1 
 
 
 
               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
   )    ISCR Case No. 17-02852 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
Curry, Marc E., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Clearance 
is denied.  
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On August 24, 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 Nat. Sec. Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility 
for Access to Classified Information (AG) effective within the DOD on June 8, 2017. 
 
On September 18, 2017, Applicant answered the SOR allegations, denying all of 
them, and requested a decision based on the administrative record instead of a hearing. 
On October 2, 2017, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM). 
 
2 
 
Applicant received the FORM on December 5, 2017, and filed a response on December 
18, 2017. The case was assigned to me on February 14, 2018.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
  Applicant is a 31-year-old man with one child, age seven. His marriage from 2009 
to 2012 ended in divorce. He has a high school degree and has taken some college 
credits. (Item 3 at 12) He is a veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps, serving honorably from 
July 2008 through April 2012. (Item 3 at 15) 
 
 Applicant has incurred approximately $54,000 of delinquent debt over the years, 
including $2,300 of delinquent state income taxes (subparagraphs 1.a - 1.b), $50,000 of 
delinquent student loans (subparagraphs 1.c – 1.f, and 1.h), and a miscellaneous debt for 
$1,729 (subparagraph 1.g). Although he did not elaborate about how he incurred the debt, 
his security clearance application lists two periods of unemployment from May 2005 to July 
2008, and April 2012 to May 2015. (Item 3 at 15) 
 
 Applicant contends that he had arranged a payment plan for the debt alleged in 
subparagraph 1.g, but was unable to make all of the payments because he “fell on hard 
times.” (Response at 1) In December 2017, Applicant consolidated his student loans and 
arranged a payment plan. (Response at 63) Per the plan, Applicant will make $21 monthly 
payments. The first payment was scheduled to post on January 28, 2018. He contends that 
he is “vigorously working towards reducing and paying of [his] debt . . .,” but provided no 
additional documentary proof. (Response at 1)  
  
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 
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 
3 
 
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,” AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” 
and AG ¶ 19(f), “failure . . . to pay Federal, state or local income taxes, as required.”  
 
 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 
                                                 
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 
 
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(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. 
 
 Although Applicant attributes his failure to sustain consistent payments under past 
payment plans to financial difficulties, and lists significant periods of unemployment on his 
security clearance application, he did not provide any specific details. Consequently, AG ¶ 
20(b) does not apply. 
 
 Applicant provided no evidence that he has either sought counseling or arranged a 
payment plan for his delinquent state income taxes. Neither AG ¶ 20(c), nor AG ¶ 20(g) 
applies. Applicant consolidated his student loans and developed a payment plan. His first 
payment was not scheduled to begin until after he completed his response. Nevertheless, 
the development of a payment plan is sufficient to trigger the partial application of AG ¶ 
20(d). 
 
 Given Applicant’s unaddressed tax delinquencies, the amount of student loans that 
are outstanding, and the recency of his student loan payment plan, I conclude he has not 
mitigated the financial considerations security concern. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 I considered the whole-person concept factors in my analysis of the disqualifying 
and mitigating conditions, and it does not warrant a favorable conclusion. I conclude that 
Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns.  
 
Formal Findings 
 
Formal findings for 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:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.h:     Against Applicant 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
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 denied. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Marc E. Curry 
Administrative Judge