in this case. The new AGs are available at http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/5220-6 R20170608.pdf.  
 
2 Some details were excluded to protect Applicant’s right to privacy. Specific information is available 
in the cited exhibits. 
 
3 
                                         
 
1995 to 2008. (Tr. 26-28) He married his current spouse in 2013. (Tr. 29) His children are 
ages 20, 25 and 30. (Tr. 27, 29) His spouse is not employed outside his home. (Tr. 30)   
 
Financial Considerations 
 
The SOR details the following allegations, and their status is as follows:  
 
SOR ¶ 1.a alleges a charged-off credit card in the amount of $917. On May 9, 
2017, the creditor wrote the debt was paid. (SOR response) His May 23, 2017 credit 
report shows a zero balance owed to this creditor. (AE H at 10) 
 
SOR ¶ 1.b alleges a gym-related debt placed for collection for $540. Applicant 
disputed his responsibility for the debt. Applicant moved away from the location of the 
gym, and the gym contract indicates the contract may be terminated when the customer 
moves to a different location. (SOR response) His May 23, 2017 credit report shows the 
debt is disputed. (AE H at 18) 
 
SOR ¶ 1.c alleges a telecommunications debt placed for collection for $357. 
Applicant returned the creditor’s telecommunications equipment, and the creditor in SOR 
¶ 1.c has a current contract with Applicant. (SOR response)  
 
SOR ¶¶ 1.d and 1.e allege two medical debts placed for collection for $209 and 
$55. On May 23, 2017, the creditor wrote the debts were paid, and Applicant’s account is 
in good standing. (SOR response; AE I) 
 
SOR ¶ 1.f alleges, and Applicant admits a federal tax lien was recorded against 
him on March 24, 2016, in the amount of $155,369. (Tr. 30, GE 3) Applicant’s Subchapter 
S Corporation hired a payroll employee company (PEC) to process employee withholding 
for taxes. (Tr. 31, 51) In 2012 and 2013, the PEC diverted or stole his employee’s 
withholding for state and federal taxes. (Tr. 32-34, 51) In June 2013, Applicant terminated 
the PEC. (Tr. 32) Another company that was the victim of PEC sued PEC; however, they 
were unable to recover their losses. (Tr. 33) The IRS recommended that Applicant seek 
legal recovery of his company’s losses from PEC; however, Applicant did not have the 
time or money to pursue PEC. (Tr. 33) Applicant paid the state tax debt generated as a 
result of PEC’s theft. (Tr. 43) 
 
Applicant had three installment agreements with the IRS, which were executed in 
2012, for $112,000; in 2014, for $151,000; and in 2015, for about $200,000. (Tr. 35-38) 
The IRS debt is now $288,000. (Tr. 39-40, 52-53) The debt increased because the IRS 
added interest and penalties that were previously waived, and his payments were not 
sufficient to reduce the debt. (Tr. 35-39) The IRS was disappointed because Applicant 
did not aggressively pursue legal action against PEC. (Tr. 35-39) Applicant anticipates a 
reduction in the debt owed to the IRS because of some pending tax credits. (Tr. 40) 
 
On July 15, 2016, the IRS wrote Applicant and advised him $6,256 was paid to the 
IRS, and the following payments were made from July 13, 2015, to July 11, 2016: (1) July 
13, 2015, for $600; September 21, 2015, for $656; September 24, 2015, for $500; March 
 
4 
                                         
 
1, 2016, for $3,500; March 31, 2016, for $500; and May 31, 2016, for $500. (AE J) The 
July 15, 2016 IRS letter indicated the balance owed totaled $288,498. (AE J)  
 
On August 17, 2017, the IRS wrote Applicant and advised him $6,500 was paid to 
the IRS from July 18, 2016, to July 17, 2017. He made 12 monthly payments ranging from 
$500 to $750. (AE S) The August 17, 2017 IRS letter indicated the balance owed totaled 
$289,673. (AE J) On August 14, 2017, the IRS notified Applicant that a tax overpayment 
of $515 was applied to his tax debt for tax year 2011, and the amount due is now $38,751. 
(AE T) The $38,751 debt is included in the total debt of $289,673.     
 
Applicant said he has been making $500 monthly payments to the IRS in 
accordance with an installment plan with the IRS since 2015. (Tr. 41-42, 52) Applicant 
said he planned to submit in September 2017, an offer-in-compromise for approximately 
$25,000 and along with additional tax credits. He suggested that theoretically this could 
resolve the IRS debt by December 2017. (Tr. 43-44, 54) He conceded the IRS will 
probably not accept the offer-in-compromise to resolve the tax debt. (Tr. 49) He is also 
applying for tax forgiveness from the IRS. (Tr. 53-54) Applicant is communicating with his 
tax attorney about resolution of his tax debt. (AE U; AE V) His company’s financial 
situation is improving. (AE W; AE CC) On September 28, 2017, he offered to settle the 
federal tax debt for $13,004. (AE X, IRS Form 433-B at 5-6) The offer was scheduled to 
be submitted to the IRS on October 4, 2017, and Applicant’s tax attorney indicated it will 
take about six months for the IRS to accept or reject the offer. (AE X) 
 
Applicant received retirement of $3,716 monthly, and intends to pay himself a 
$10,000 monthly salary from his company starting in May 2017. (Tr. 45) All of Applicant’s 
current debts are current and in good standing. (Tr. 46) His most substantial non-tax debt 
is his student loan debt of $202,777, which is current. (AE H) 
 
Character Evidence 
 
Applicant was awarded the following medals and decorations: Bronze Star (1); 
Meritorious Service Medal; Combat Action Ribbon (2); Navy and Marine Corps 
Commendation Medal (3); Navy and Marine Corps Achievement Medal; Sea Service 
Deployment Ribbon (6); Humanitarian Service Medal (2); Navy and Marine Corps 
Overseas Service Ribbon; Iraq Campaign Medal; Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary 
Medal; Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; Korean Defense Service Medal; Artic 
Service Ribbon; National Defense Service Medal (2); Good Conduct Medal; Armed 
Forces Reserve Medal; SMCR Medal; Joint Meritorious Unit Award (3); Navy unit 
Commendation (2); Navy Meritorious Commendation; Certificate of Appreciation; Letter 
of Appreciation (7); Certificate of Commendation (3); Meritorious Mast; M16 Rifle Expert 
Badge (21); and .45 Cal. Pistol Badge (10). (AE M)  
 
In 1975, Applicant was awarded an Eagle Award from the Boy Scouts of America. 
(AE Y) As a leading petty officer in 1978, Applicant received a Meritorious Recognition 
Letter for his outstanding performance of duty, including extinguishing a fire when he was 
a cadet. (AE Y) In 1979, Applicant received an Honor Ribbon for his role in saving the life 
of another person at the risk of his own. (AE Y)  
 
5 
                                         
 
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.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 
518, 528 (1988). 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.” Id. at 527. The President 
has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicant’s eligibility for 
access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the 
national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within 
Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.  
 
Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the 
criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules 
of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are 
applied in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s 
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An 
administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, 
past and present, favorable and unfavorable.  
 
The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with 
access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and 
endures throughout off-duty hours. 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 
about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. 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.” See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. 
Thus, nothing in this decision should be construed to suggest that it is based, in whole or 
in part, on any express or implied determination about applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or 
patriotism. It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the 
President, Secretary of Defense, and Director of National Intelligence have established 
for issuing a clearance. 
  
 Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the 
personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from 
being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of 
establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 
“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). The guidelines 
presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria 
listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 
(App. Bd. May 2, 1996). 
 
Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial 
evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the 
 
6 
                                         
 
facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it 
is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” 
ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). The burden of disproving a 
mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 
(App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, 
on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b).  
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations 
 
AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concern for financial problems: 
 
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. . . . An individual who is financially 
overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise 
questionable acts to generate funds. . . . 
 
The Appeal Board explained the scope and rationale for the financial 
considerations security concern in ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012) 
(citation omitted) as follows: 
 
This concern is broader than the possibility that an applicant might 
knowingly compromise classified information in order to raise money in 
satisfaction of his or her debts. Rather, it requires a Judge to examine the 
totality of an applicant’s financial history and circumstances. The Judge 
must consider pertinent evidence regarding the applicant’s self-control, 
judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting the national secrets as 
well as the vulnerabilities inherent in the circumstances. The Directive 
presumes a nexus between proven conduct under any of the Guidelines 
and an applicant’s security eligibility.  
 
  AG ¶ 19 includes three disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern 
and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability to satisfy debts”; “(c) a history of not 
meeting financial obligations”; and “(f) failure to file or fraudulently filing annual Federal, 
state, or local income tax returns or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income 
tax as required.” The record establishes the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a), 19(c), 
and 19(f) requiring additional inquiry about the possible applicability of mitigating 
conditions. 
 
 Seven financial considerations mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially 
applicable in this case:  
 
 
7 
                                         
 
(a) the behavior happened so long ago,3 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; 
 
(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;  
 
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;4  
  
(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;  
 
(f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income; and 
 
(g) the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority 
to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those 
arrangements. 
 
                                            
3 A debt that became delinquent several years ago is still considered recent because “an applicant’s 
ongoing, unpaid debts evidence a continuing course of conduct and, therefore, can be viewed as recent for 
purposes of the Guideline F mitigating conditions.” ISCR Case No. 15-06532 at 3 (App. Bd. February 16, 
2017) (citing ISCR Case No. 15-01690 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2016)). 
 
4 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) 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)). 
 
 
8 
                                         
 
The DOHA Appeal Board concisely explained Applicant’s responsibility for proving 
the applicability of mitigating conditions as follows:  
 
Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance 
eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of 
a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th 
Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the Government 
presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the 
applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The 
standard applicable in security clearance decisions is that articulated in 
Egan, supra. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access 
to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” 
Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).  
 
ISCR Case No. 10-04641 at 4 (App. Bd. Sept. 24, 2013).  
 
Applicant’s corporation was the victim of theft, and this circumstance was partially 
or fully outside his control and adversely affected his finances. However, mitigation is 
limited because Applicant has a clear duty to ensure funds withheld from employee pay 
are paid to the U.S. Government. He did not establish that he acted prudently and 
responsibly under the circumstances. His failure to ensure withheld funds were paid to 
the U.S. Government was illegal and showed poor judgment.5  
 
In ISCR Case No. 15-01031 at 4 (App. Bd. June 15, 2016), the Appeal Board 
reversed the grant of a security clearance and commented as follows: 
                                            
5 The Department of Justice recently commented: 
“Employers who comply with our nation’s tax laws are entitled to a level playing field,” said 
Acting Assistant Attorney General Caroline D. Ciraolo of the Justice Department’s Tax 
Division. “Those individuals and entities that fail to withhold employment tax, or withhold 
and fail to pay employment taxes over to the IRS, not only steal from their employees and 
the U.S. Treasury, but gain an unfair competitive advantage over businesses down the 
street and across the country. The Department and its colleagues in the IRS have 
increased their efforts in this area, and are holding delinquent employers accountable.” 
 
*  *  * 
 
Any individual who is responsible for ensuring that employment taxes are collected, 
accounted for, and paid over to the IRS, and willfully fails to do so may be subject to a civil 
penalty equal to the amount of the unpaid withholdings. This civil penalty, referred to as 
the trust fund recovery penalty, may be imposed even if the individual uses the employment 
tax to pay other creditors or keep the business afloat.  Individuals subject to these penalties 
include, but are not limited to, bookkeepers, managers, treasurers, and corporate officers.  
The Department assists the IRS to defend challenges to trust fund recovery penalty 
assessments, and to ensure that such assessments are collected. 
 
U.S. Department of Justice website, Press Release 16-497, “Justice Department Reminds Employers of 
Their Employment Tax Responsibilities” (Apr. 27, 2016), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-
reminds-employers-their-employment-tax-responsibilities. HE 4. There is no evidence the IRS has sought 
trust fund recovery penalty assessments, which is an indication he did not willfully fail to act to protect the 
U.S. Government interests.   
 
9 
                                         
 
Failure to comply with Federal and/or state tax laws suggests that an 
applicant has a problem with abiding by well-established Government rules 
and regulations. Voluntary compliance with rules and regulations is 
essential for protecting classified information.  .  .  .  By failing to [comply 
with tax laws], Applicant did not demonstrate the high degree of good 
judgment and reliability required of persons granted access to classified 
information.  
 
Applicant said he did not divert the employee withholding funds from going to the 
federal government. Nevertheless, the IRS is holding Applicant responsible for the loss 
of funds. His failure to pursue legal action against PEC for stealing funds also showed 
poor judgment. There is no evidence that the IRS is pursuing PEC for the lost revenue.  
 
On August 17, 2017, the IRS indicated the balance owed totaled $289,673. For 
two years, Applicant has been making payments under an approved payment plan to 
address this debt; however, his IRS debt is increasing. His failure to make larger 
payments is excused due to his inability to make larger payments to the IRS, and the IRS 
has accepted his payments without taking more aggressive legal action to obtain greater 
payments. All of Applicant’s other debts are either paid or in current payment plans. There 
is sufficient assurance his financial problems are being resolved, under control, and will 
continue to improve in the future. AG ¶ 20(g) is established. Under all the circumstances, 
he mitigated financial considerations security concerns. 
 
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(c), “[t]he 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. My comments under Guideline F are 
incorporated in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were 
addressed under that guideline but some warrant additional comment. 
 
Applicant is 55-years-old, and he is the president and CEO of a corporation that 
provides personnel and logistical support for the DOD. He started his company in 2008. 
 
10 
                                         
 
In 1988, he received a bachelor of science degree in aviation management. In 2002, he 
received a master’s degree in business administration, and he has taken some courses 
towards a Ph.D.   
 
Applicant served in the Marine Corps from 1984 to 2006. He honorably retired as 
a major. He served in Iraq from March to August 2005. He is receiving disability pay from 
the VA. He received numerous awards for his Marine Corps service. He received the 
Eagle Award as well as other awards for contributions to his community.  
 
All of Applicant’s debts are either paid or in payment plans. The Appeal Board has 
addressed a key element in the whole-person analysis in financial cases stating: 
 
. . . 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 
demonstrate 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.  
 
ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations and quotation 
marks omitted). He understands what he needs to do to establish and maintain his 
financial responsibility. He took reasonable actions under his particular financial 
circumstances to address his delinquent debts. Applicant has established a “meaningful 
track record” of debt re-payment, and he assures he will maintain his financial 
responsibility. 
 
I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Egan, Exec. Or. 10865, the Directive, 
and the AGs, to the facts and circumstances in the context of the whole person. I conclude 
that financial considerations security concerns are mitigated. It is clearly consistent with 
the interests of national security to grant Applicant security clearance eligibility. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11 
                                         
 
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.f:  For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances 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 Tuider 
Administrative Judge