1 
   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
 ) ISCR Case No. 18-00965 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Nicole A. Smith, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
Curry, Marc E., Administrative Judge: 
 Applicant failed to carry that burden of proving that her financial delinquencies no 
longer pose a security concern. Clearance is denied. 
Statement of the Case 
On April 12, 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 security to grant security clearance eligibility for her. 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 May 2, 2018, Applicant answered the SOR allegations, denying both 
subparagraphs. She requested a decision based on the written record rather than a 
hearing. On May 24, 2018, Department Counsel prepared a file of relevant material 
02/25/2019
2 
 
(FORM).  Applicant received the FORM on June 11, 2018, and was notified that she could 
file a reply, together with attachments supplementing the information in the FORM, if 
desired. She did not file a reply. The FORM was assigned to me on July 30, 2018. 
 
Evidentiary Ruling 
 
 Item 4 at pages five through ten is an unauthenticated summary, prepared by an 
investigator, of Applicant’s interview conducted on November 15, 2016. In Applicant’s 
Answer to the SOR, she characterized it as a “totally inaccurate assessment of the facts 
from [their] prior meeting.” (Item 2 at 3) Moreover, she questioned the agent’s 
professionalism and objectivity. (Item 2 at 3) I am going to construe these statements as an 
objection to its admissibility. Because the document is both unauthenticated and disputed, I 
have granted Applicant’s objection, and will not consider it in my decision. (Directive, 
Additional Procedural Guidance ¶ E3.1.20) 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
  Applicant is a 63-year-old woman, twice divorced, with two adult children. She has a 
high school diploma, and she served in the U.S. Air Force National Guard from 1977 to 
1979. She was discharged honorably. Since 2014, she has worked for a defense 
contractor as a senior subcontracts administrator. (Item 3) 
 
 The SOR alleges a delinquent credit card in the amount of $25,098 (subparagraph 
1.a), and a deficiency stemming from a car repossession, totaling $9,418 (subparagraph 
1.b). Applicant admits that she incurred the debts in 2010, but denies being currently 
responsible for them, as they have been charged off her credit report. (Item 4 at 3) She 
was aware of the debts when she completed interrogatories in March 2018, but had no 
intention of paying them, as the seven-year statute of limitation was set to elapse within a 
year of answering the interrogatories. (Item 4 at 3) 
 
 The Government propounded interrogatories to Applicant in 2018. Interrogatory 
number two asked her to list any delinquencies and to provide documents as to what she 
was doing to resolve them, noting as follows: 
 
Simply a written statement that you are making payments on a debt or that a 
debt was paid, disputed, repossessed, charged off or otherwise not your 
responsibility, is not sufficient documentation. You must also provide valid 
PROOF of whatever claims you are making concerning each account.  
 
Applicant contends that she is financially stable, as she recently was approved for a 
home loan at a favorable interest rate, and that no problems arose when the 
mortgage company checked her credit.  
 
 
    
 
3 
 
 
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. 
 
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. 
 
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.”  
Applicant’s case relies almost exclusively on her contention that her delinquent debts pose 
no security concern because they are no longer legally enforceable. This 
4 
 
argument is inconsistent with industrial security clearance law. Specifically, debts remain 
relevant for security clearance purposes even if they are no longer enforceable due to the 
running of the statute of limitations. (ADP Case No. 06-18900 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun 6, 
2008)(citing ISCR Case No. 03-04779 at 4 (App. Bd. Jul 20, 2005)) Moreover, Applicant’s 
decision to rely on the running of the statute of limitations rather than pay her debts, which 
she expressed in her interrogatory responses in March 2018, does not constitute a good- 
faith effort to resolve her financial difficulties. (Id.)  
 
 Although reliance on the running of the statute of limitations to avoid paying one’s 
delinquent debts has minimal probative value, it is not per se disqualifying. Whether the 
circumstances surrounding the incurrence of the debt were out of her control, whether 
Applicant has followed the IRS requirements for reporting canceled debt, whether she has 
been receiving counseling, or whether she is currently financial stable are examples of 
other factors that could collectively mitigate the security concern. (AG ¶¶ 20(a) - 20(d)) 
Applicant, however, offered minimal evidence in support of any mitigating conditions. Given 
the amount of the delinquencies, and the lack of information about how they were incurred, 
or what efforts Applicant may have attempted to resolve them before the statute of 
limitations on their collectability expired, there is insufficient evidence for me to conclude 
that she mitigated the security concern. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 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). They 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. 
 
 I considered the whole-person concept factors in my disposition of the disqualifying 
and mitigating conditions. I conclude Applicant has failed to carry the burden. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5 
 
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:    AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
 Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.b:    Against Applicant 
  
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not 
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 denied. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Marc E. Curry 
Administrative Judge