1 
      DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
     DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of:  ) 
 ) 
 ) ISCR Case No. 18-01328 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance  ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Andre M. Gregorian, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant owes approximately $14,347 in defaulted federal student-loan debt, $3,619 
in child-support delinquency, $5,807 to a former landlord for past-due rent and damages, 
and some small collection debts. Unemployment and low income were factors in the 
delinquencies, but his financial situation continues to raise security concerns. Clearance is 
denied. 
Statement of the Case 
On May 21, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility 
(DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security concerns 
under Guideline F, financial considerations. The SOR explained why the DOD CAF was 
unable to find it clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue security 
clearance eligibility for him. 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 National Security Adjudicative 
02/06/2019
2 
 
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to 
Hold a Sensitive Position (AG) effective within the DOD on June 8, 2017. 
 
Applicant responded to the SOR on June 1, 2018, and requested a hearing before 
an administrative judge from the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). On 
September 7, 2018, the case was assigned to me to conduct a hearing to determine 
whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security 
clearance for Applicant. On October 5, 2018, I scheduled a hearing for November 16, 
2018. With the agreement of the parties, I rescheduled the hearing for November 14, 2018. 
 
At the hearing, four Government exhibits (GEs 1-4) were admitted. A July 30, 2018 
letter (HE 1) and a November 5, 2018 email (HE II) forwarding the proposed GEs to 
Applicant, and a list of the GEs (HE III) were marked as hearing exhibits (HE) for the record 
but not admitted in evidence. One Applicant exhibit (AE A) was admitted in evidence. 
Applicant testified, as reflected in a transcript (Tr.) received on November 27, 2018. 
 
I held the record open for three weeks for post-hearing documentation from 
Applicant. No documents were received by the December 5, 2018 deadline, and I closed 
the record on that date. 
 
Summary of SOR Allegations 
 
 The SOR alleges under Guideline F that, as of May 21, 2018, Applicant was 
delinquent on federal student loans totaling $13,823 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.c) and owed a past-
due debt of $1,891(SOR ¶ 1.d). He also had three debts of $5,807 (SOR ¶ 1.e), $189 
(SOR ¶ 1.f), and $67 (SOR ¶ 1.g) in collections. When he answered the SOR allegations, 
he admitted the debts without explanation. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 After considering the pleadings, exhibits, and transcript, I make the following 
findings of fact. 
 
Applicant is a 30-year-old high school graduate with an electrical certificate received 
from a technical school in May 2012 and an emergency medical technician license earned 
in 2015. (GE 1; Tr. 30.) He was married from May 2009 to January 2013. (Tr. 31-32.) He 
has a nine-year-old son and a six-year-daughter for whom he is obligated to pay child 
support to his ex-wife. His child support is approximately $261 a month. (GEs 1-3.) As of 
November 2018, Applicant and his cohabitant fiancée were living with his parents. 
Applicant’s fiancée receives Social Security disability income (SSDI), and she has never 
been employed. (Tr. 28, 32-33.) 
 
Applicant graduated from high school in June 2006. More than a decade ago, 
Applicant worked at a commissary on a military installation. (AE A.) It is unclear whether he 
held any other employment before matriculating at a community college in August 2007. 
After withdrawing from the college in October 2007, Applicant worked odd jobs “under the 
3 
 
table” for his uncle. From February 2011 to May 2012, Applicant attended a technical 
institute to obtain his certificate to work as an electrician. (GEs 1, 4.) Applicant paid for his 
technical training in part with federal student loans. He obtained loans of $5,378 (SOR ¶ 
1.a) and $3,500 (SOR ¶ 1.b) in March 2011, and of $1,125 in March 2012 (SOR ¶ 1.c). 
(GEs 2-3.) While in school, Applicant worked for a local electric company “under the table” 
during the summer of 2011. (GE 4; Tr. 34.) 
 
In January 2013, Applicant and his ex-wife divorced, and he was ordered to pay 
child support. (GEs 1, 3.) According to Applicant, his child-support obligation was “pro-rated 
for [his] earning potential at $350 a week, based on a job [he] didn’t have.” (Tr. 27.) There 
is no evidence that he held any employment other than working for his uncle. After two to 
three months of litigation, his child-support obligation was lowered to $150 a week. (Tr. 27.) 
 
Applicant was employed by a solar-installation company from April 2015 to July 
2015, when he was fired. Applicant told an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 
investigator in January 2018 that he was fired for operating a vehicle aggressively in the 
company’s parking lot. He accidentally accelerated quickly. (GE 4.) At his hearing, 
Applicant testified somewhat discrepantly that the company had a two-strike system. His 
first strike occurred when a 19-year-old informally under his charge drove through the back 
of the main panel and hit the bus barn. The second strike was that Applicant “dumped the 
clutch” by accident on a company vehicle. (Tr. 34-35.) 
 
In December 2015, Applicant started working for a local electrical business. He 
indicates that he missed work when his son was hospitalized for a brain tumor, and was 
terminated for attendance issues in April 2016. (GE 4; Tr. 35.) 
 
In August 2016, Applicant was placed by a temporary agency as a chemical 
compounder for a pharmaceutical company. He moved from his parents’ home into an 
apartment with his fiancée. After not reporting to work for three days due to illness in 
November 2016, Applicant was terminated by the temporary agency, even though he 
maintains that he left a voice message that he was unable to report due to illness.1 (GE 4; 
Tr. 36.) He and his fiancée lived off her disability income, his unemployment compensation, 
and some financial assistance from his parents, but it was not enough to meet all of his 
financial obligations while he was unemployed. He fell behind on his child support (SOR ¶ 
1.d), and he and his fiancée were evicted from their apartment in late June 2017 for 
nonpayment of rent.2 (GE 4.) In August 2017, Applicant’s former landlord placed a $5,807 
debt for back rent and damages to the apartment for collection (SOR ¶ 1.e). Applicant and 
his fiancée vacated the apartment owing $744 in utility charges for which Applicant was 
legally liable for repayment. The debt was placed for collection in August 2018 (not alleged 
in SOR). (GEs 2-3.) 
 
                                                 
1 Applicant told the OPM investigator in January 2018 that he had the flu. (GE 4.) He testified discrepantly that 
he lost his job because he had to drive his ill mother for medical treatments every other day. (Tr. 33.) 
 
2 Applicant testified that his monthly rent was $791, but he was charged an extra $300 a month for late 
payment of his rent. (Tr. 49.) 
4 
 
 Applicant and his fiancée moved in with his parents in their home in July 2017. 
Since then, he has primarily worked for his father, who owns a barbecue company, in lieu 
of having to pay rent. Applicant has also worked for his uncle, who is a carpenter. Applicant 
has done odd jobs for neighbors. (AE A; Tr. 29, 38.) Applicant worked in a temporary 
assignment at a sheet-metal factory from June 2017 to November 2017. (Tr. 37.) 
 
In November 2017, Applicant was offered a position as an outside electrician at 
$18.65 per hour with a defense contractor, contingent on him obtaining a security 
clearance. (Tr. 31.) On November 20, 2017, Applicant completed and certified to the 
accuracy of a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86). In response to an 
inquiry concerning any delinquency involving enforcement in the last seven years, 
Applicant disclosed that he was $800 behind in his child-support payments, but that his 
fiancée has been paying his child support for him “on the first of the month.” Applicant 
responded negatively to inquiries concerning any delinquency on routine accounts. (GE 1.) 
 
A check of Applicant’s credit on December 12, 2017, revealed that his federal 
students loans were in collection for $8,140 (SOR ¶ 1.a), $4,352 (SOR ¶ 1.b), and $1,331 
(SOR ¶ 1.c). Applicant was 120 days or more past due on his child support in the amount 
of $1,891 (SOR ¶ 1.d). Applicant also owed collection debts of $5,807 to his former 
landlord (SOR ¶ 1.e), $189 for medical services from October 2011 (SOR ¶ 1.f), and $67 
for wireless-telephone services from December 2011 (SOR ¶ 1.g). (GE 2.) 
 
On January 22, 2018, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for 
the OPM. Applicant related that he and his fiancée were evicted from their apartment in 
June 2017 for nonpayment of rent. He estimated that he owed his former landlord one 
month’s rent of $791 and damage/utility charges of approximately $2,000. He indicated 
that he had not received a bill, but he planned to pay the debt once he started working for 
the defense contractor in approximately March 2018. Applicant volunteered that his child- 
support arrearage had increased to $1,000 because of his unemployment, but he also 
indicated that his cohabitant fiancée has been making payments for him. He also 
volunteered that he owes an excise-tax debt from 2013 for a vehicle that was totaled in an 
accident, although the record does not reflect the amount of the debt. He indicated that he 
owes $1,200 on a delinquent credit-card account that he opened in 2006 (not alleged in 
SOR). He had taken a $900 cash advance for living expenses that he then failed to repay. 
Applicant admitted that he was still receiving demands for payment from the creditor. When 
confronted with the adverse credit entries on his credit record, Applicant expressed his 
belief that the $189 collection debt was an outstanding cable-television debt from his 
former apartment that he thought was his fiancée’s responsibility. About the federal student 
loans, Applicant stated that his parents obtained the loans and have been repaying them. 
He denied knowing that his name was on the loans, but also indicated that he would 
discuss them with his mother. Applicant expressed an intention to begin to repay his debts 
when he starts his employment with the defense contractor. The investigator gave 
Applicant an opportunity to provide documentation about the debts on his credit record. He 
provided no documents. (GE 4.) 
 
5 
 
As of November 5, 2018, Equifax was showing no progress toward resolving his 
federal student loans, which had accrued to $8,499 (SOR ¶ 1.a), $4,486 (SOR ¶ 1.b), and 
$1,362 (SOR ¶ 1.c). Likewise, Applicant had not made any payments toward the $5,807 
collection debt owed his former landlord (SOR ¶ 1.e) or a $744 utility bill in collection from 
that apartment (not alleged in SOR). His child-support arrearage was $3,619 (SOR ¶ 1.d). 
When asked to explain the arrearage, given he had told the OPM investigator that his 
fiancée was making his child support payments, Applicant responded that “she was at one 
point.” (Tr. 42.) Applicant made a child-support payment of $200 in September 2018. (GE 
3; Tr. 43.) He testified that his child-support obligation is currently $50 a week (Tr. 27), 
while his credit report reflects a scheduled amount of $261 monthly. (GE 3.) The $189 and 
$67 collection debts (SOR ¶¶ 1.f and 1.g) were no longer on his credit record, but there is 
no evidence that they have been paid.  
 
Applicant testified that he has paid as many of his bills as he is able based on his 
limited income. He has been helping to care for his ill mother and grandmother and 
indicates that he has not had the time or money to pay off his debts. (Tr. 20, 30.) He 
worked on and off for electrical companies, as he was laid off when the job for which he 
was hired ended. (Tr. 39.) When he was employed, his take-home pay was approximately 
$350 a week from which he paid child support at $78 weekly, which included $28 toward 
the arrearage. He testified that he incurred some $35,000 in legal fees to obtain joint 
custody of his children. He averred that he paid a $10,000 retainer fee upfront in 2012 and 
then $300 a month toward the $25,000 balance. (Tr. 22-23, 26.) Applicant later explained 
that he and his mother obtained a loan against her credit and paid off his attorney. (Tr. 48.) 
 
Applicant testified about his federal student loans that he was granted four hardship 
deferments that were each valid for two years. However, he then claimed that when he last 
obtained a deferment four years ago, he was told that it was good for four years. (Tr. 23-
24.) His November 2018 credit report shows that his student loans have been seriously 
delinquent since September 2016 (GE 3), which calls into question his deferment claim 
about the length of the latest deferment. He testified that he spent hours on the phone 
trying to determine if he can get another deferment and that he has had no success in 
ascertaining to whom he is supposed to make his student-loan payments. He understands 
his student loans are in collection status. (Tr. 40.) He also indicated that he and his parents 
have tried unsuccessfully to obtain a consolidation loan to address his student loans. 
Applicant was granted three weeks after his hearing to submit documentation of any or all 
of his claimed deferments. He presented no documentation, even though he stated that he 
had emails about the deferments and documentation showing that he had applied for a 
consolidation loan. (Tr. 24, 40-42.) 
                                                 
Applicant’s cohabitant fiancée receives disability income of $791 monthly. Applicant 
intends to claim her as a dependent on his income tax returns for tax year 2018. He 
expects that he overpaid his income taxes and that his refund will be seized by the state 
and applied to his child-support arrearage. (Tr. 28.)  
 
Applicant testified that he attempted to arrange for repayment of his $5,807 debt to 
his former landlord, but he was told to deal with the collection entity. (Tr. 43-44.) Applicant 
6 
 
asserts that he would have repaired the little holes in the walls from his children and 
cleaned the dirty carpets, but he was evicted and so did not have the opportunity to fix the 
damages to the apartment. (Tr. 44.) Applicant asserts that the $67 cell-phone debt in 
collection was supposed to have been paid by his ex-wife on their divorce. He 
acknowledged that the account was in his name, however. (Tr. 45.) He disputes the validity 
of the $189 medical debt in collection because his children had medical insurance 
coverage from the state. (Tr. 45.) As for the utility debt in collection for $744, Applicant 
testified that he was charged for power for six months after his eviction. (Tr. 48.) 
 
Applicant had no funds in checking or savings accounts as of his hearing in 
November 2018. He was working directly for his parents. His parents require him to work 
12 hours a month in exchange for paying rent of $300. Any work beyond those hours pays 
for his food, gasoline, and other expenses. (Tr. 45-46.) Applicant has applied for public 
assistance but been denied because he lives with his parents, and his father’s earnings 
disqualify him. (Tr. 47.)   
  
A longtime friend of Applicant’s provided a character reference letter for him. They 
met 16 years ago, and they were once co-workers at the commissary on a military 
installation. They see each other frequently. She described Applicant as “an incredibly 
focused and driven individual.” She knows him to be “a very reliable, trustworthy and 
dependable person.” Applicant has kept a positive attitude despite struggling to find full-
time, gainful employment. He has been a devoted father to his two children. (AE A.) 
 
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(a), 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. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence 
7 
 
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 EO 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). 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F: Financial Considerations 
 
 The security concerns about financial considerations are articulated 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. . . . 
 
 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: 
 
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 
8 
 
nexus between proven conduct under any of the Guidelines and an 
applicant’s security eligibility. 
 
Applicant’s admissions and the available credit reports establish the delinquencies 
alleged in the SOR. Applicant defaulted on federal student loans that were obtained for 
approximately $10,003 and have accrued to $14,347. He fell behind on his child support, 
and his arrearage of $1,891 as of July 2018 has increased to $3,619. He was evicted from 
an apartment in June 2017 for non-payment of rent, and his former landlord placed a debt 
of $5,807 for collection. 
 
Applicant’s credit record also includes two small collection debts of $189 for medical 
service and $67 for wireless-phone service. He disputes the debts because his children 
had medical insurance and the phone debt was supposed to have been paid by his ex-
wife. Under ¶ E3.1.14 of the Directive, the government has the burden of presenting 
evidence to establish controverted facts. The Appeal Board held in ISCR Case No. 08-
12184 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 7, 2010) that a credit report is sufficient to meet the 
government’s burden of producing evidence of delinquency: 
  
It is well-settled that adverse information from a credit report can normally 
meet the substantial evidence standard and the government’s obligations 
under [Directive] ¶ E3.1.14 for pertinent allegations. At that point, the burden 
shifts to applicant to establish either that [he or] she is not responsible for the 
debt or that matters in mitigation apply. 
 
Neither of those two collection debts appears on Applicant’s recent credit report of 
November 2018. The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires removal of most negative financial 
items from a credit report seven years from the first date of delinquency or the debt 
becoming collection barred because of a state statute of limitations, whichever is longer.1 
In that regard, both debts are from 2011, so they may no longer be legally collectible. 
Debts may be dropped from a credit report upon dispute when creditors believe the debt is 
not going to be paid or when the debt has been charged off. The mere fact that debts have 
been deleted from a credit report does not necessarily mean that they were not owed at 
one time. Applicant did not provide any documentation to disprove his responsibility for 
repayment. That said, they are so minor that they are unlikely in and of themselves to be a 
source of undue financial pressure, even given his limited financial means. 
 
Applicant volunteered during his subject interview that he owes a $1,200 credit-card 
delinquency from 2009 for which he was still receiving demands for payment. That debt 
does not appear on any of the available credit reports, perhaps because it is so old. A $744 
collection debt for utility services at his apartment was not assigned for collection until 
August 2018, which could explain why it was not included on his December 2017 credit 
report or alleged in the SOR. The credit card and utility delinquencies cannot be 
considered for disqualifying purposes because they were not alleged.3 Even without 
                                                 
3 In ISCR Case No. 03-20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006), the Appeal Board listed five circumstances in 
which conduct not alleged in a SOR may be considered, as follows: 
 
9 
 
considering those debts, disqualifying conditions AG ¶¶ 19(a), “inability to satisfy debts,” 
and 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” clearly apply.  
 
Applicant has the burden of establishing matters in mitigation. 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’s delinquencies are too recent for mitigation under AG ¶ 20(a). Available 
credit information reflects that Applicant’s federal student loans have been seriously 
delinquent since September 2016, which calls into question his claims of a deferment 
obtained four years ago for another four years. He was in arrears $3,619 in his child- 
support payments as of November 2018. The $5,807 collection debt owed a former 
landlord was incurred in 2017. Although the $189 medical debt and $67 wireless phone 
debt were not incurred recently, they have not been resolved. 
 
Divorce is a circumstance contemplated within AG ¶ 20(b). Applicant testified, albeit 
without corroboration, that he incurred $35,000 in legal fees to obtain joint custody of his 
two children, and he had to pay a $10,000 retainer fee upfront. However, low income 
                                                                                                                                                             
(a) to assess an applicant’s credibility; (b) to evaluate an applicant’s evidence of extenuation, 
mitigation, or changed circumstances; (c) to consider whether an applicant has demonstrated 
successful rehabilitation; (d) to decide whether a particular provision of the Adjudicative 
Guidelines is applicable; or (e) to provide evidence for the whole-person analysis under 
Directive Section 6.3. 
 
10 
 
appears to be the primary cause of his current financial problems. He testified that he has 
been repeatedly laid off from electrical jobs when projects were completed, and he has 
struggled to find full-time employment that would provide him the income to address his 
debts. In that regard, AG ¶ 20(b) has some applicability. Applicant was fired from some 
positions for attendance issues when either he or family members were ill, although 
apparently Applicant did not follow company policy regarding reporting his absence in 
November 2016. He also bears some responsibility for his firing from his job with the solar 
company in 2015 because it was his conduct in either driving aggressively in the parking lot 
or “dumping the clutch” on a company vehicle that led to his termination. 
 
 For AG ¶ 20(b) to fully apply, Applicant is required to have acted responsibly under 
the circumstances. An element of financial responsibility is knowing the status of one’s 
financial obligations. Regarding his child-support delinquency, Applicant told the OPM 
investigator that his cohabitant fiancée was making payments on the debt, but also that his 
arrearage had risen to $1,000 because of his unemployment. His arrearage was then 
$1,891. When asked about his student loans during his January 2018 interview with an 
OPM investigator, Applicant denied knowing that his name was on the student loans. He 
claimed that his parents obtained the loans and were repaying them. At his hearing, he 
testified that he obtained hardship deferments over the years, which cannot be reconciled 
with his claims that the loans were not in his name and that his parents were making 
payments. He testified about a deferment of his student loans in 2014 that he claims was 
valid for four years rather than the usual two years. Available credit information showing 
delinquency status for the loans since September 2016 belies his claim about the 
deferment. Applicant had the opportunity to provide documentation showing efforts by him 
to obtain hardship deferments, and he presented no documents, which makes it difficult to 
find that he acted responsibly with regard to his student loans. 
 
Given that his child-support arrearage accrued to $3,619 as of November 2018, it is 
evident that his fiancée made little to no payments for him in the past year. Applicant made 
a child-support payment in September 2018, but this one payment is not enough to 
establish either AG ¶ 20(c) or AG ¶ 20(d). Applicant has made no payments toward the 
other debts in the SOR, including his student loans and the $5,807 collection debt. 
Applicant’s assertion that he would have cleaned the apartment and repaired the damages 
had he been given time does not relieve him of his legal liability for the full $5,807. He did 
not present documentation showing that any of the debts in the SOR are not his legal 
responsibility. Accordingly, AG ¶ 20(e) also does not apply. 
 
In ISCR Case No. 17-01473, decided on August 10, 2018, the Appeal Board 
reaffirmed that a security clearance adjudication is not a proceeding aimed at collecting an 
applicant’s personal debts. In evaluating Applicant’s judgment, reliability, and 
trustworthiness, I note that apart from working for relatives, he has not had any sustained 
employment for several years now, and he lacks the income to meaningfully address his 
debts. Applicant expressed an intention to repay his debts if he is granted security 
clearance eligibility so that he can start working for a defense contractor. 
 
11 
 
Appendix C of Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) grants administrative 
judges the discretionary authority to grant initial or continued eligibility for a security 
clearance despite the presence of an issue(s) that can be partially but not completely 
mitigated with the provision of additional security measures. I have considered the 
exception in Appendix C of the Directive and decline to apply it. Applicant’s financial 
situation is far from resolved. He was either ignorant about the status of his federal student 
loans or not fully forthcoming about them during his subject interview. As for his child 
support, he indicated on his SF 86 that his fiancée has been paying his child support “on 
the first of the month.” He told the OPM investigator that his fiancée has been paying his 
child support. Yet, when confronted with the evidence showing that his arrearage had 
almost doubled by November 2018, Applicant responded that his fiancée was making 
payments “at one point.” Applicant did not explain why his fiancée had been unable to 
make payments in the last year, especially given her ongoing receipt of SSDI and the fact 
that they do not pay rent to his parents. Applicant’s checkered employment record does not 
suggest reliability. He presented no documentation showing that he has done all that he 
could within his limited means to address his debts. The financial considerations security 
concerns are not adequately mitigated. 
  
Whole-Person Concept 
 
In assessing the whole person, 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). The analysis under Guideline F is incorporated in my whole-
person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under that guideline, but 
some warrant additional comment. 
 
 A longtime friend of Applicant’s has known him to possess good judgment, reliability, 
and trustworthiness. Applicant testified about repeatedly being laid off when jobs ended, 
and his friend indicates that Applicant has struggled to find full-time, gainful employment. 
For most of the past decade, Applicant has either worked “under the table” for his uncle or 
for his father, who does not charge him rent provided he puts in 12 hours a month. 
Applicant lacks a track record of reliability with respect to his employment record and his 
handling of his financial obligations. Even accounting for some circumstances beyond his 
control, Applicant has not shown that he possesses the judgment, reliability, and 
trustworthiness required for security clearance eligibility. 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). For the reasons noted, I cannot find that it is clearly 
consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance at this time. 
 
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 
12 
 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a-1.g:   Against Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
In light of all of the circumstances, it is not clearly consistent with the national 
interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to 
classified information is denied. 
 
 
_____________________ 
Elizabeth M. Matchinski 
Administrative Judge