1 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
) ISCR Case No. 18-00936 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Benjamin R. Dorsey, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
GLENDON, John Bayard, Administrative Judge: 
This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial 
Concerns). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case 
On April 25, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DOD CAF) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns 
under Guideline F. The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended (Exec. Or.); DOD 
Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program 
(January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and Security Executive Agent Directive 4, 
National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016) (AG) for all adjudicative 
decisions on or after June 8, 2017. 
Applicant responded to the SOR on May 22, 2018, and elected to have the case 
decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. He admitted all seven of the SOR 
allegations and provided a two-page narrative statement.  
02/12/2019
 
2 
 
Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on July 16, 2018, 
which included six documents (Items 1-6). A complete copy of the file of relevant material 
(FORM) was provided to Applicant, who was afforded an opportunity to file objections 
and to submit a written response and documents to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the 
security concerns raised by the SOR allegations. He provided a written, undated 
response, which was received by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals on August 
23, 2018. With his response, he provided nine documents. The Government’s exhibits 
are admitted as GE 1-6. I have marked Applicant’s exhibits (AE) as A-I. All documents 
are admitted without objection. The case was assigned to me on October 11, 2018. 
 
Findings of Fact1 
 
 Applicant’s admissions to the allegations set forth in SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.h are 
incorporated in my findings of fact.  
 
 Applicant is 30 years old, married, and has a young child. He earned a high school 
diploma in June 2006 and a bachelor’s degree in physics in 2010. He had two periods of 
unemployment after college and a third period of underemployment when he attempted 
to start a business with a friend that ultimately failed. Since June 2014, he has held three 
positions and each with better compensation than the one before. He has held his current 
position with a defense contractor since October 2016. He submitted his pending security 
clearance application in May 2017 (SCA). He has not held a clearance in the past. (SOR 
Answer at 2.) 
 
 Applicant incurred a significant student loan debt to pay for his college degree. He 
has attempted to defer the repayment of the loans for as long as possible. His wife is 
presently pursuing a master’s degree in a scientific field. They hope that this degree will 
help increase her income potential and better position the two of them to pay down his 
student debts in a responsible manner in the future. He wrote in his SOR answer that he 
has been making an effort to pay his debts, except when he took a “hiatus to help support 
[his] family during [his] wife’s master’s degree.” The record is unclear what specific steps 
he took to pay his student loans before his recent “hiatus.” At the same time, he and his 
wife have started a family and have child-care expenses to pay as well as their ordinary 
living expenses. (SOR Answer at 1; AE H.) 
 
 The SOR contains eight allegations of student loan debts that are delinquent, have 
been referred for collection or are the subject of a court judgment. The original lenders 
are three banks, which provided private loans that have, at least in some cases, been 
assigned to a state agency or the federal government for the purpose of collection. The 
total principal amount of the delinquent loans alleged in the SOR is about $65,424. All of 
the delinquent debts are student loans, according to the Government’s credit reports in 
the record. (GE 5 and 6.) The record contains no indication that Applicant has incurred 
any consumer or other debts since at least his 2010 college graduation. 
                                                          
1 Applicant’s personal information is extracted from his security clearance application, dated May 26, 2017 
(FORM Item 3), unless otherwise indicated by a parenthetical citation to the record. 
 
3 
 
 
 In his FORM response, Applicant argues that his nine exhibits support his position 
that he is acting responsibly and is making a good-faith effort to begin to repay his student 
loans. AE A reflects a payment to a student loan collection agency of about $281 on July 
30, 2018, on two consolidated loans, the largest of which has an unpaid balance of about 
$22,400. When combined with the second loan referenced in AE A, the total outstanding 
debt owed to this creditor is about $29,690. Applicant does not explicitly explain the 
connection between this exhibit and the corresponding debts alleged in the SOR. Given 
the magnitude of the larger debt, a significant portion of this payment of $281 is possibly 
a partial payment of the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a, which is his largest student loan debt 
of $26,034. No other debt alleged in the SOR is larger than about $11,000. (SOR ¶ 1.b.) 
If this payment relates to a different student loan debt, then it was not alleged in the SOR. 
This payment was made about two months after Applicant received and responded to the 
SOR. 
 
 Applicant’s exhibit B is a statement from a student loan collection agency, dated 
August 21, 2018. This exhibit reflects that the account was placed for collections in 
November 2017 in the amount of $2,115, which is the principal amount of the debt alleged 
in SOR ¶ 1.c. Exhibit B reflects total payments of about $353 and a current balance of 
about $1,763. It does not provide any information as to when the payments were made 
or in what amounts. The document also reflects an additional, closed student loan from 
Applicant’s college in the amount of $17,207, which had a zero balance in May 2013. The 
record is silent as to how this debt was resolved since this student loan was not alleged 
in the SOR. The Government’s evidence references this loan (account no. 
360000881100) in the original amount of $11,000 as being a paid collection, as of May 
2013. (GE 5 at 4.) 
 
 Applicant’s Exhibit C is a receipt of a payment made to a state student financial 
aid agency. The receipt reflects a payment on August 20, 2018, in the amount of $285. 
The following four exhibits are also receipts from the same state agency in the amounts 
of $285 bearing the dates of December 13, 2017, January 14, 2018, March 1, 2018, and 
June 22, 2018, respectively (AE D-G.) Applicant failed to identify which student loan or 
loans alleged in the SOR are related to these receipts. According to the record evidence, 
the only SOR debt that is owed to this state agency is the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.a. This 
raises the possibility that the debt addressed by the payment reflected in AE A is a debt 
that is not alleged in the SOR. 
 
 Without a more detailed explanation from Applicant, I can only conclude that his 
evidence is intended to show that he has made payments on two or possibly more of his 
student loan debts, whether alleged in the SOR or not. He presents this evidence in 
support of his claim that he intends to continue paying these debts at this time and intends 
to pay all remaining debts alleged in the SOR when he has more income available to him 
in the future 
 
 Appellant Exhibit H sets forth his budget without any explanation. He shows a 
monthly net family income of about $7,781. He lists his “Required” expenses as totaling 
 
4 
 
about $5,099 and his “voluntary” expenses as about $226. His budget then reflects a 
remainder for “Discretionary/Savings” as the difference of his net monthly family income 
and their monthly expenses, i.e., about $2,682, which is about $32,184 per year. His 
budget also provides a “Yearly Net” figure of about $39,763. This figure is calculated using 
his monthly numbers with some annual adjustments. The difference between these 
numbers is not explained by his annual adjustments. It is unclear how he explains the 
difference in his annual remainder income.  
 
 Applicant Exhibit H also set forth a student loan repayment plan in a very summary 
manner. His plan shows a “year one” debt of $114,560, which is more than double the 
total of the student loans set forth in the SOR. This figure suggests that the student loan 
payment evidenced by AE A was made on a debt that was not alleged in the SOR. 
Moreover, Applicant’s apparent total debt of $114,560 supports the possibility that he 
and/or his wife may have more student loan debts, or other debts, than those alleged in 
the SOR. At the end of year one, Applicant’s repayment plan shows a remaining figure of 
about $40,000 less, i.e., $74,797. In year two, the plan shows a similar reduction, leaving 
a remainder of about $38,431. He shows the remainder of the debt being paid off by the 
end of year three. (AE H.) 
 
 Applicant also submitted with his FORM response his most recent performance 
evaluation. His evaluating supervisor praised Applicant’s performance and rated him as 
having a “Substantial Impact” on the company and that Applicant “performed well above 
expectations.” (AE I.) 
 
Policies 
 
 “[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 
484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to 
“control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an 
individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The 
President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants 
eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly 
consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 2.  
 
Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the 
criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules 
of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge 
applies these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An 
administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense 
decision. An administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information 
about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. 
 
 The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with 
access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and 
endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the 
possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
 
5 
 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in 
no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 
§ 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant 
has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have 
established for issuing a clearance. 
 
 Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the 
personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from 
being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of 
establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 
“Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. 
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines 
presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria 
listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 
(App. Bd. Apr.20, 2016). 
 
 Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial 
evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the 
facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, 
and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-
31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). 
 
An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent 
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-
20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if 
they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 The security concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 18 as follows: 
 
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 or otherwise 
questionable acts to generate funds. . . .  
 
 
6 
 
 This concern is broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly 
compromise classified information to raise money. It encompasses concerns about a 
person’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified 
information. A person who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, 
unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. 
 
 Applicant’s admissions in his SOR Answer and response to the FORM and the 
documentary evidence in the record establish the following potentially disqualifying 
conditions under this guideline: 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(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; 
 
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 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; and  
 
AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to 
repay creditors or otherwise resolve debts. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(a) is not established. While Applicant’s debts arose a number of years 
ago, they remain delinquent. His failure to address them in any serious manner prior to 
receiving the SOR in 2018 casts doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness and 
judgment. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(b) is not established. Applicant assumed this student debt to further his 
education. Upon graduation from college in 2010, however, he was obliged, to develop a 
repayment plan. He failed to do so. These circumstances were within his control, and he 
failed to act responsibly under the circumstances in addressing his student loan debts. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(c) is not established. Applicant wrote in his SOR answer that he has not 
sought financial counseling because he had a simple solution to his problem, which was 
to pay his debts now that he has sufficient income. The evidence does not support his 
assertion that he took his own advice and that his problem is being resolved. Absent a 
 
7 
 
track record of regular payments, it is speculative as to whether Applicant will be 
successful in paying down all of his debts within three years as he forecasts. 
 
 AG ¶ 20(d) is not established. Applicant fails to explain in his FORM response how 
he intends to actually follow his ambitious debt repayment plan over three years, given 
his limited payments in the past. He has been unable to make any significant progress 
rehabilitating and repaying his student loans for the past several years, or at least since 
October 2016, when he was hired by his current employer. With the apparent exception 
of a loan from his college, the record evidence reflects that Applicant did not attempt to 
begin making monthly payments or to rehabilitate his delinquent student loans until 
December 2017 in one case and sometime in or about 2018 in another. As noted above, 
AE B does not provide the date when Applicant began to make payments on that second 
debt. Applicant’s failure to address each debt in his FORM response and his repayment 
efforts for each debt renders his mitigating evidence of repayments unpersuasive. Simply 
stated, Applicant has not established the requisite track record with respect to his student 
loans, and it is premature to conclude that he will be able to follow his three-year plan, 
when he begins to implement his plan. 
 
 I conclude that at this time none of the above mitigating conditions apply and that 
Applicant has not made any serious progress on the SOR debts.  
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 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. In applying the whole-
person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a 
security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant 
circumstances and applying the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d).2  
 
 I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis 
and applied the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d). After weighing the disqualifying and 
mitigating conditions under Guideline F, and evaluating all the evidence in the context of 
the whole person, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by 
his delinquent student loans. 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                          
2 The factors are: (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.  
 
8 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: 
 
 Paragraph 1. Guideline F:  AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.h: Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national security interests of the 
United States to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance 
is denied. 
 
 
 
 
John Bayard Glendon 
Administrative Judge