1 
 
                                                              
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 18-00961 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Tara Karoian, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
GLENDON, John Bayard, Administrative Judge: 
 
This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines F (Financial 
Considerations) and E (Personal Conduct). Eligibility for access to classified information 
is granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On April 6, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DOD CAF) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns 
under Guideline F. The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 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 (AG) 
promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative 
Guidelines (December 10, 2016), for all adjudicative decisions on or after June 8, 2017. 
 
 Applicant answered the SOR on April 21, 2018, and elected to have a hearing 
before an administrative judge. The case was reassigned to me on June 15, 2018. On 
June 21, 2018, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of 
 
2 
 
Hearing, scheduling the hearing on August 6, 2018. I convened the hearing as scheduled. 
Department Counsel offered four documents into evidence, which I marked as 
Government Exhibits (GE) 1-4. These exhibits were admitted into evidence without 
objection. Applicant testified but offered no documents. DOHA received the transcript on 
August 23, 2018 (Tr.). 
 
Findings of Fact1 
 
 In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, she admitted all of the allegations under 
Guidelines F and provided additional explanations. She denied the allegations under 
Guideline E. Her admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact.  
 
 Applicant is 25 years old. She has never married and has no children. In December 
2014, she graduated from college with a bachelor’s degree. Applicant attended a private 
university and paid for her education and living expenses with financial aid and income 
from working part-time jobs. She has not served in the military.  
 
 After graduating, Applicant worked part-time at two restaurants as a hostess and 
had one position for a year working in a full-time position. In May 2017, Applicant 
submitted an application for a security clearance (SCA) required for a new job with a 
federal contractor. She began working in April 2018 after receiving an interim clearance. 
She considers this to be her first job since graduating from college. Her interim clearance 
was subsequently withdrawn due to the issuance of the April 6, 2018 SOR. Since then, 
she has been on unpaid leave status with her employer. At the time of the hearing, she 
had not received a paycheck from her new employer for about a month. At that point, she 
was working part-time as a restaurant server. She earned about $1,200 to $1,500 per 
month and was struggling financially. (Tr. 6, 24, and 38.) 
 
 Due to her age and other circumstances, Applicant’s finances were intertwined 
with her mother’s and her grandmother’s. Applicant’s mother and grandmother lived 
together in another state and shared living expenses. Her grandmother passed away in 
May 2018. Her mother has been trying to cover her own expenses, as well as the 
grandmother’s, without the grandmother’s help. This has been an additional strain on the 
family’s finances. (Tr. 24, 33, and 35.) 
 
 SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.c: mother’s charged-off loan deficiency following a car 
repossession and an unpaid rent collection account in the amounts of $20,231 and 
$5,423, respectively. When Applicant was a college student, she cosigned with her 
mother on two large financial obligations to help her mother. Applicant had better credit 
and her mother needed a car and a place to live with Applicant’s grandmother and sister. 
In March 2013, when Applicant was 20 years old and a junior in college, she cosigned 
with her mother for a car loan in the amount of about $20,000. Because Applicant had a 
                                                          
 
1 Applicant’s personal information is extracted from her security clearance application (GE 1) unless 
otherwise indicated by a parenthetical citation to the record. 
 
3 
 
better credit history, she was the main credit applicant. She never drove the car. 
Applicant’s mother had been employed at the time at a bank for more than ten years. In 
August or September 2013, her mother lost her job suddenly and was forced to return the 
car to the dealer. Unknown to Applicant, a deficiency of about $20,000 resulted from the 
repossession, and the debt belonged to her. She first learned about this debt at her 
August 2017 background interview. (Tr. 18, 20.) 
 
 Applicant and her grandmother also cosigned a lease for Applicant’s mother, 
grandmother, and sister at about the same time. Applicant was living on campus, and her 
family needed her help to secure housing. Her mother was then homeless, though she 
was employed. (Response to SOR at 3.). According to the government’s credit report, the 
first delinquency on this lease occurred in July 2013, which was the same time frame as 
the auto repossession. Applicant’s family voluntarily vacated the apartment and moved 
to another state because Applicant’s mother was unable to find new employment in the 
area where she lived. As a cosigner, the collection account for $5,423 became Applicant’s 
debt. Again, she first learned about this debt during her background interview in August 
2017. (Tr. 32.) 
  
 SOR ¶ 1.b: auto loan collection account with a balance of $8,717. Applicant 
took out an auto loan in February 2014 to purchase a 2005 BMW. She was then 21 years 
old. She paid $2,000 in cash and borrowed $15,000. In May 2015, she suffered a hit-and-
run accident with a tractor trailer, and her car was a total loss. Her insurance company 
paid the lender, and Applicant understood that paid off the balance on the loan. She 
believes the account should have been closed. It appears that unless there is an error on 
the credit report, the insurance company’s payment on the claim was insufficient to pay 
off the loan. She never received a notice that she had any further financial obligations on 
this loan. As far as she is concerned, the matter has been paid off. (Tr. 26-27, 29.) In her 
background interview, Applicant acknowledged that her insurance company paid the 
lender $5,000, which was the fair market value of the car at that time. (GE 2 at 10.) 
Applicant was under insured, possibly due to her lack of experience or the lack of finances 
to pay for additional insurance or both. She intends to make the necessary payment 
arrangements, though she does not have the financial resources available to resolve this 
debt at this time. (Response to SOR at 3.)  
 
 SOR ¶ 1.d: credit card account charged off for $548. When she was a 19-year-
old college student, Applicant opened a credit card account with her university’s credit 
union. This is the only credit card she has ever had. She defaulted on paying this account 
shortly after she graduated from college. (GE at 2.) She was 22 years old at the time. At 
the hearing, she admitted she was not responsible financially as a student. She stopped 
using the card once she “maxed it out” at around $500. (Tr. 33.) As a result, she forgot 
about the card. At her background investigation, she was reminded of this debt and is 
committed to paying it off. She made an initial payment of $230 and planned to pay it off 
in July 2018. Before she could make the second payment, she lost her interim clearance 
and her employer put her on unpaid leave status. Without that paycheck, she has been 
unable to pay the balance of this debt. She intends to pay this debt when she has the 
funds. (Tr. 33-34.)  
 
4 
 
 
 SOR ¶ 2.a: falsification allegation under Guideline E Applicant denies that she 
intentionally failed to disclose the above four delinquent debts in her SCA. She testified 
that she applied for housing on several occasions and has never had a negative credit 
problem. She credibly stated that she first learned about the debts in her background 
interview. 
 
Policies 
 
 “[N]o 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 applicants 
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 § 2.  
 
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, an administrative judge 
applies these guidelines 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 and 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 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. 
 
Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in 
no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 
§ 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant 
has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense 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 
 
5 
 
listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 
(App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). 
 
 Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial 
evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the 
facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, 
and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-
31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). 
 
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). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if 
they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F (Financial Considerations) 
 
The security concern under this guideline is set out 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. . . . An individual who is financially 
overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise 
questionable acts to generate funds. . . .  
 
 This concern is broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly 
compromise classified information to raise money. It encompasses concerns about a 
person’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified 
information. A person who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, 
unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. See ISCR 
Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012). 
 
 Applicant’s admissions, testimony, and the documentary evidence establish the 
following potentially disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability to 
satisfy debts”); AG ¶ 19(b) (“unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do 
so”); 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; and 
 
6 
 
 
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(a) is established. Applicant’s four debts arose during the 2013-2015 
period when she was a college student or a recent graduate. They are relatively infrequent 
and arose under circumstances that are unlikely to recur. When she learned about the 
debts during her August 2017 background interview, she was not in a financial position 
to address them. As a recent college graduate, she has had no significant period of 
employment that would allow her to develop any savings or a retirement account from 
which she could borrow funds. Because of her weak financial circumstances, Applicant 
does not have the resources to address her debts. Her circumstances do not, however, 
cast doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness or good judgment. She was about 20 
years old when she assumed the financial obligations for the benefit of her mother. At 
that point, she had no reason to understand that she might someday be liable for an 
unpaid car loan or unpaid rent. The typical mitigation analysis in similar cases focuses on 
an applicant progress in making payments on his or her debts. This case is different 
because the circumstances under which Applicant’s debts arose do not raise questions 
about her reliability, trustworthiness or judgment. The fact that the debts remain unpaid 
are simply the result of her lack of resources and income to pay them. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(b) is partially established. The bulk of Applicant’s indebtedness arises 
from her family’s use of her relatively positive credit history as a 20-year-old college 
student to permit her mother to buy a car and for her mother, grandmother and sister to 
qualify for housing. Her mother then became unemployed for an extended period, 
resulting in about $26,000 of delinquent debts on Applicant’s credit history. These were 
circumstances beyond Applicant’s control. Her deficiency on her car loan following an 
automobile accident is also a circumstance beyond her control. Her small credit card debt 
when she was a college student is the result of her young age and lack of financial 
experience and sophistication. Upon learning about her four debts, Applicant’s limited 
responses cannot be characterized as responsible, but her responses are the result of 
her very tight financial circumstances, which are attributable to her age and the recent 
loss of her regular paycheck. 
 
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) 
 
 The security concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 15: 
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or 
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions 
about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect 
classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to 
 
7 
 
cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security 
investigative or adjudicative processes. 
 The following disqualifying condition under this guideline is potentially 
relevant: 
AG ¶16(a): deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant 
facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, 
or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment 
qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility 
or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities. 
 
 Applicant’s admissions, testimony and the documentary evidence do not establish 
the above disqualifying condition. Applicant credibly testified that she had no knowledge 
of her obligations on the debts that arose from her mother’s car repossession and unpaid 
rent until she was advised about these debts in her background interview. With respect 
to her car loan deficiency, she credibly testified that she was advised that her insurance 
company’s payment to the lender for her car paid off the balance of her loan. Her 
misunderstanding of the situation and her obligation for the deficiency is likely the result 
of a simple miscommunication or perhaps Applicant’s inexperience at age 23 with such 
matters. In any event, she was never notified that she owed the lender for the deficiency. 
The same is true with respect to her university credit card debt. She was never reminded 
of her obligation and had forgotten about this debt, since she had not used the card in 
years. In sum, the record evidence does not support a conclusion that the government 
has met its burden of proof by substantial evidence that Applicant’s omission of these four 
debts in her SCA was intentional. 
  
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a 
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. In applying the whole-
person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a 
security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant 
circumstances and applying the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d).2  
 
 I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines F and E in my whole-person 
analysis and applied the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d). Some of the factors in AG ¶ 
2(d) were addressed above, but other factors warrant additional comment. I have 
                                                          
2 The factors are: (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.  
 
 
8 
 
considered Applicant’s age and lack of experience in financial matters when she took on 
the financial obligations that are now delinquent. Her involvement in her mother’s 
obligations were more a matter of family concerns than it was of her knowledgeable 
participation. Due to her age when she assumed these financial obligations, she had no 
reason to understand the seriousness of the commitments she was undertaking. The 
motivation for her actions was to assist her family members, not to enrich herself. Based 
upon her experiences and the repercussions she has recently suffered, the likelihood that 
Applicant will again find herself indebted under similar circumstances, or any 
circumstances, is remote. 
 
 After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guidelines F and 
E, and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant 
has mitigated the security concerns raised by her past actions. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: 
 
 Paragraph 1. Guideline F:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a-1.d:  For Applicant 
 
 Paragraph 2: Guideline E:   For Applicant 
 
  Subparagraph 2.a:   For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 It is clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to 
grant Applicant access to classified information. Eligibility granted. 
 
 
 
 
John Bayard Glendon 
Administrative Judge