1 
 
 
 
               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
   )    ISCR Case No. 17-02090 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Michelle Tilford, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
Curry, Marc E., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant has either paid or is making payments towards the satisfaction of debts 
alleged in the Statement of Reasons (SOR) that she admitted, and she has retained a 
financial counselor to help her resolve the SOR debts that she disputes. Under these 
circumstances, I conclude Applicant’s financial situation is under control. Clearance is 
granted.  
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On July 11, 2017, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the security 
concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations, explaining why it was unable to find it 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant security clearance eligibility for him. The 
DOD CAF took the action under Executive Order (EO) 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 National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining 
Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG) effective within the DOD on June 8, 
2017. 
 
2 
 
On July 14, 2017, Applicant answered the SOR allegations, admitting 
subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c, and denying the remainder. She requested a decision 
based on the administrative record instead of a hearing. On September 27, 2017, 
Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM). Applicant received the 
FORM on October 25, 2017, and filed a response that DOHA received on December 5, 
2017.  The case was assigned to me on February 14, 2018.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
  Applicant is a 31-year-old married woman with one child, age eight. She is a high 
school graduate and has taken some college courses. Since 2011, she has worked for a 
federal contractor as a security officer. (Item 3 at 14)  
 
 The SOR alleges 27 debts totaling approximately $35,000. SOR subparagraph 1.a 
is a loan for a car Applicant purchased in 2013. (Item 6 at 1) When Applicant purchased 
the car, a relative was providing daycare services for her son free of charge. Shortly after 
buying the car, however, Applicant’s work hours increased, requiring her to begin earlier in 
the morning and leave later in the evening. Consequently, she was unable to avail herself 
of her relative’s daycare services, and had to switch to a daycare center that charged a fee. 
(Response at 1) Unable to afford both the daycare expenses and the car payments, 
Applicant voluntarily returned the car. By October 2014, the debt, totaling $12,579, was 
charged off. (Response, Attachment (Att.) 1) In November 2017, Applicant contacted the 
current creditor and developed a payment plan, beginning with one $1,800 payment, 
followed by monthly $150 payments. (Response, Att. 1) 
 
 SOR subparagraph 1.b totals $427. Applicant satisfied this debt on November 30, 
2017. (Response, Att. 2) SOR subparagraph 1.c is a judgment, totaling $851. Applicant 
satisfied this debt two years ago in February 2016. (Response, Att. 3) 
 
 Applicant disputes the remaining debts, contending that she was a victim of identity 
theft. (Item 2 at 2; Response at 2-3) She noted that several of these disputed debts were 
allegedly incurred in a state where she has not lived since finishing high school 14 years 
ago. (Item 2 at 1) In May 2017, she retained a credit counselor to research the respective 
holders of these debts and dispute them. As of July 2017, she was in the process of 
reviewing the dispute letters that the financial counselor had drafted on her behalf. (Item 5)  
  
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive 
Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security,  emphasizing 
that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 
U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, 
the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially 
disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be considered in 
evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines 
3 
 
are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, 
these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative 
process. The administrative judge’s overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and 
commonsense decision. 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. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence 
to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant 
is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant 
has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision. 
 
Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the totality 
of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative 
process factors in AG ¶ 2(d).1  
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 The security concerns about financial considerations are set forth in AG ¶ 18: 
 
Failure or inability 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 information. . . . .  
 
 Applicant’s delinquencies trigger the application of disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 
19(a), “inability to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial 
obligations.”  
 
                                                 
1 The factors under AG ¶ 2(d) are as follows: 
 
(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. 
 
4 
 
 The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable:  
 
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, 
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;  
 
AG ¶ 20(c) the person has received or is receiving 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;  
 
AG ¶ 20(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to 
repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and 
 
AG ¶ 20(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 satisfied the debts alleged in subparagraphs 1.b and 1.c, therefore 
I resolve them in her favor. She began struggling with her car note after a change in 
her work schedule compelled her to switch day care providers from a relative who 
did not charge her, to a private daycare provider. She was unable to balance the car 
payments with her unanticipated daycare costs. Recently, she has contacted the 
creditor holding the auto loan and arranged a payment plan. Under these 
circumstances AG ¶ 20(b) applies. 
 
 Applicant’s contention that she was not living in the state where the majority 
of the creditors of the disputed debts are located does not establish that they were 
not her debts. Nevertheless, her contention is not unreasonable. This contention, 
together with her solicitation of a financial counselor to help her resolve the disputed 
debts is sufficient to trigger the application of AG ¶ 20(e). 
 
 Applicant’s resolution of subparagraphs 1.b and 1.c, together with the steps 
taken to begin paying off the car note, alleged in subparagraph 1.a, trigger the 
application of AG ¶ 20(d). In tandem with her work with a financial counselor to 
identify and contact disputed creditors, it is clear that Applicant is resolving her 
financial issues and is getting them under control. AG ¶ 20(c) applies. In sum, I 
conclude Applicant has mitigated the financial considerations security concerns.    
 
 
 
 
 
5 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Applicant has paid two SOR debts, arranged to pay another one, and is disputing 
the remaining debts with the help of a credit counselor. Under these circumstances, I 
conclude she has mitigated the security concerns. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
Formal findings f 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.aa:     For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly 
consistent with the security interests of the United States to grant Applicant eligibility for a 
security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Marc E. Curry 
Administrative Judge