1 
 
 
 
                 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
    )   ISCR Case No. 17-00992 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Andre M. Gregorian, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
 
Six of Applicant’s credit-card accounts totaling more than $27,000, two loans of 
$3,116 and $3,481, and a $147 medical debt were charged off or placed for collection. 
Applicant has been repaying some of the debts. More progress toward resolving the debts 
is needed to fully mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Clearance is 
denied. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On April 28, 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, and explaining why it was unable to 
find it clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue 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 Adjudicative Guidelines for 
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG) effective within the DOD on 
September 1, 2006. 
 
2 
 
On May 24, 2017, Applicant answered the SOR allegations and requested a hearing 
before an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). 
On September 12, 2017, the case was assigned to me to conduct a hearing to determine 
whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security 
clearance for Applicant. I scheduled a hearing to be held on December 7, 2017. In 
prehearing guidance, Applicant was informed that the Director of National Intelligence 
(DNI) had issued Security Executive Agent Directive 4 establishing the National Security 
Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) effective June 8, 2017, for all adjudications for national 
security eligibility or eligibility to hold a sensitive position.1 
 
I convened the hearing as scheduled. Five Government exhibits (GEs 1-5) and 11 
Applicant exhibits (AEs A-K) were admitted into evidence without objection. Two hearing 
exhibits (HE) were marked but not entered into evidence: a July 22, 2017 letter forwarding 
GEs 1-5 to Applicant (HE 1) and a list of the Government’s exhibits (HE 2). Applicant 
testified, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on December 18, 2017. 
 
Summary of Pleadings 
 
 The SOR alleges under Guideline F that, as of April 28, 2017, Applicant owed 
charged-off or collection debts totaling $37,794 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.i) and financial judgments of 
$2,800 from 2015 (SOR ¶ 1.j) and $5,463 from 2012 (SOR ¶ 1.k). When Applicant 
answered the SOR, he admitted the debts, but indicated that he has been making monthly 
payments on the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.c, 1.d, and 1.h (same debt as SOR ¶ 1.j), and a state 
tax delinquency (not alleged). He asserted that he was making some payments, when he 
had the funds, on a federal tax debt (not alleged) and on the judgment in SOR ¶ 1.k (same 
debt as SOR ¶ 1.a). Applicant admitted he had not been able to make any payments on his 
student loan (SOR ¶ 1.e), a co-signed personal loan (SOR ¶ 1.f), or a medical collection 
debt (SOR ¶ 1.i). He attributed the financial delinquencies to the loss of his spouse’s 
income a couple of times within approximately the last five years. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I find that SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 
1.k pertain to the same delinquent account. Likewise, SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.j are the same 
debt. Additional findings of fact are as follows. 
 
Applicant is a 39-year-old high school graduate, who has worked at the same facility 
since April 1999. He stayed on when his present employer acquired the business in July 
2015, and he currently works in logistics supply. He earns $48,000 to $50,000 annually 
based on a 48 to 50 hour work week. He has worked part-time at a couple of bagel shops 
since September 2005, earning about $8,000 to $12,000 a year. From 2011 to 2013, he 
held a second part-time job as a security guard. Applicant underwent a background 
investigation in approximately 2005. He currently holds a DOD security clearance, but 
                                                 
1 Application of the AGs that were in effect as of the issuance of the SOR would not change my decision in 
this case. 
 
3 
 
understands that he will be allowed to maintain his employment if he loses his clearance. 
(GEs 1, 3; Tr. 20-21, 43-46.)  
 
Applicant and his spouse began cohabiting in March 2006 and married in August 
2007. His spouse has two daughters, now ages 21 and 18, from a previous relationship. 
Applicant raised his stepdaughters in his home. (GE 1; Tr. 46-47.) Child support payments 
to his spouse from her daughters’ father were inconsistent and, at times, nonexistent. (Tr. 
42.) 
 
Shortly after their marriage, Applicant’s spouse began working full time for an office 
furniture company. After a couple of years, she began employment with a job-training 
agency. Applicant relied heavily on credit cards when his spouse was working. She was 
laid off in 2011, and Applicant struggled to pay all his debts without her income of $28,000 
to $30,000 a year. Over the next few years, his spouse took online classes in web 
development while working part time at a high school. Toward the end of her studies, she 
held full-time work with the high school. Applicant worked 50 to 60 hours a week to 
compensate for her lack of income. Applicant received assurances from his spouse that 
she would pursue full-time employment once she earned her degree. After she earned her 
bachelor’s degree in June 2014, she was unemployed for almost a year. In May 2015, she 
began working full time at a grocery store. (Tr. 48-53.) 
  
 On October 22, 2015, Applicant completed and certified to the accuracy of an SF 86 
on which he responded affirmatively to a financial record inquiry concerning delinquency 
involving enforcement, including whether he had a judgment entered against him in the last 
seven years. He disclosed a credit card judgment of $2,880 (SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.j, same 
debt) incurred because of his spouse’s unemployment. He added that he had a repayment 
plan in place for $50 a month. In response to SF 86 inquiries concerning any delinquency 
involving routine accounts, Applicant reported that unsecured credit card accounts had 
been suspended, cancelled, or charged off for $8,500 (SOR ¶ 1.c) and $2,999 (SOR ¶ 1.g) 
that he was repaying at $50 each per month and for $4,600 (not alleged) that he was 
repaying at $30 a month. He also indicated that he had defaulted on a credit card debt of 
$8,476 (SOR ¶ 1.b), on an unsecured loan of $3,116 (SOR ¶ 1.f), and on medical debts of 
$2,997 (not alleged) and $150 (SOR ¶ 1.i) that were not currently being repaid because he 
did not have the funds. (GE 1.) 
 
 Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for the Office of Personnel 
Management on November 19, 2015. Applicant explained that he had fallen behind on 
some debts because of a lack of spousal income. He had co-signed on a student loan for 
his spouse (SOR ¶ 1.e) and opened the personal loan with his spouse to consolidate debts 
(SOR ¶ 1.f) while the other past-due accounts are solely his legal responsibility. He 
expressed his intention to make payments on his debts. He hoped to pay them off in three 
or four years. Applicant indicated that with his income of $3,000 a month and his spouse 
now working, he was in the process of negotiating with some creditors and making some 
payments toward some debts. (GE 3.) 
 
4 
 
 On December 22, 2016, Applicant was re-interviewed about his past-due debts by 
another OPM investigator. Applicant disclosed that he was making some debt payments 
but that he had been unable to make consistent payments on other accounts due to lack of 
income and because he owed $5,000 in federal income taxes and $1,800 in state income 
taxes for tax year 2015. Applicant estimated his net household monthly income at $3,950 
($750 of which was spousal income), monthly expenses at $3,680, and debt payments at 
$207, which included $67 per month to the IRS. He had about $3,000 in a 401(k) account. 
Applicant indicated that the student loan co-signed for his spouse was in deferment. (GE 
2.)  
 
 Available credit information (GEs 4-5) and payment records (AEs A-K) show the 
following account history with respect to the debts in the SOR: 
 
$8,849 collection debt (SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.k) 
 
 Applicant opened a revolving charge account in June 2005. He made no payments 
on the account after January 2011. In October 2011, his account was $1,272 past due and 
placed for collection with a balance of $5,463. In May 2012, the collection entity obtained a 
$6,099 judgment ($5,463 principal balance plus interest) against him. Applicant made 
sporadic payments of $50 in April 2012; $100 in January 2013; $40 in August 2016, 
September 2016, and October 2016; and $20 in November 2016, December 2016, and 
May 2017. As of October 2017, the judgment balance was $9,805 with accrued interest. 
(AEs A-B; Tr. 57-58.) 
 
$8,476 charged-off debt (SOR ¶ 1.b) 
 
 Applicant opened a revolving charge account in February 2006. He made no 
payments on the account after February 2011. As of October 2015, he owed a collection 
balance of $8,476. Applicant has made no payments toward the charged-off debt. The 
creditor is willing to settle for approximately $5,000-$5,500 payable in a lump-sum, but 
Applicant states that he cannot afford it. (Tr. 59-60.) 
 
$4,719 charged-off debt (SOR ¶ 1.c) 
 
 Applicant opened a revolving charge account in June 2003. His account was 
charged off for $8,519 in January 2012. In December 2012, Applicant began paying $50 a 
month toward a balance then at $8,591. He made timely payments by automatic deduction 
from his bank account to reduce the debt to $4,219 as of mid-November 2017. (AE C; Tr. 
61.) 
 
$3,982 collection debt (SOR ¶ 1.d) 
 
 Applicant opened a revolving charge account in November 2004. He made no 
payments on the account after February 2011, and his account was placed for collection in 
October 2012. As of November 2012, his account was past due for $3,796 on a balance of 
$4,280. Applicant began making $20 monthly payments to a collection entity to reduce the 
5 
 
balance to $4,002 as of December 2016. The $20 monthly payments continued by 
automatic deduction from his bank account to at least November 2017. (AEs A, D; Tr. 61.) 
$3,486 collection debt (SOR ¶ 1.e)  
 
 Applicant co-signed on a $3,481 student loan for his spouse’s education in October 
2010. In January 2015, the account was charged off and placed for collection for $3,486. In 
late October 2017, Applicant was notified that this debt had been purchased by a collection 
entity, who offered to settle the debt for a lump-sum payment of $1,568, or three payments 
of $639 over three months, or eight payments of $283 over eight months. The offer was 
valid for 30 days. Applicant had made no payments as of December 2017. He testified that 
he does not have the means to do so. (AEs A, E; Tr. 62.) 
 
$3,116 charged-off debt (SOR ¶ 1.f) 
 
 Applicant and his spouse obtained an installment loan of $6,447 in April 2011 to 
consolidate debt. Applicant made timely payments of $160 per month through September 
2014. In January 2015, their account was charged off for $3,146. As of September 2015, 
the creditor was reporting a past-due balance of $3,116. In mid-October 2017, a collection 
entity notified Applicant’s spouse that the creditor was willing to settle for $1,246 or for 
three payments of $675. Neither Applicant nor his spouse made any payments toward the 
$3,116 balance. According to Applicant, they lack the funds to settle the account. (AEs A, 
F; Tr. 63.) 
 
$2,599 charged-off debt (SOR ¶ 1.g) 
 
 Applicant opened a revolving charge account in July 2006 that he used for 
household expenses. In December 2010, the creditor charged off his account for $2,599. 
As of October 2015, the creditor was reporting an outstanding balance of $2,899. Applicant 
made no payments as of December 2017. (AE A; Tr. 63.) 
 
$2,420 collection debt (SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.j) 
 
 Applicant opened a revolving charge account in August 2004. He made no 
payments after May 2011, and his account was sold. In December 2013, the collection 
entity in SOR ¶ 1.h acquired a debt balance of $2,890. In March 2015, the collection entity 
obtained a judgment of $2,880 against Applicant. Applicant paid $200 in late July 2015, 
and then nothing until January 2016. He made $50 monthly payments from January 2016 
through May 2016, and $20 payments in July 2016, August 2016, December 2016, and 
May 2017. As of October 2017, the balance was $2,350. (AEs A, H; Tr. 64-66.) 
 
$147 medical debt (SOR ¶ 1.i) 
 
 A $147 dental debt from August 2014 was placed for collection in June 2015. In 
March 2017, the creditor, through a collection entity, offered to settle the debt for $125. As 
of December 2017, Applicant had made no payments. (AE G; Tr. 66-67.) 
  
6 
 
  Regarding the $4,600 credit-card delinquency listed on his SF 86 but not alleged in 
the SOR, Applicant paid $30 per month starting in August 2016 toward a $4,278 balance. 
As of October 2017, the debt balance was $3,858. (AE K.) 
 
 Applicant and his spouse’s adjusted gross income was $81,337 in 2015. They 
underpaid their federal and state income taxes because of insufficient withholdings. After 
payments to the IRS of $70 in May 2017, $73 in August 2017, and $30 in October 2017, 
they owe federal income taxes of $5,152 for tax year 2015. In early May 2017, Applicant 
and his spouse entered into an installment agreement to pay $20 a month toward their 
state tax liability of $2,082. While they continued to make their installment payments, their 
tax debt has accrued to $2,133 as of November 2017 because of penalties and interest. 
(AEs A, I-J; Tr. 69-71.) 
 
 Applicant received pay raises at work between 1999 and 2007. His base pay is 
$38,000 annually, but he has averaged about $50,000 since 2007 because of overtime 
earnings. By May 2017, Applicant’s spouse had reduced her hours at the grocery store to 
eight to 16 hours a week. She is trying to establish her own business in web and graphic 
design. It has been a source of contention in their relationship because she has yet to earn 
any income. (Answer; Tr. 41-42, 48-53, 56, 59.) 
 
 Applicant is willing to repay his debts, but he asserts that he cannot afford to make 
any additional payments beyond his current payments. He is trying to avoid filing for 
bankruptcy because of his security clearance, and he wants to pay his debts. He and his 
spouse are currently living from paycheck to paycheck. He inquired about a debt 
management program several years ago but some of his creditors were unwilling. (Tr. 59, 
72, 75-77.) 
 
 Applicant and his spouse rent a four-bedroom house at $1,600 a month. Food for 
his household costs approximately $700 a month. He pays $500 a month for cable 
(television and Internet) and cell phone service (four phones). Electricity and natural gas 
bills average $170 a month. (Tr. 77-78.) As of December 2017, Applicant’s stepdaughters 
were still living in his home. The younger stepdaughter was just finishing high school. The 
older stepdaughter works at a restaurant. She contributes $300 per month to the 
household bills. (Tr. 53-54, 79.) 
 
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, 
7 
 
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. According to AG ¶ 2(a), the entire process is a conscientious 
scrutiny 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. 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. 
 
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 and endures throughout off-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 
that 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. Section 7 of EO 10865 
provides that decisions shall be “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). 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F: Financial Considerations 
 
 The security concerns about financial considerations are articulated in AG ¶ 18: 
 
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 personnel 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. Affluence that cannot be explained by 
8 
 
known sources of income is also a security concern insofar as it may result 
from criminal activity, including espionage. 
 
 An applicant is not required to be debt free, but is required to manage his finances 
in a way as to exhibit sound judgment and responsibility. The concern under Guideline F is 
broader than the possibility that an individual might knowingly compromise classified 
information in order to raise money to address debts. It encompasses concerns about an 
individual’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified 
information. 
 
 Guideline F security concerns are established by the two financial judgments, the 
credit-card debts charged off or in collection, and the medical collection debt on Applicant’s 
credit record. The SOR alleges that Applicant owed $46,057 in delinquent debt as of April 
2017. The evidence establishes that Applicant defaulted on approximately $32,000 in 
individual debt and about $6,602 in debt co-signed or held jointly with his spouse. 
Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a), “inability to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of 
not meeting financial obligations,” apply. 
 
 Applicant also incurred federal and state income tax liabilities totaling $7,234 for tax 
year 2015 and a credit card delinquency of approximately $4,600 that was not alleged but 
was disclosed by Applicant on his SF 86 or during his interviews. The tax debts and this 
additional credit card delinquency cannot be grounds for disqualification because they are 
not alleged, but they are relevant in assessing the applicability of a mitigating condition, 
evidence in reform, and Applicant’s security clearance eligibility under the whole-person 
concept. 
 
 Applicant has the burden of establishing one or more of the following potentially 
mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20: 
 
(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; 
 
(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; 
 
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay 
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and 
9 
 
 
(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. 
 
  AG ¶ 20(a) has limited applicability. The debts were not incurred recently, but 
Applicant’s financial issues are considered ongoing because there has been no progress at 
resolving some of the delinquencies (SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, and 1.i). On the evidence 
before me, it cannot reasonably be concluded that the lack of household income that 
caused the financial strain is a circumstance unlikely to recur, given his spouse’s decision 
to start her own business that has yet to realize any income. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(b) applies in that Applicant’s financial struggles started when his spouse 
was laid off in 2011. Applicant, who admits that he had relied heavily on consumer credit 
debt when his spouse was fully employed, counted on her income of $28,000 to $30,000 
annually to meet their household expenses. Applicant worked overtime in his defense 
contractor job and on the weekends at a bagel shop while his spouse pursued online 
classes in web development and worked at a high school over the next few years. After his 
spouse earned her bachelor’s degree in June 2014, she had no success finding 
employment in her field. Whether due to lack of job openings or some other cause not 
apparent in the record, Applicant did not have control over whether she received a job 
offer. His spouse began working full time for a grocery store in 2015, but by May 2017, she 
had reduced her hours to only or two days a week. With less income from his spouse, 
Applicant has been unable to comply with the repayment arrangements for the judgment 
debts and his federal taxes. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(b) requires, for full mitigation, that an individual act responsibly under the 
circumstances, and, in that regard, the evidence is mixed. Applicant has worked long hours 
so that he could make some payments toward his delinquent debts. On the other hand, 
when his spouse was working full time in 2015, their adjusted gross income was $81,337. 
They underpaid their income taxes for that year, so they had more take-home pay. 
Applicant presented no evidence of any debt payments in 2015 apart from a $200 payment 
in July 2015 on the $2,880 judgment (SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.j, same debt) and $50 monthly on 
the debt in SOR ¶ 1.c. He apparently made $30 monthly payments on the $4,600 credit-
card delinquency that was not alleged, although he provided payment records only from 
August 2016 through October 2017. He made no payments on several delinquencies in 
2015, including the $6,099 judgment (SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.k, same debt). Although his 
financial situation has been compromised further by his spouse’s recent reduction in her 
work hours, he pays about $500 a month in combined cable, Internet, and cell phone 
costs, which is difficult to justify when a dentist is not being paid a debt of only $147. 
 
 AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) are partially established by Applicant’s consistent repayment 
of the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.c and 1.d through automatic deduction. Applicant made $50 
monthly payments since December 2012 to reduce the credit-card delinquency in SOR ¶ 
1.c by more than $3,000 to $4,219. He made $20 monthly payments since August 2016 to 
10 
 
reduce the balance of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.d from $4,280 to $4,002. Those payments are 
likely to continue. Favorable findings warrant as to those debts, even though they have not 
been fully resolved. Applicant is also credited under AG ¶ 20(d) with having paid $530 
toward the $2,880 judgment (SOR ¶¶ 1.h and 1.j, same debt), but his payments have been 
sporadic. Similarly, since the $6,099 judgment was issued in May 2012, Applicant has 
made only seven payments totaling $280. Due to interest, the balance of the judgment had 
accrued to $9,804 as of May 2017. Applicant has made no payments since then. There is 
no clear indication that the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.a (same debt in SOR ¶ 1.k), 1.b, 1.e-1.h, and 
1.i will be resolved in the near future. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(e) applies only in that the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.k and 1.j were not established 
to be additional debts. The judgment in SOR ¶ 1.k was obtained to collect the debt in SOR 
¶ 1.a. Likewise, the judgment in SOR ¶ 1.j is for the debt in SOR ¶ 1.h. Favorable findings 
are warranted on the duplicate allegations. 
 
 The security clearance adjudication is not aimed at collecting an applicant’s 
personal debts. See ISCR Case No. 09-02160 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010). In evaluating 
Guideline F cases, the Appeal Board has held that an applicant is not required, as a matter 
of law, to establish that he has paid off the debts in the SOR. He is required to demonstrate 
that he has an established plan to resolve his financial problems and that he has taken 
significant actions to implement that plan. See ISCR 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 
2008). Applicant has repayment arrangements with four of the SOR creditors, but has been 
compliant with repayment on only two of them because he cannot afford to make the 
payments. He is credited with being compliant with repayment terms for a collection 
account not alleged in the SOR. He has no repayment plans established for the past-due 
balances in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, and 1.i. As of December 2017, he owed 
approximately $38,500 on the debts in the SOR, $3,858 on the credit-card collection debt 
not alleged in the SOR, and $7,285 in federal and state income taxes for 2015. With 
Applicant currently living from paycheck to paycheck, his financial issues are likely to 
persist unless there is a significant increase in household income or an unforeseen 
financial windfall. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
In the whole-person evaluation, 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).2 Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under 
Guideline F, but some warrant additional comment. 
                                                 
2 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.  
11 
 
 
 Applicant is credited with taking steps to resolve some of his delinquent debts before 
the SOR was issued. He has made monthly payments for the past five years toward one 
credit-card delinquency, which show a willingness to repay his debts. He wants to take 
responsibility for repaying his debts rather than seek a bankruptcy discharge. His candor 
about his financial problems weighs in his favor. He knows what he owes and who his 
creditors are. Although he presented no work or character reference information, his 
consistent employment at the same facility since 1999 tends to indicate that his work has 
met his employer’s expectations. 
 
 A security clearance determination is not an assessment that an applicant is 
disloyal. Rather, it involves an evaluation of an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and 
trustworthiness in light of the security guidelines in the Directive. See ISCR Case No. 09-
02160 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010). It is well settled that once a concern arises regarding an 
applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or 
renewal of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 
1990). The extent and duration of Applicant’s delinquencies continues to raise financial 
considerations security concerns. For the reasons discussed, I am unable to conclude that 
it is clearly consistent with the national interest to continue security clearance eligibility for 
him at this time. 
 
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:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.b:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraphs 1.c-1.d:  For Applicant 
Subparagraphs 1.e-1.i:  Against Applicant 
Subparagraphs 1.j-1.k:  For Applicant 
   
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances, it is not clearly consistent with the national 
interest to continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to 
classified information is denied. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge