1
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: )
)
,1 )      
) ISCR Case No. 17-00729 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Adrienne Driskill, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
HEINY, Claude R., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant contests the Department of Defense’s (DoD) intent to deny her eligibility 
for a security clearance to work in the defense industry. Applicant had two delinquent 
student loans, a garnishment, and 26 other delinquent obligations, which totaled in excess 
of $83,000 in delinquent financial obligations. Her student loan debt was paid through 
garnishment. After the garnishment of her wages stopped, she has documented she 
made three payments on her daughter’s tuition of approximately $3,300 and an additional 
five payments totaling approximately $300. Applicant did not make sufficient documented 
progress toward resolving the debts alleged in the SOR. Financial considerations security 
concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
1 Applicant’s last name has been legally changed since the SOR was issued. Her new last name is reflected 
in the caption.  
12/21/2018
 
2 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
 Acting under the relevant Executive Order and DoD Directive,2 on April 14, 2017, 
the DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing financial considerations security 
concerns. On May 1, 2017, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing before 
an administrative judge. On February 8, 2018, DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing 
scheduling a hearing that was conducted on March 1, 2018. 
 
 At the hearing, Department Counsel offered Government Exhibits (Ex.) 1 through 
4, which were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant offered exhibits A 
through F, which were also admitted without objection. In February 2018 and August 
2018, she submitted additional documents, which were admitted as Ex. G through Ex. N. 
Applicant and her husband testified at the hearing. DOHA received the hearing transcript 
(Tr.) on March 9, 2018. 
 
While this case was pending a decision, the Director of National Intelligence issued 
Security Executive Agent Directive 4, establishing the National Security Adjudicative 
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to 
Hold a Sensitive Position (AGs), which he made applicable to all covered individuals who 
require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold 
a sensitive position. The new AGs supersede the Sept. 1, 2006 AGs and are effective “for 
all covered individuals” on or after June 8, 2017. Accordingly, I have evaluated Applicant’s 
security clearance eligibility under the new AGs.3 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
Applicant denies the allegations in SOR 1.e ($479) and SOR 1.x ($342). She 
admitted, with explanation, the remaining allegations in SOR paragraphs 1.a through 1. 
bb. She was uncertain about the debt in SOR 1.w ($356), asserted she had paid the debts 
in SOR 1.m ($167) and SOR 1.t ($1,222), and had payment plans in place for the debts 
in SOR 1.j ($1497), SOR 1.k ($1,222), SOR 1.u ($697), and SOR 1.v ($647). She 
provided no documentation showing payment on the debts or copies of the repayment 
agreements. After a thorough review of the pleadings and exhibits, I make the following 
findings of fact 
 
Applicant is a 40-year-old systems engineer working for a defense contractor since 
May 2001. (Tr. 18) She seeks to retain a security clearance. Her annual salary is 
approximately $124,000. (Tr. 59) Her duty performance during the more than 17 year of 
                                                          
2 Executive Order 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 (Sept. 1, 2006 AG) effective 
within the DoD on September 1, 2006.  
 
3 Application of the AGs that were in effect as of the issuance of the SOR would not change my decision in 
this case. The new AGs are available at http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/5220-6 R20170608.pdf. 
  
 
3 
working for the defense contractor has been outstanding. Between August 2004 and June 
2017, she received numerous awards at work, which totaled in excess of $4,000. (Ex. E, 
Ex M) Since 2003, her work performance has met or exceeded her employer’s 
expectations. For the last five years, her performance has been rated as exceeded or 
significantly exceeded. (Ex. L) In 2018, Applicant received an award in recognition of her 
accomplishments in science, technology, engineering and mathematics community. (Ex. 
N) She received the outstanding achievement award as a technology raising star. (Ex. N) 
 
In January 2015, Applicant married. Her husband’s annual salary is approximately 
$45,000 and he has worked for a government contractor since 2007. (Tr. 60, 64) He has 
additional jobs: one as a referee, a second as a DJ, and does production work. (Tr. 62, 
64) The net monthly household take-home income is approximately $5,000. (Tr. 55) In 
May 2000, Applicant received her Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering. 
In August 2005, she received her Master of Science degree in system engineering. She 
married in January 2015 and has a 19-year-old, who is a college student, a 7 year old, 
and a 10-year-old stepson. (Tr. 21) Her stepson lives with his mother. 
 
On Applicant’s February 2013 Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations 
Processing (e-QIP) she listed a single medical debt of $919. (Ex. 1) She stated she was 
working with the creditor and would be setting up a monthly payment to resolve the debt. 
Her February 2018 credit report listed six delinquent obligations: SOR 1.b ($11,724), SOR 
1.c ($11,436), SOR 1.d ($8,245), SOR 1.f ($972), SOR 1.g ($297), and SOR 1.j ($497). 
These six obligations total $33,171. She asserted she had a debt payoff plan to address 
24 delinquent obligations listed. The payoff plan would address $40,230 in debt.  
 
The payoff plan was scheduled to start in June 2018, three months following the 
hearing, and anticipated to end in May 2019.The payoff plan estimated she which would 
pay off the debt in SOR 1.j ($497) in September 2018, the debt in SOR 1.g ($528) in 
November 2018, and the debts in SOR 1.b ($12,377), 1.c ($11,437), and 1.d ($8,245) 
would be paid in May 2019. (Ex. K) The plan also includes paying off 12 medical debts 
and seven other debts in additional to the five debts previously listed. (Ex. K) Applicant 
did not provide any documentation showing that payments had been made in accord with 
the plan.  
 
 Applicant experienced financial difficulties while a single mother raising her 
daughter. She was not receiving financial assistance from her daughter’s father. (Tr. 17, 
23) At that time, her student loans (SOR 1.a, $43,000 and SOR 1.bb).had been in 
deferment status since 2010. (Tr. 24) She had paid $200 monthly on her student loans 
until they went into deferment status. (Tr. 25) When her deferment ended she expected 
to receive a letter from the company from which she obtained her student loans. (Tr. 25) 
She did not know the loans had been transferred to another company for collection. (Tr. 
17) She received letters from the company then holding the student loan notes, but did 
not respond to the letters wrongfully assuming the letters were letters of solicitation from 
a company wishing to consolidate her student loan with that company. (SOR Response) 
She did not believe the collection letters came from a company that held her student 
loans. 
 
4 
In June 2014, Applicant’s wages were garnished to collect the funds she owed on 
her student loans. She was unaware of the transfer until her wages were involuntarily 
garnished in the amount of $1,200 monthly. This amount was more than her monthly 
mortgage payments. She was unsuccessful in attempting to have the amount of the 
weekly garnishment lowered. The garnishment was 15 percent of her wages. (Tr. 27) 
While the garnishment was in place, she was unable to address any of her other debt. 
(Tr. 17)  
 
In December 2017, the last amount owed on Applicant student loans was 
garnished from her wages. (Ex. J) Her student loan debt of $43,000 was then completely 
paid by the garnishment. (Tr. 28) Her February 2018 credit report lists a zero balance on 
her state guaranteed student loans and her educational financial accounts. (Ex.4) Her 
October 2015 credit report listed $38,237 in student loans. (Ex. 2) While her wages were 
being garnished, she was unable to address many of her financial obligations. 
 
Applicant had a $12,377 vehicle purchase account (SOR 1.b) charged off. In April 
2016, a hailstorm “totaled” the vehicle. (Tr. 32) Her insurance coverage paid $5,000 on 
the vehicle. She did not have gap insurance resulting in the $12,377 debt. (Tr. 33) She 
was unable to address this debt while the garnishment was in place. Now that the 
garnishment has ended, she has $1,200 monthly to address her other delinquent 
accounts. (Tr. 50) She asserts she intends to start addressing her delinquent debts. She 
provided the payoff plan with payments to start in June 2018.  
 
 Applicant incurred an $11,4374 collection account (SOR 1.c). She is current on 
another loan with the same creditor that has a loan balance of approximately $4,000. 
Once that loan is paid, she asserted she will commence paying this debt. (Tr. 34) She 
had a line of credit that resulted in the bank charging off $8,245 (SOR 1.d). She also had 
a $972 credit card account (SOR 1.f) that was also charged off. (Tr. 37) In her SOR 
Response, she indicated a repayment plan had been established to pay the debt. She 
also stated in her SOR Response that “payment mitigation plans” had been set up with 
the creditors in: SOR 1.h, SOR 1.i, SOR 1, j, SOR 1.k, SOR 1.m. SOR 1.n, SOR 1.o, SOR 
1.t, SOR 1.u, SOR 1.v, SOR 1.w, SOR 1.y, SOR 1.z, and SOR 1.aa. The accounts went 
delinquent in 2009 or 2010, before the garnishment started. (Tr. 37) The accounts when 
delinquent at the time her daughter’s father stopped providing child support.  
 
 In Applicant’s May 2017 SOR Response, she stated the debts in SOR 1.q ($60), 
SOR 1.r ($35), and SOR 1.s ($35) had been paid, but provided no documentation showing 
payment had been made. (SOR Response) In her response, she indicated the following 
delinquent obligations would be paid by December 2017: SOR 1.w ($356), SOR 1.y 
($227), SOR 1.z ($194), and SOR 1.aa ($125). (SOR Response) No documentation was 
received showing payment had been made on these debts. These four medical debts 
appear in her payoff plan showing she intended to pay the debts in June 2018, July 2018, 
and August 2018. (Ex. J) 
 
                                                          
4 The collection account in SOR 1.c was listed as “$11,4377.” Department Counsel moved to amend the 
amount to $11,437. (Tr. 8) There being no objection, the amount was changed. 
 
5 
 In May 2017, when Applicant responded to the SOR, she stated she was unfamiliar 
with the $479 past-due account (SOR 1.e). (Tr. 37) She had a $528 credit card account 
(SOR 1.g) charged off. The credit card was used to purchase school clothes for her 
daughter in 2014. (Tr. 39) Her February 2018 credit report indicates a balance of $297 
showing she has made some payments on the debt. (Ex. 4) She had a $507 collection 
account (SOR 1.h) for a home improvement store. (Tr. 40) It is part of a repayment plan 
she intends to start. (Tr. 41) She plans on starting to pay her smaller debts and allow the 
“snowball effect” to help her address her delinquent accounts. (Tr. 41) 
 
 Applicant owed approximately $2,200 on 12 delinquent medical debts: SOR 1.i 
($499), SOR 1.l ($379), SOR 1.n ($149), 1.o ($144), SOR 1.p ($60), SOR 1.q ($60), SOR 
1.r ($35), SOR 1.s ($1), SOR 1.w ($356), SOR 1.y ($277), SOR 1.z ($194), and SOR 
1.aa ($125). She had health insurance and assumed her insurance company would have 
paid these medical debts for surgery received. (Tr. 42) She asserted that in April 2017, 
she made a repayment plan with one of the creditors and made a payment on the plan. 
(Tr. 41) She has not made any additional payments. She was unfamiliar with these 
medical debts. She was the victim of identity theft and wanted to make sure the debts 
were valid. (Tr. 44) She believes she has paid some of these medical debts. (Tr. 46) 
 
 Applicant learned that her identity had been stolen when she attempted to file her 
taxes one year and was told her tax return had already been filed. (Tr. 51) It took nine 
months to resolve the problem. She has been on a fraud alert with one of the major credit 
reporting agencies. (Tr. 52) When credit inquiries are made, she receives notification of 
the inquiry. She provided no additional information has to how the identity theft has 
affected her finances. In her SOR Response she denied two of the SOR debts and 
admitted, sometimes with explanation, the other 26 SOR delinquent obligations.  
 
Applicant owed a $497 collection balance on a department store account (SOR 
1.j). (Tr. 41) She owed $405 on another credit card collection account (SOR 1.k) in 
collection. She owed $697 on a telephone company collection account (SOR 1.u) and 
$647 on an electrical bill collection debt (SOR 1.v). (Tr. 47) She has included these four 
debts in her repayment plan. (Tr. 42) She disputes a debt with the bottled water company 
(SOR 1.m, $167). (Tr. 43) In December 2017, she asserts the cable television collection 
account (SOR 1.t, $1,222) was paid. (Tr. 47) She disputes a $342 insurance collection 
debt (SOR 1.x, $342) since she never had insurance with the company. (Tr. 48)  
 
At some period of time not set forth in the record, Applicant sought the services of 
a credit correction company who sent letters on her behalf disputing each of the SOR 
debts. (Tr. 49) She employed the credit correction company to assist her in having 
delinquent accounts removed from her credit report. She had 34 negative accounts 
removed5 from her credit report. (Ex. F) There is no indication she made any payment on 
the negative accounts. Her credit score was 602 indicating her credit was “fair.” (Ex. F) 
                                                          
5 The removal of debts supposedly includes the debt in SOR 1.c ($11,436). The credit collection company’s 
information indicates this debt was to be removed in August 2017 and October 2017. However, the debt 
still appears on her February 2018 credit report and appears as a debt to be paid in her payoff plan. (Ex. F, 
Ex. J, and Ex. 4) 
 
6 
Nor did she indicate which, if any, of the removed accounts were listed as SOR delinquent 
obligations. The document from the credit collection company indicates that should she,  
 
fail to pay a credit or charge card bill, bounce a check, or miss payments on 
other credit related bills, the issuer may continue in house collection efforts 
or send you overdue bill to a third pay collection agency, a company that 
will then attempt to obtain payment from you. (Ex. F) 
 
Applicant now monitors her finances to the penny. (Tr. 53) She has approximately 
$128,000 in her 401(k) retirement plan. (Tr. 54) Her husband has approximately $20,000 
in his 401(k) retirement plan. (Tr. 65) She pays $1,100 monthly on her mortgage for the 
house she has lived in since 2003. (Tr. 55) She is current on her monthly car payment 
($500) and truck payment ($700). (Tr. 56) Both vehicle were purchased used. 
 
Applicant’s husband believes they are getting back on track and believes the future 
is “a whole lot brighter.” (Tr. 63) They had a plan to address their debts which was 
interrupted by the garnishment. (Tr. 63) They have read books on financial planning, 
talked with their pastor, and listened to the Dave Ramsey radio show about implementing 
the financial planning techniques set forth in the Financial Peace University. (Tr. 63) They 
now take time to evaluate their situation before making a financial decision. (Tr. 64) In 
August 2017, her mother died and she paid expenses from her death. (Ex. G) 
 
Applicant testified at her hearing that her approach to her finances has changed, 
as follows: 
 
We have been, you know, kind of lackadaisical in our approach to paying 
off previous debts, but now that we are fully aware that it affects my job, that 
we have been aggressively trying to get these [her delinquent debts] to zero. 
(Tr. 73)  
 
Applicant made five payments, which totaled approximately $6,500, for her 
daughter’s tuition. (Ex. H) Three of the payments, which totaled $3,166, occurred after 
the hearing. In addition to paying her daughter’s tuition, she provided documentation that 
she made five payments to creditors that totaled $180. (Ex. I) In May and June 2018, she 
made two payments of $25.37 each to the creditor of the SOR 1.h debt ($507). (Ex. I) In 
May 2018, she made a $19.82 payment to a creditor. In May and June 2018, she made 
two payments of $55 each to a creditor, but failed to indicate to which SOR debt it applied. 
(Ex. I) She stopped making payments to these three creditors when she found out her 
daughter’s tuition would not be fully funded. (Ex. G) 
 
Character Statements 
 
 A co-worker, who has known Applicant for five years and has been Applicant’s 
direct manager for the past three years, states Applicant is dedicated, trustworthy, and 
detail-oriented, and takes great pride in her work. (Ex. A) Applicant is willing to put forth 
extra effort or long hours if required by the job. A co-worker, who has known Applicant for 
 
7 
more than ten years, states Applicant is very diligent. (Ex. B) A manager, who has known 
Applicant for more than five years, states Applicant continuously demonstrates high 
ethical character in executing her responsibilities. (Ex. C) A friend, who has known 
Applicant for more than 21 years, states Applicant is dependable, professional, always 
willing to go the extra mile to accomplish goals, morally upstanding, trustworthy, has an 
excellent work ethic, and who donates her time to the youth department at her church. 
(Ex. D) 
 
 Policies 
 
 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 must 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 overarching 
adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(a), 
the adjudication process is an examination of a sufficient period and a careful weight of a 
number of variables of an individual’s life to make an affirmative determination that the 
individual is an acceptable security risk. This is known as the whole-person concept.  
 
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 
the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. 
Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, 
rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. 
  
 
8 
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 of 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 
 
 Adjudicative Guideline (AG) ¶ 18 articulates the security concerns relating to 
financial problems: 
 
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 acts or other 
questionable acts to generate funds. 
 
Additionally, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be 
irresponsible, unconcerned, negligent, or careless in properly handling and safeguarding 
classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides 
an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life. 
 
A person’s relationship with her creditors is a private matter until evidence is 
uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed upon 
terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant 
with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a position of risk that is 
inconsistent with holding a security clearance. Applicant is not required to be debt free, 
but is required to manage her finances to meet her financial obligations. 
 
AG ¶ 19 includes two disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern 
and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability to satisfy debts;” and “(c) a history of 
not meeting financial obligations.” Security concerns are established under AG ¶¶ 19(a) 
and 19(c) because Applicant had delinquent student loans of approximately $43,000, 
which have now been paid by an involuntary garnishment action. Additionally, Applicant 
had 25 delinquent accounts, which totaled in excess of $40,000. The burden shifted to 
Applicant to produce evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security 
concerns. (Directive ¶ E3.1.15) 
 
 The Appeal Board explained the scope and rationale for the financial 
considerations security concern in ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012) 
(citation omitted) as follows: 
 
 
9 
This concern is broader than the possibility that an applicant might 
knowingly compromise classified information in order to raise money in 
satisfaction of his or her debts. Rather, it requires a Judge to examine the 
totality of an applicant’s financial history and circumstances. The Judge 
must consider pertinent evidence regarding the applicant’s self-control, 
judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting the national secrets as 
well as the vulnerabilities inherent in the circumstances. The Directive 
presumes a nexus between proven conduct under any of the Guidelines 
and an applicant’s security eligibility. 
 
Applicant has the burden of establishing that matters in mitigation apply. One or 
more of the following conditions under AG ¶ 20 may apply: 
 
(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 
 
(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. 
 
Applicant presented some mitigating information. She experienced financial 
difficulties when, as a single mother raising her daughter, she did not receive financial 
assistance from her daughter’s father. Her mother died in August 2017, and she had to 
pay some of the expenses related to her mother’s death. These are factors beyond her 
control. The involuntary garnishment for her student loans prevented her from addressing 
her other financial obligations. However, the garnishment ended in December 2017, she 
presented documentation of only five payments, which totaled $3,346. Three payments 
of $3,166 were made on her daughter’s tuition and $180 in five payments went to SOR 
debts. She stopped making payments to these creditors when she found out her 
daughter’s tuition would not be fully funded. 
 
10 
Applicant has worked for her employer for more than 17 years and her duty 
performance has been outstanding. Her annual salary is approximately $124,000 and her 
husband’s annual salary is approximately $45,000. With a household income of 
$169,000, she has documented payment of only $180 on the SOR delinquent obligations.  
She has presented a debt payoff plan, but has failed to document payment in accord with 
that plan. Intentions to pay debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of 
debt repayment or other responsible approaches. See ISCR Case No. 11-14570 at 3 
(App. Bd. Oct 23, 2013) She has not acted responsibly to address her delinquent SOR 
debts after the involuntary garnishment ended in December 2017. 
 
Applicant admitted she and her husband had been lackadaisical in their approach 
to paying off her debts, but now were fully aware that her job is affected by her delinquent 
obligations. She asserts she now monitors her finances to the penny, has approximately 
$128,000 in her 401(k) retirement plan, and her husband has approximately $20,000 in 
his 401(k) retirement plan. They are current on their mortgaged and vehicle payments. 
She asserts she has been aggressively trying to get these her delinquent debts to zero, 
but documented payments of less than $200 fails to support this assertion.  
 
Some of Applicant’s delinquencies have been removed from her credit report. The 
debts were not removed because they were paid. The Appeal Board has observed “that 
[the fact] some debts have dropped off [an individual’s] credit report is not meaningful 
evidence of debt resolution.” ISCR Case No. 14-05803 at 3 (App. Bd. July 7, 2016) (citing 
ISCR Case No. 14-03612 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 25, 2015)). Additionally, Applicant failed to 
document that any of the removed debts correlated to the delinquent SOR obligations. 
She admitted to incurring all but two of the SOR debts, and she listed 24 of the SOR debts 
to be paid in the future under her payoff plan. 
 
The mitigating factors in AG ¶ 20(a) do not apply because the debts are numerous 
and remain unpaid. AG ¶ 20(b) does not apply even though there are some factors that 
were beyond her control such as her mother death in 2017, her failure to receive child 
support, the involuntary bankruptcy, and her assertion of identity theft.6 The small amount 
of documented payments shows she has not acted responsibly under the circumstances.  
 
Applicant has read books on financial planning, talked with her pastor, and listened 
to financial planning radio shows. However, for AG ¶ 20(c) to apply there must not only 
be financial counseling, but clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under 
control, which has not been documented.  
 
 In Applicant’s May 2017 SOR Response, she indicated she had established certain 
repayment plans. At the time of hearing, nine months later, no payments had been made 
or evidence provided that repayment plans existed. Following the hearing, she presented 
evidence of a debt payoff plan but no track record of payments in accord with that plan 
from which I could reasonably conclude that she can be counted on to make timely 
                                                          
6 Applicant asserts she learned of identity theft when she filed her income tax returns. However, she did 
not show how that identity theft impacted on the delinquent SOR obligations. The majority of those 
obligations she admitted to in her SOR response and are part of her payoff plan. 
 
11 
payments to resolve her substantial delinquencies. Involuntary garnishment resolved her 
student loans in SOR 1.a, but it is not considered a good-faith effort under AG ¶ 20(d), 
which does not apply. AG ¶ 20(e) does not apply because Applicant has denied only two 
of the debts, which totaled approximately $800 of the $40,000 of delinquent debt. She 
has not provided a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which 
is the cause of the problem. Nor has she provided documented proof to substantiate the 
basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue.  
 
An Applicant is not required to be debt-free or to develop a plan for paying off all 
debts immediately or simultaneously, but she is required to act responsibly given her 
circumstances and develop a reasonable plan to address her delinquent obligations, 
accompanied by evidence of a serious intent to effectuate the plan. This has not been 
done. 
 
Whole-Person Analysis  
 
 Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a security 
clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration 
of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. An administrative judge must evaluate 
an Applicant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the Applicant’s conduct and 
all the relevant circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine 
adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d):  
 
(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.  
 
 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.  
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under 
Guideline F in the whole-person analysis. In her favor, her duty performance has been 
outstanding. A number supervisors, co-workers, and friends presented favorable 
comments on Applicant’s work performance and character. Additionally, she has received 
a prestigious award in recognition of her accomplishments in science, technology, 
engineering and the mathematics community. The outstanding achievement award 
recognized her as a technology raising star. 
 
 
12 
The financial evidence against approval of Applicant’s clearance is more 
substantial at this time. Applicant has a history of financial problems. Applicant listed a 
single medical delinquent account on her e-QIP. There is no showing she has been in 
contact with her creditors. She has a household income of $169,000, been gainfully 
employed for more than 17 years with the same employer, but has documented payment 
of less than $200 on her delinquent obligations since the involuntary garnishment ended 
in December 2017. She has not shown that she acted responsibly to address her 
delinquent debts. Applicant’s failure to make greater progress resolving her SOR debts 
shows lack of financial responsibility and judgment and raises unmitigated questions 
about her reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. See AG 
¶ 18. The issue is not simply whether all Applicant’s debts are paid—it is whether her 
financial circumstances raise concerns about her fitness to hold a security clearance. See 
AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(b). 
 
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). After 
weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions and evaluating all the evidence in the 
context of the whole person, the unmitigated financial considerations security concerns 
lead me to conclude that grant of a security clearance to Applicant is not warranted at this 
time. This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot or 
will not attain the state of reform necessary for award of a security clearance in the future. 
With a track record of behavior consistent with her obligations, she may well be able to 
demonstrate persuasive evidence of her security clearance worthiness.  
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Financial Considerations Security Concern:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraph 1.a:       For Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.b through 1.s:    Against Applicant 
 
Subparagraph 1.t:       For Applicant 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.u through 1.s:    Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
  
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for 
access to classified information. National security eligibility is denied. 
 
_______________________ 
CLAUDE R. HEINY II 
Administrative Judge