1 
 
 
 
               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
   )    ISCR Case No. 18-01223 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Brittney Meutzel, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
 
 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
Curry, Marc E., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concern. Clearance is 
granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 On May 8, 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 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 June 11, 2018, Applicant answered the SOR allegations, admitting all of the 
allegations except 1.i, and requested a decision based on the written record rather than a 
hearing. On June 27, 2018, Department Counsel prepared a file of relevant material 
 
2 
 
(FORM). Applicant submitted a response on August 7, 2018. The case was assigned to me 
on October 1, 2018.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
  Applicant is a 38-year-old woman. Her marriage, beginning in 2003, ended in 
divorce in 2012. She has a high school diploma and has earned some college credits. 
(Item 3 at 13-14) Since 2015, she has been working for a defense contractor as a senior 
administrative assistant. (Item 3 at 14) 
 
 Applicant incurred 12 delinquent debts totaling approximately $52,391, as alleged in 
the SOR. Approximately $49,000 of the debts constitute student loan accounts 
(subparagraphs 1.c – 1.h, and 1.k – 1.l).  
 
 In December 2017, Applicant contacted the student loan creditor of the debts 
alleged in subparagraphs 1.c through 1.h, and negotiated an agreement consolidating the 
debts into one account. Per the agreement, she has been paying $219 monthly since 
January 2018. (Response at 8) As of June 2018, the balance was $35,294. In February 
2012, Applicant contacted the creditor of the student loans alleged in subparagraphs 1.k 
and 1.l, and developed a rehabilitation loan that consolidated the debts into one account. 
Under the new agreement, she has been paying five dollars per month since February 
2018. (Response at 10-14). Neither of the student loan accounts are in delinquent status. 
 
 As for the consumer debts, Applicant has satisfied subparagraph 1.i, totaling 
$1,427, in its entirety, and is paying the debt alleged in subparagraph 1.b, totaling $408, 
through a payment plan. (Response at 3, 9) She has contacted the creditors alleged in 
subparagraphs 1.a and 1.j, respectively, and is in the process of arranging settlement 
agreements. (Response at 2) The debts alleged in subparagraphs 1.a and 1.j total 
approximately $800.  
  
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. 
3 
 
 
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.” There is nothing on file that addresses whether Applicant’s debts were caused 
by circumstances beyond her control. 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,” does not apply. 
  
                                                 
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 
 
 Nevertheless, Applicant has either satisfied or is making payments toward the 
satisfaction of all of her debts except two that total less than $900. Given the small amount 
of these debts compared to the debts that Applicant has either satisfied or gotten out of 
delinquent status, I find her assertion that she is attempting to resolve them credible. AG ¶ 
20(c) “. . . 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,” apply. Applicant has mitigated the financial 
considerations security concern. 
 
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:    FOR APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.l:     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