1 
       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
   DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No. 18-01744 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Allison Marie, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
GOLDSTEIN, Jennifer I., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline F, 
financial considerations. He failed to provide sufficient documentation to establish 
mitigation with respect to his delinquent debt. National security eligibility for access to 
classified information is denied.  
Statement of the Case 
On July 13, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DOD CAF) issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security 
concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The action was taken 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 (SEAD) 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines 
(December 10, 2016), implemented effective June 8, 2017.  
01/15/2019
 
2 
 
 
 Applicant submitted an Answer to the SOR on August 8, 2018, and elected to have 
his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted 
its file of relevant material (FORM) on August 27, 2018. Applicant received it on 
September 10, 2018. The Government’s evidence is identified as Items 1 through 7. The 
FORM notified Applicant that he had an opportunity to file objections and submit material 
in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. 
Applicant submitted no response to the FORM. Items 1 through 7 are admitted into the 
record. The case was assigned to me on January 8, 2019.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant admitted all of the allegations in the SOR. The credit reports dated May 
17, 2018, and July 13, 2016, establish the allegations. (Item 6; Item 7.) After a thorough 
and careful review of the pleadings and exhibits, I make the following findings of fact. 
 
 Applicant is 50 years old. He served honorably in the Air Force from 1988 to 2008. 
He is married to his second wife. He has one adult child, two teenage children, and an 
adult stepchild. He has been employed by a government contractor since April 2016. He 
was employed by a different government contractor from May 2011 to April 2016, but was 
laid off from that position in April 2016. (Item 4.) 
 
 Applicant attributed the alleged delinquent debts to the layoff. He was unemployed 
for approximately two weeks. When he was hired by his current employer, it was at a 
lesser rate of pay. He intends to satisfy his debts when he is able. (Answer.) 
 
 Applicant is indebted on a charged-off credit card account in the amount of 
$16,281, as stated in SOR ¶ 1.a. This debt became delinquent in 2016. In his Answer, 
Applicant claimed to be in the process of enrolling this debt in a debt management 
program. He provided no documentation to substantiate this claim. He did not document 
any payments on this delinquent debt. It is unresolved. (Answer; Item 5; Item 6.) 
 
Applicant is indebted on a delinquent student loan account in the amount of 
$14,630, as stated in SOR ¶ 1.b. This debt has been delinquent since February 2017. In 
his Answer, Applicant explained that this “student loan is currently being garnished from 
my paycheck . . . I have contacted them and am currently enrolled in the Loan 
Rehabilitation Program.” Documentation from the creditor and Applicant’s payroll 
statement show that his pay was being involuntarily garnished at the rate of 15% of his 
disposable earnings on a semi-monthly basis, beginning August 8, 2018. His Answer also 
includes a letter from this creditor to Applicant acknowledging his attempts to set up a 
payment plan. However, that letter noted Applicant “objected to the monthly rehabilitation 
payment amount based on [his] family size and adjusted gross income.” (Answer; Item 
6.)  
 
Applicant is indebted on six additional student loan accounts, all held by the same 
creditor, in the total amount of $2,198, as stated in SOR ¶¶ 1.c through 1.h. These loans 
became delinquent in August 2017. Applicant indicated in his Answer that he was 
 
3 
 
 
negotiating a payment plan to rehabilitate these loans. He provided nothing further in that 
regard. These debts are unresolved. (Answer; Item 6.) 
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility, the administrative judge 
must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, 
the AG list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used 
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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s 
overarching 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. 
 
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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere 
speculation or conjecture. 
 
Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Directive ¶ E3.1.15 states an “applicant is 
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or 
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the 
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance 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 an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. 
Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, 
rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. 
 
Finally, Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that adverse 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).  
 
 
4 
 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F: Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern under the financial considerations 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. 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 known sources of income is also a 
security concern insofar as it may result from criminal activity, including 
espionage. 
 
AG ¶ 19 provides conditions that could raise security concerns. The following are 
potentially applicable:  
 
 (a) inability to satisfy debts; and 
 
 (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
 Applicant accumulated over $33,000 in delinquent debt, which became delinquent 
between 2016 and 2017. He claims he has insufficient income to address these liabilities. 
There is sufficient evidence to establish disqualification under AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c). 
 
 The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising 
from Applicant’s financial difficulties. The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 
are potentially applicable: 
 
(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;  
 
5 
 
 
(c) the individual has received or is receiving financial 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 has insufficient income to meet all of his financial obligations. One 
student loan is being repaid through garnishment, but the other six student loans and the 
credit card account remain delinquent. There is no evidence that he will be able to avoid 
delinquent accounts in the future. His debt is ongoing. AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply.  
 
 Applicant attributed his financial problems to two weeks of unemployment and a 
subsequent reduction in pay. Those are circumstances beyond his control. However, he 
has been fully employed since May 2016, and continues to be unable to meaningfully 
address his delinquent accounts. The record lacks documentation to show he reasonably 
and responsibly addressed his delinquencies. Mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b) is not fully 
established.  
 
 Applicant provided no documentation of financial counseling. There is minimal 
evidence to conclude that his financial problems are under control. He has not established 
voluntary payment agreements for his student loans or for his credit card. While he 
indicated he was seeking help from a debt management program, he provided nothing 
further in that regard. He is repaying the largest student loan through garnishment, but 
that action is involuntary and does not demonstrate good faith. The evidence does not 
establish full mitigation under AG ¶¶ 20(c) or 20(d).  
 
 Applicant did not claim to dispute any of his alleged delinquencies. AG ¶ 20(e) 
does not apply. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an 
applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s 
conduct and all the circumstances. The 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 
 
6 
 
 
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 national security 
eligibility 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 
pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is credited with his 
military service. However, he failed to meet his burden to show he is reasonably and 
responsibly addressing his debts. Future financial problems are likely. He may be eligible 
for national security eligibility in the future if he is able to document responsible actions to 
maintain solvency, but the record at this time is absent of such evidence. The record 
evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability 
for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the 
security concerns arising under Guideline F.  
 
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 
 
  Subparagraph 1.a:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.b:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.c:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.d:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.e:    Against Applicant 
  Subparagraph 1.f:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.g:    Against Applicant 
Subparagraph 1.h:    Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant access to classified 
information. National security eligibility is denied. 
 
                                                     
_____________________________ 
Jennifer I. Goldstein 
Administrative Judge