1 
 
 
 
               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
   )    ISCR Case No. 17-04121 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Michelle Tilford, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
Curry, Marc E., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant fell behind on her debts after underestimating the financial impact of 
switching to a lesser-paying job. Having adjusted to the new job’s reduced pay, her 
finances are stable, as she has satisfied her delinquent commercial debts, and has 
become current on her student loan payments. I conclude she has mitigated the security 
concern. Clearance is granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On January 3, 2018, 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. 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 Security Executive Agent Directive 4, effective June 8, 2017. 
 
 
2 
 
On February 3, 2018, Applicant answered the SOR, denying all of the allegations 
and requesting a hearing, whereupon the case was assigned to me on June 13, 2018. On 
June 22, 2018, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a notice of hearing, 
scheduling Applicant’s case for July 25, 2018. The hearing was held as scheduled. I 
received four Government exhibits (GE 1 – GE 4) and 20 Applicant exhibits (AE A - AE T). 
I also took administrative notice of the discovery letter that Department Counsel mailed to 
Applicant (Hearing Exhibit I). The transcript (Tr.) was received on August 2, 2018. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is a 55-year-old single woman with three adult children. Two previous 
marriages ended in divorce. After graduating from high school, Applicant joined the U.S. 
Army where she served from 1981 to 1983. In 1986, she joined the U.S. Navy and served 
through her retirement in 2009. She graduated from college in 2008, earning a degree in 
criminal justice. In 2018, she earned a master’s degree in forensic science. She is currently 
seeking a doctorate. (Tr. 23-24) Since April 2016, Applicant has been working for a 
defense contractor as a contract administrator. Her duties include cost analysis. (Tr. 25) 
 
 Shortly after retiring from the military, Applicant took a job with a government 
contractor, working in a combat zone. The job was dangerous, but lucrative, as her salary 
ranged between $150,000 and $200,000 per year over the five years she worked there. 
(Tr. 56)  Her salary enabled her to finance the purchase of a $452,000 home in 2011, and 
to help her adult children financially. (Tr. 39)  Applicant incurred extensive debt, but was 
managing it. 
 
 In April 2015, Applicant tired of the extremely stressful nature of her job in the 
combat zone, and resigned. She took another overseas job with less stress, but with a 
lower salary. (Tr. 32) Shortly after she took the new job, she realized that the salary was 
even lower than she anticipated. Specifically, because of a mutual misunderstanding of the 
contract terms, Applicant was only to be paid $3,000 per month, rather than $6,000 per 
month, as she anticipated. (Tr. 34) She quit the job in May 2015, and was subsequently 
unemployed. (Tr. 35) 
 
 Having incurred multiple debts helping her children, financing the purchase of an 
expensive home, and paying for her education, Applicant was now financially 
overextended. Consequently, five debts, totaling approximately $13,000 became 
delinquent, consisting of three student loan accounts (subparagraphs 1.a – 1.c), and  two 
commercial debts (subparagraphs 1.d – 1.e).  
 
 In June 2015, Applicant obtained another job. This one paid a salary of $72,000 
annually. Though significantly less than what she had been earning previously, it was twice 
as high as the job she had quit a month earlier.  
 
 Applicant’s current job, which began in April 2016, pays her a salary of $91,000 
annually. Although she was still making substantially less than she did on the job in the 
combat zone, it was enough for her to get her delinquent debts under control. In January 
3 
 
2017, she began making payments towards the satisfaction of the $2,453 debt alleged in 
subparagraph 1.d. By January 2018, she had satisfied it. (Answer at 1, 19-26) In January 
2017, Applicant began satisfying her student loan accounts, with monthly $100 payments. 
(Answer at 2) She has made these payments consistently since then, and they are no 
longer in delinquent status. (AE P) 
 
 Applicant’s daughter incurred the phone bill, alleged in subparagraph 1.e, opening 
the account in Applicant’s name, when Applicant was working abroad. Her daughter 
satisfied it. (Answer at 28) 
 
 After Applicant began having trouble getting her finances under control in 2015, she 
sought the help of her brother, an accountant, to provide counseling and to help her with a 
budget. (Tr. 56) She now has $2,500 in monthly discretionary income, $2,000 in a savings 
account. (Tr. 59), and approximately $80,000 of equity in her home. 
 
 Applicant is highly respected on the job. Her boss gives her “the highest level of 
recommendation.” (Tr. 65) A previous supervisor characterizes her as “very respectful of 
privacy, classified information, rules, and restrictions.” (AE D)  
 
 Applicant’s military career was stellar. She earned six commendation medals and 
two Navy Marine Corps Achievement Medals. (AE N) A former commander noted the 
following: 
 
I have commanded thousands of our country’s finest young men and women 
and . . . without a doubt, [Applicant] stands at the forefront of all of them.(AE 
E) 
 
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. According to AG ¶ 2(c), 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. 
 
4 
 
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 Executive 
Order 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). 
 
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 
                                                 
1 The factors under AG ¶ 2(a) 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. 
 
5 
 
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to 
protect classified or sensitive information.  
 
 Applicant’s remaining financial problems trigger the application of AG ¶ 19(a), 
“inability to satisfy debt,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations.” 
The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: 
 
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; 
 
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; and 
 
AG ¶ 20(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to 
repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
 Although Applicant’s decision to quit her lucrative job for a lesser-paying one was 
reasonable, the ensuing financial problems she experienced cannot be attributed to 
circumstances beyond her control. Nevertheless, with help from an accountant, Applicant 
developed a budget to correspond to her reduced salary, satisfied both her commercial 
debts, and caught up on her delinquent student loan payments. AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(c) and 
20(d) apply. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Although the surrounding circumstances of Applicant’s financial problems were not 
beyond her control, they still are somewhat mitigating because of their unusual nature. 
Quite simply, after years of serving the country through a government contractor in a 
dangerous combat zone, Applicant was emotionally exhausted, and was willing to sacrifice 
some short-term financial stability in exchange for a lower-paying job that provided her with 
more peace of mind. Having either satisfied her debts or brought them into current status, 
she has no financial problems. Her current financial stability, together with her outstanding 
character, as evident from her sterling character references, lead me to conclude that she 
has mitigated the security concerns. 
 
 
6 
 
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 
 
Subparagraph 1.a – 1.e:   For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record 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. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Marc E. Curry 
 Administrative Judge