1 
   DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
 DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: ) 
) 
--- ) ISCR Case No. 18-01364 
) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Bryan Olmos, Esquire, Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
GALES, Robert Robinson, Administrative Judge: 
Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding financial considerations 
and personal conduct. Eligibility for a security clearance is denied. 
Statement of the Case 
On March 30, 2012, and again on August 13, 2015, Applicant applied for a security 
clearance and submitted Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) 
versions of a Security Clearance Application. On June 20, 2018, the Department of 
Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued a Statement of 
Reasons (SOR) to him, under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding 
Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended and modified; 
DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program 
(January 2, 1992), as amended and modified (Directive); and Directive 4 of the Security 
Executive Agent (SEAD 4), National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 
2016) (AG), for all covered individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access 
to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position, effective June 8, 2017. 
02/13/2019
 
2 
                                      
 
 The SOR alleged security concerns under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and 
F (Financial Considerations) and detailed reasons why the DOD adjudicators were unable 
to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security 
clearance for Applicant. The SOR recommended referral to an administrative judge to 
determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.  
 
 It is unclear when Applicant received the SOR as there is no receipt in the case 
file. In a sworn statement, dated July 17, 2018, supplemented by an e-mail message, 
dated August 12, 2018, Applicant responded to the SOR and elected to have his case 
decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. A complete copy of the Government’s 
file of relevant material (FORM) was mailed to Applicant by the Defense Office of 
Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) on September 26, 2018, and he was afforded an 
opportunity after receipt of the FORM to file objections and submit material in refutation, 
extenuation, or mitigation. In addition to the FORM, Applicant was furnished a copy of the 
Directive as well as the Adjudicative Guidelines applicable to his case. Applicant received 
the FORM on October 2, 2018. Applicant apparently chose not to respond to the FORM, 
for as of November 29, 2018, he had not done so. The case was assigned to me on 
January 25, 2019.  
 
Findings of Fact 
 In his Answer and Supplemental Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted, without 
comments, both of the factual allegations pertaining to personal conduct in the SOR (SOR 
¶¶ 1.a. and 1.b.), and nearly all of the factual allegations pertaining to financial 
considerations in the SOR (SOR ¶¶ 2.b. through 2.i.), although he disputed the amount 
set forth in SOR ¶ 2.f. He failed to respond with an “admit” or “deny” to SOR ¶ 2.a., so a 
denial was registered for him. Applicant’s admissions are incorporated herein as findings 
of fact. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due 
consideration of same, I make the following additional findings of fact:  
 
Applicant is a 37-year-old employee of a defense contractor. The record is silent 
as to the position that he now holds, and when he joined his new employer. A 1999 high 
school graduate, Applicant received some college credits, but no degree. He enlisted in 
the U.S. Army in July 1999, and served on active duty until August 2003, when he was 
administratively discharged, and issued a General Discharge Under Honorable 
Conditions. He stated that he was granted access to sensitive compartmented information 
(SCI) in 2000 and 2008, but did not identify the level of the clearances granted, and a 
subsequent application for a security clearance was denied. Applicant has never been 
married, and he reports no children.  
 
Personal Conduct 
 
 In September 2011, Applicant’s application for a security clearance was denied by 
another government agency when it was determined that he had 20 delinquent accounts, 
totaling more than $18,000 ; because he had misused corporate credit cards issued to 
him by two former employers (in March 2005, when he charged $3,000; and in 2008-
2009, when he charged $29,000); and because he had received a General Discharge 
 
3 
                                      
 
Under Honorable Conditions from the U.S. Army, in part because he wrote checks with 
insufficient funds.1  
 
 On October 12, 2017, Applicant was terminated by his employer for willful misuse 
of company assets, by continuously charging non-business related expenses on his 
company credit card in violation of company policies. A review of his credit card usage 
revealed over $7,500 in personal charges, including more than $4,000 in rental car 
transactions; $1,200 on Uber transactions; $623 on cable television costs; and over $800 
at a sports bar with billiards. In addition, Applicant allowed the account to become over 
130 days delinquent, resulting in the card being cancelled and the balance of over $7,500 
being charged to the company.2 
 
Financial Considerations3 
It is unclear when Applicant first started having financial difficulties, and he did not 
identify any factors that contributed to them. The record does refer to three periods of 
unemployment: August 2003 until September 2003; September 2006, for less than a 
month when he was fired because he repeatedly failed to come to work on time; and 
November 2006 until May 2007. Because of his financial difficulties Applicant apparently 
had insufficient funds to cover all of his monthly bills, and corporate credit cards were 
sometimes used by him. Accounts became delinquent, some accounts were charged off, 
judgments were filed against him, and one vehicle was repossessed. Some of those 
delinquent debts were not alleged in the SOR.4 Applicant never received financial 
counseling. 
In addition to the three company credit-card accounts described above, the SOR 
identified eight delinquent accounts that had been placed for collection or charged off as 
                                                          
1 Item 3 (e-QIP, dated March 30, 2012), at 41-42; Item 4 (e-QIP, dated August 13, 2015), at 44-46; 
Item 2 (Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, dated July 17, 2018), at 1; Item 5 (Personal Subject Interview, dated 
June 6, 2012), at 1, 7. 
 
2 Item 8 (Employment Records – Termination of Employment, dated October 12, 2017). 
 
3 General source information pertaining to the financial accounts discussed below can be found in 
the following exhibits: Item 9 (Combined Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax Credit Report, dated August 
20, 2015); Item 10 (Equifax Credit Report, dated April 12, 2018); Item 8, supra note 2; Item 5, supra note 
1); Item 6 (Enhanced Subject Interview, dated June 20, 2017); Item 6 (Subject Contact, dated August 10, 
2017); Item 3, supra note 1; Item 4, supra note 1; and Item 2, supra note 1. 
 
4 Unalleged conduct can be considered for certain purposes, as discussed by the DOHA Appeal 
Board. (Conduct not alleged in an SOR may be considered: (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 whole-person analysis 
under Directive § 6.3.). See ISCR Case No. 03-20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006); (citing ISCR Case No. 
02-07218 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 15, 2004); ISCR Case No. 00-0633 at 3 (App. Bd. Oct. 24, 2003)). See also 
ISCR Case No. 12-09719 at 3 (App. Bd. April 6, 2016) (citing ISCR Case No. 14-00151 at 3, n. 1 (App. Bd. 
Sept. 12, 2014); ISCR Case No. 03-20327 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 26, 2006)). Applicant’s unlisted and unalleged 
delinquent accounts will be considered only for the five purposes listed above.  
 
 
4 
                                      
 
generally reflected by Applicant’s August 2015 or April 2018 credit reports. Those debts, 
totaling approximately $27,364, none of which were addressed or resolved by Applicant 
since his June 2012, June 2017, or his August 2017 interviews with an investigator from 
the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), are described as follows: an 
automobile loan that was charged off in the amount of $12,360 (SOR ¶ 2.b.); an apartment 
lease with an unpaid balance of $8,813 (SOR ¶ 2.c.); a charge account that was charged 
off in the amount of $3,841 (SOR ¶ 2.d.); a cable account with an unpaid balance of $799 
(SOR ¶ 2.e.); a telephone account with an unpaid balance of $791 (SOR ¶ 2.f.); a medical 
account with an unpaid balance of $482 (SOR ¶ 2.g.); an unspecified type of bank account 
that was charged off in the amount of $153 (SOR ¶ 2.h.); and a medical account with an 
unpaid balance of $125 (SOR ¶ 2.i.).  
It is not known what Applicant’s current financial resources may be because he did 
not report his current net monthly income; monthly expenses; and any monthly remainder 
that might be available for discretionary spending or savings. There is no evidence of a 
budget. Applicant offered no evidence to indicate that his financial situation is now under 
control.  
Policies 
 
The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive 
Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security emphasizing, 
“no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.”5 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. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to 
grant an applicant eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that 
it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.”6   
 
When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the 
administrative judge must consider the guidelines in SEAD 4. In addition to brief 
introductory explanations for each guideline, the guidelines list potentially disqualifying 
conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility 
for access to classified information. 
 
An administrative judge need not view the guidelines as inflexible, ironclad rules 
of law. Instead, acknowledging the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are 
applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The 
administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense 
decision. 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, 
                                                          
5 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 
 
6 Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as 
amended and modified.    
 
 
5 
                                      
 
reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in 
making a meaningful decision. 
 
In the decision-making process, facts must be established by “substantial 
evidence.”7 The Government initially has the burden of producing evidence to establish a 
potentially disqualifying condition under the Directive, and has the burden of establishing 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Once the Government has produced substantial 
evidence of a disqualifying condition, under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant has the 
burden of persuasion to present evidence in refutation, explanation, extenuation or 
mitigation, sufficient to overcome the doubts raised by the Government’s case. The 
burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government.8  
 
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 as well. It is 
because of this special relationship that the Government must be able to repose a high 
degree of trust and confidence in those individuals to whom it grants access to classified 
information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the 
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. Furthermore, “security clearance 
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.”9  
 
Clearance decisions must be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense 
be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”10 Thus, nothing in this 
decision should be construed to suggest that I have based this decision, in whole or in 
part, on any express or implied determination as to Applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or 
patriotism. It is merely an indication the Applicant has or has not met the strict guidelines 
the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance.  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. 
 
                                                          
7 “Substantial evidence [is] such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate 
to support a conclusion in light of all contrary evidence in the record.”  ISCR Case No. 04-11463 at 2 (App. 
Bd. Aug. 4, 2006) (citing Directive ¶ E3.1.32.1).  “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). 
 
8 See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). 
 
9 Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 
 
10 See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. 
 
 
6 
                                      
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline E, Personal Conduct 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in 
AG ¶ 18: 
 
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or 
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions 
about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect 
classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to 
cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security 
investigative or adjudicative processes. The following will normally result in 
an unfavorable national security eligibility determination, security clearance 
action, or cancellation of further processing for national security eligibility: 
 
(a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or 
cooperate with security processing, including but not limited 
to meeting with a security investigator for subject interview, 
completing security forms or releases, cooperation with 
medical or psychological evaluation, or polygraph 
examination, if authorized and required; and 
 
(b) refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful 
questions of investigators, security officials, or other official 
representatives in connection with a personnel security or 
trustworthiness determination. 
 
The guideline notes some conditions that could raise security concerns under AG 
¶ 16:  
 
(d) Credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any 
other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse 
determination, but which, when combined with all available information, 
supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, 
untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with 
rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual 
may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information. This 
includes, but is not limited to, consideration of: (1) untrustworthy or 
unreliable behavior to include breach of client confidentiality, release of 
proprietary information, unauthorized release of sensitive corporate or 
government protected information; . . . (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule 
violations; and (4) evidence of significant misuse of [the] employer’s time or 
resources;  
 
(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one's conduct, 
that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress by a 
 
7 
                                      
 
foreign intelligence entity or other individual or group. Such conduct 
includes: (1) engaging in activities which, if known, could affect the person's 
personal, professional, or community standing. . . .; and   
 
(f) violation of a written or recorded commitment made by the individual to 
the employer as a condition of employment. 
 
 Applicant’s poor military performance and rule violations resulted in his being 
discharged and issued a General Discharge Under Honorable Conditions. He misused 
corporate credit cards issued to him by several employers, in one instance improperly 
charging over $7,500 in personal charges, including more than $4,000 in rental car 
transactions; $1,200 on Uber transactions; $623 on cable television costs; and over $800 
at a sports bar with billiards. His conduct over a number of years established a clear 
pattern of dishonesty and rule violations, as well a significant misuse of his employers’ 
resources. He was fired from employment as recently as October 2017 for willful his 
misuse of company assets in violation of company policies. In addition, Another 
Government Agency denied his eligibility for a security clearance. AG ¶¶ 16(d) and 16(e) 
have been established. 
 
The guideline also includes examples of conditions under AG ¶ 17 that could 
mitigate security concerns arising from personal conduct. They include: 
 
(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is 
so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is 
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, 
trustworthiness, or good judgment; 
 
(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling 
to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the 
stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, 
unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to 
recur; and 
 
(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability 
to exploitation, manipulation, or duress; 
 
None of the mitigating conditions apply. Applicant’s pattern of behavior, whether it 
refers to routinely ignoring military rules and regulations or to violating corporate policies, 
is a common theme that is frequent and generally recurs, regardless of his employment 
environment. Recognizing that Applicant was previously denied a security clearance, he 
offered no evidence to indicate that he has taken positive steps to alleviate the factors 
that contributed to his unreliable and inappropriate behavior since that denial action. 
Applicant’s actions under the circumstances continue to cast doubt on his current 
reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. 
 
 
 
 
8 
                                      
 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations 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. 
 
The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under 
AG 19:  
 
(a) inability to satisfy debts; 
 
(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; and 
 
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. 
 
In addition to the three company credit-card accounts that Applicant misused over 
several years, the SOR identified eight delinquent accounts that had been placed for 
collection or charged off, totaling approximately $27,364. Those accounts remain 
unaddressed and delinquent. Because of the absence of information regarding 
Applicant’s finances over the past few years, it is difficult to determine if he was unwilling, 
but able, to address his debts, or simply unable to do so. AG ¶¶ 19(a), 19(b), and 19(c) 
have been established.  
 
The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security 
concerns arising from financial difficulties under 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;11 
                                                          
11 A debt that became delinquent several years ago is still considered recent because “an 
applicant’s ongoing, unpaid debts evidence a continuing course of conduct and, therefore, can be viewed 
as recent for purposes of the Guideline F mitigating conditions.” ISCR Case No. 15-06532 at 3 (App. Bd. 
Feb. 16, 2017) (citing ISCR Case No. 15-01690 at 2 (App. Bd. Sept. 13, 2016)). 
 
9 
                                      
 
 
(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 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;12 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. 
AG ¶ 20(b) minimally applies, but none of the remaining mitigating conditions 
apply. The nature, frequency, and recency of Applicant’s continuing financial difficulties 
make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago” or “was so infrequent,” or that it 
is “unlikely to recur.” Applicant failed to explain why or how he got into debt. He did not 
specifically attribute his financial difficulties to any identified factors. He offered no 
statements or documentation to reflect that he had made any efforts, before or after he 
was interviewed by OPM, or before or after the SOR was issued in June 2018, to: obtain 
financial counseling from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit 
counseling service; dispute his delinquent accounts with the credit reporting agencies or 
the creditors themselves; contact his creditors to set up repayment plans; or indicate that 
payments had been made to his creditors.13 An applicant who begins to resolve his 
                                                          
 
12 The Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a good-faith effort to repay overdue 
creditors or otherwise resolve debts: 
 
In order to qualify for application of [the “good-faith” mitigating condition], an applicant must 
present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or some 
other good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does not 
define the term ‘good-faith.’ However, the Board has indicated that the concept of good-
faith ‘requires a showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, 
honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.’ Accordingly, an applicant must do more than 
merely show that he or she relied on a legally available option (such as bankruptcy [or 
statute of limitations]) in order to claim the benefit of [the “good-faith” mitigating condition].  
 
(internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004) (quoting 
ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)). 
 
13 See ISCR Case No. 12-01335 at 5 (App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2017). 
 
 
10 
                                      
 
financial problems only after being placed on notice that his or her security clearance is 
in jeopardy may be lacking in the judgment and self-discipline to follow rules and 
regulations over time or when there is no immediate threat to his or her own interests.14  
Clearance decisions are aimed at evaluating an applicant’s judgment, reliability, 
and trustworthiness. They are not a debt-collection procedure. The guidelines do not 
require an applicant to establish resolution of every debt or issue alleged in the SOR. An 
applicant needs only to establish a plan to resolve financial problems and take significant 
actions to implement the plan. There is no requirement that an applicant immediately 
resolve issues or make payments on all delinquent debts simultaneously, nor is there a 
requirement that the debts or issues alleged in an SOR be resolved first. Rather, a 
reasonable plan and concomitant conduct may provide for the payment of such debts, or 
resolution of such issues, one at a time. Mere promises to pay debts in the future, without 
further confirmed action, are insufficient. In this instance, to date, there is no evidence 
that any corrective actions have been taken by Applicant. There is no evidence to 
conclude that Applicant’s finances are under control. Applicant’s actions under the 
circumstances continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good 
judgment.15 
 
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 SEAD 4, App. A, ¶ 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 
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 SEAD 4, App. A, ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant a 
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. Moreover, I have 
evaluated the various aspects of this case in light of the totality of the record evidence 
and have not merely performed a piecemeal analysis.16   
                                                          
14 See, e.g., ISCR Case No. 17-01213 at 5 (App. Bd. Jun. 29, 2018); ISCR Case No. 17-00569 at 
3-4 (App. Bd. Sept. 18, 2018). 
 
15 See ISCR Case No. 09-08533 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Oct. 6, 2010). 
 
16 See U.S. v. Bottone, 365 F.2d 389, 392 (2d Cir. 1966); See also ISCR Case No. 03-22861 at 2-
3 (App. Bd. Jun. 2, 2006). 
 
 
11 
                                      
 
There is very little evidence mitigating Applicant’s conduct. Applicant is a 37-year-
old employee of a defense contractor. He is a 1999 high school graduate, and he received 
some college credits, but no degree.  
The disqualifying evidence under the whole-person concept is simply more 
substantial. He was administratively discharged by the U.S. Army, and issued a General 
Discharge Under Honorable Conditions, due in part to writing checks with insufficient 
funds; he misused company credit cards with different employers, and he was either 
disciplined or terminated; and he was previously denied a security clearance. Although 
not alleged in the SOR, he also had alcohol-related issues and used marijuana. It is now 
mid-February 2019, and Applicant has not shown any voluntary effort to address his 
delinquent debts. Applicant’s current financial situation is unknown. Considering the lack 
of evidence regarding his current finances, I am unable to reach a positive conclusion 
pertaining to Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. 
The Appeal Board has addressed a key element in the whole-person analysis in 
financial cases stating:17 
In evaluating Guideline F cases, the Board has previously noted that the 
concept of “meaningful track record” necessarily includes evidence of actual 
debt reduction through payment of debts. However, an applicant is not 
required, as a matter of law, to establish that he [or she] has paid off each 
and every debt listed in the SOR. All that is required is that an applicant 
demonstrate that he [or she] has “. . . established a plan to resolve his [or 
her] financial problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.” 
The Judge can reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial 
situation and his [or her] actions in evaluating the extent to which that 
applicant’s plan for the reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible 
and realistic. See Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (“Available, reliable information about 
the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be 
considered in reaching a determination.”) There is no requirement that a 
plan provide for payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, 
a reasonable plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment 
of such debts one at a time. Likewise, there is no requirement that the first 
debts actually paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones 
listed in the SOR. 
 
Applicant has demonstrated an extremely poor track record of debt reduction and 
elimination efforts, failing to take any corrective actions with respect to his delinquent 
debts. Overall, the evidence leaves me with substantial questions and doubts as to 
Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all of these reasons, I 
conclude Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his personal 
conduct and his financial considerations. See SEAD 4, App. A, ¶¶ 2(d)(1) through AG 
2(d)(9). 
                                                          
17 ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations omitted). 
 
 
12 
                                      
 
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 E:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.b:  Against Applicant 
 
Paragraph 2, Guideline F:   AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 2.a. through 2.i.:  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 eligibility for a security 
clearance.  Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
                                          
            
________________________ 
ROBERT ROBINSON GALES 
Administrative Judge