1 
 
 
 
               DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
 
 
 
 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
    )    ISCR Case No. 17-01731 
   ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Brittany White, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro Se 
 
02/01/2019 
______________ 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
Curry, Marc E., Administrative Judge: 
 
Applicant’s financial problems were caused by circumstances beyond her control, 
and she has been acting responsibly to resolve them. I conclude she has mitigated the 
security concern. Clearance is granted.   
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On June 21, 2017, 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; and DOD Directive 5220.6, 
Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as 
amended (Directive) and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG), effective June 
8, 2018. 
 
On July 13, 2017, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting subparagraphs 1.a 
through 1.d, and denying the remainder. She requested a hearing, whereupon the case 
 
2 
 
was assigned to me on July 20, 2018. On September 13, 2018, the Defense Office of 
Hearings and Appeals issued a notice of hearing, scheduling Applicant’s case for October 
10, 2018. The hearing was held as scheduled. I received five Government exhibits (GE 1 – 
GE 5) and twelve Applicant exhibits (AE A - AE L). I marked another exhibit as AE M for 
identification purposes, but did not incorporate it into the record. I also incorporated a copy 
of the discovery letter that Department Counsel mailed to Applicant (Hearing Exhibit I). At 
the close of the hearing, I left the record open to November 10, 2018 for Applicant to 
submit additional documents. Within the time allotted, she submitted three additional 
exhibits that I received as AE N through AE P.  On January 9, 2019, Applicant moved for 
the admission of two additional exhibits (AE Q and AE R). Department Counsel did not 
object to their admission, therefore I re-opened the record and admitted the documents. 
The transcript (Tr.) was received on October 19, 2018. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant is a 35-year-old single woman with four children. The oldest child is a 
teenager, the middle children are five-year-old twins, and the youngest is three months old. 
Applicant earned an associate’s degree in health science in 2016. (Tr. 19) From August 
2015 to December 2017 she worked as a medical administrative assistant. Her duties 
included helping service members transfer from active duty to civilian life. (GE 1 at 12) She 
left the job after her clearance was denied (Tr. 74), and was unemployed until September 
2018, when she gained a part-time job as a paralegal. (Tr. 14) According to Applicant’s 
supervisor when she worked as a medical administrative assistant, she was an impressive 
employee who provided great care to the service members. (AE O) 
 
 The SOR alleges approximately $35,000 of delinquent debt. The debts alleged in 
subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c are delinquent car loans. Subparagraph 1.a, totaling 
$14,233, is a loan used to finance the purchase of a car in 2011. (GE 5 at 9) She kept up 
with payments for eight months until she stopped receiving child-support payments from 
her oldest child’s father in December 2011. (GE 3 at 1)  The car was repossessed in 2012. 
(Tr. 68) 
 
 In September 2012, Applicant purchased another car, financing it with a loan 
secured by the creditor alleged in subparagraph 1.c. (Tr. 35; GE 3 at 2) Three months later, 
she discovered that she was pregnant with her twins. By May 2013, recurring difficulties 
related to the pregnancy required her to go on bedrest. (Tr. 36) Unable to work, she fell 
behind on her car note. (GE 5 at 9; Tr. 33)   
 
 With the help of her mother, who cosigned the loan, Applicant purchased an 
automobile in 2015. When she applied for the loan, the loan officer told her the 
delinquency on the loan, alleged in subparagraph 1.c, was too high to roll into the new car 
loan. Consequently, he advised her to allow the car secured by the loan alleged in 
subparagraph 1.c to be repossessed. (Tr. 32) Kicking the deficiency down the road would 
enable her to secure a loan for the purchase of the new car. Applicant then lost her job. 
Subsequently, she defaulted on the loan, and the car was repossessed, as alleged in 
subparagraph 1.b. (GE 3 at 2; Tr. 32) 
3 
 
 
 In sum, all three cars that Applicant purchased between 2011 and 2015 were 
repossessed. In November 2017, Applicant wrote each creditor a letter with a proposed 
payment plan. (AE G – H) Under each respective plan, she proposed to satisfy the 
delinquencies with $100 monthly payments. (AE G – H) Shortly after writing the automobile 
creditors, Applicant lost her job, and just regained part-time employment one month before 
the hearing in September 2018. (Tr. 42, 74)  She has been unable to execute any of the 
proposed payment plans.  
 
 The debt alleged in subparagraph 1.d is a loan for which Applicant applied during 
the period when she was not working and on bedrest in 2013. (Tr. 42) When Applicant lost 
her job, the account became delinquent in the approximate amount of $1,106. (Tr. 42-43) 
Applicant contacted the creditor and agreed to a payment plan. Per the agreement, she 
was to pay $140 per month. (Tr. 42) In December 2017, she lost her job, rendering her 
unable to make the payments. (Tr.  42) 
 
 Subparagraph 1.e is a delinquent utility bill in the amount of $228. This delinquency 
coincided with the period of time when she was not working and on bedrest. (Tr. 21) In 
November 2017, Applicant contacted the creditor to arrange payment. (Tr. 44) Per the 
agreement, the creditor was supposed to automatically debit her account. They never did, 
and Applicant never called them again. (Tr.  45)  
  
 The creditor alleged in subparagraph 1.f is an insurance company that insured one 
of the repossessed cars. (Tr. 45) The alleged delinquency is $136. Applicant disputed this 
debt, contending that, per the auto insurance agreement, she always paid the insurance 
payment in advance of the month she received the insurance coverage. (Tr. 45) She 
successfully disputed the debt and it was removed from her credit report. (45-46) 
 
 Subparagraph 1.g is a delinquent repair bill owed to a rental-car company for 
damages incurred in 2010 when Applicant was in a car accident with a rental car. (Tr. 47) 
The delinquency totals $2,311. She disputes the bill, contending that she opted for car 
insurance, but the rental company did not include it in the contract. (Tr. 47) She provided 
no evidence in support of her dispute. 
 
 Subparagraph 1.h, is a credit-card debt totaling $483. It has been delinquent since 
April 2010. (GE 2 at 5) Applicant satisfied it through $50 monthly payments from 
September 2015 to June 2016. (GE E at 7) She has reported payment of this debt to the 
credit reporting agency and is seeking to have it removed from her credit report. (GE E at 
7) 
 
 The debt alleged in subparagraph 1.i stems from eviction-related costs from an 
apartment where Applicant lived from June 2012 to May 2013. (Tr. 51) The alleged 
delinquency totals $3,819. Applicant denies this account, but provided no evidence in 
support of her contention that she does not owe it. 
  
 
4 
 
 
 Subparagraph 1.j is an alleged delinquent hospital bill totaling $3,132. Applicant 
disputed this bill, contending that she received the treatment, but her medical insurance 
covered it. (Tr. 54) She contacted her insurance company, who resubmitted the insurance 
information at her request. (Tr. 54) She then contacted the credit agency and had this bill 
removed from her record. (AE F) 
 
 The debt alleged in subparagraph 1.k is a disputed medical bill totaling $319.  
Applicant contacted the credit-reporting agency and had the debt deleted from her record. 
(AE F) 
 
 The debt alleged in subparagraph 1.l is a disputed parking ticket totaling $240. 
Applicant contacted the credit agency and had it removed from her credit report. (AE F) 
 
 Since Applicant answered the SOR and began reaching out to creditors, her 
financial situation has worsened. Specifically, after she discovered she was pregnant with 
her fourth child, her boyfriend demanded that she terminate the pregnancy. (Tr. 74) When 
she refused, he kicked her out of his home. (Tr. 74-75) Although the three oldest children 
stayed with him, Applicant was left without a steady home address during the period that 
coincided with her unemployment. While unemployed, she was unable to follow through on 
the delinquent car note payment plans, and incurred approximately $1,700 of additional 
delinquent debts. (Tr. 70)  
 
 Applicant gained a part-time job in September 2018.  It pays $1,770 per month. (Tr. 
14) She remains without a fixed home address. Realizing that she would not be able to 
satisfy her delinquencies under these circumstances, she filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy 
protection in October 2018. By January 8, 2019, the bankruptcy court had administered her 
estate and closed the proceeding. (AE Q) The record does not contain the schedule of the 
discharged debts. 
 
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 
5 
 
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. 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: 
 
                                                 
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. 
 
6 
 
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 or sensitive information.  
 
 Applicant’s history of financial problems and their ongoing nature trigger the 
application of AG ¶ 19(a), “inability to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not 
meeting financial obligations.”  
 
The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: 
 
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;  
 
AG ¶ 20(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to 
repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and 
 
AG ¶ 20(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. 
 
 Employment instability and erratic child-support payments have significantly 
contributed to Applicant’s financial problems. In addition, on one occasion, she followed the 
advice of an unscrupulous car dealer who proposed that she strategically default on a 
previous auto loan to obtain a new car.  
 
 Applicant has satisfied one of her delinquencies in its entirety (subparagraph 1.h). 
She has successfully disputed the debts alleged in subparagraphs 1.f, and 1.k through 1.l. 
After experiencing her most recent job loss, which coincided with an unexpected pregnancy 
and homelessness, Applicant realized that she would be unable to satisfy the delinquent 
debts, and decided, instead to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. It is unclear from 
the record whether all of the debts were discharged in the bankruptcy. Moreover, AG ¶ 
20(e) is only partially applicable because Applicant did not provide concrete evidence of 
actions to resolve the debts alleged in subparagraph 1.g and 1.i. Nevertheless, the 
circumstances beyond Applicant’s control, the initial steps taken to resolve them before her 
7 
 
most recent unexpected personal setback, and the effort to obtain Chapter 7 bankruptcy 
protection are sufficient to trigger the application of AG ¶¶ 20(b) and 20(d).  
 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Applicant did not incur her delinquent debts as the result of foolish or irresponsible 
overspending. Instead, they resulted from a number of personal crises. Currently, Applicant 
is underemployed, with a baby, and no stable living arrangement. Given these 
circumstances, filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy protection is a reasonable solution to her 
financial problems. Upon considering this case in the context of the whole-person concept, 
I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concern. 
 
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 
 
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 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