1 
       DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
   DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: )
)
)
[NAME REDACTED] )       ISCR Case No. 18-00836 
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
Appearances 
For Government: Aubrey DeAngelis, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge: 
Applicant incurred delinquent debts while he was deployed to Afghanistan in 2011, 
because his ex-wife abused the power of attorney he gave her before he deployed. In 
their ensuing divorce, Applicant was assigned most of their marital debt. Applicant has 
repaid all but one of the debts at issue here, and his financial and personal circumstances 
are much improved. He is unlikely to incur such financial problems again, and the security 
concerns about his finances are mitigated. His request for security clearance eligibility is 
granted. 
Statement of the Case 
On September 19, 2016, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for 
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain eligibility for a security clearance required for 
his employment with a federal contractor. Based on the results of the ensuing background 
03/14/2019
 
 
2 
 
 
investigation, adjudicators for the Department of Defense (DOD) could not determine that 
it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security for Applicant to have a security 
clearance.1 
 
 On May 4, 2018, DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts that 
raise security concerns under the adjudicative guideline for financial considerations 
(Guideline F). Applicant timely responded to the SOR (Answer) and requested a hearing.  
 
 I received the case on September 19, 2018, and convened the requested hearing 
on, December 11, 2018. The parties appeared as scheduled. Department Counsel 
proffered Government Exhibits (GX) 1 – 4. Applicant testified and proffered Applicant 
Exhibits (AX) A – E. All exhibits were admitted without objection. I received a transcript of 
the hearing (Tr.) on January 7, 2019. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Under Guideline F, the Government alleged Applicant owed $21,901 for 16 
delinquent or past-due debts (SOR 1.a – 1.p). In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted 
only SOR 1.d, and he denied the rest. In his e-QIP, Applicant disclosed the debts alleged 
at SOR 1.a – 1.c, 1.g, and 1.i. The remaining debts are documented in three credit reports 
obtained during Applicant’s background investigation and the adjudication of this case. 
(Answer; GX 1 – 4) In addition to the facts thus established, I make the following additional 
findings of fact. 
 
 Applicant is 29 years old. After working in various jobs after high school, he joined 
the Army in April 2010. Applicant served on active duty, which included a one-year 
deployment to Afghanistan in 2011 and 2012, until receiving an honorable discharge in 
October 2013. Thereafter, he served in the Army Reserve until he was medically 
discharged in February 2014. Except for four months in 2014, Applicant was unemployed 
after leaving the Army until he was hired by a defense contractor in July 2015. Applicant 
was hired by his current employer in January 2016. Applicant previously held a security 
clearance as part of his military duties in the Army Signal Corps. (GX 1; Tr. 6 – 7, 27, 29) 
 
 Applicant and his wife have been married since December 2016. They have two 
children under two years of age, for whom his wife cares as a stay-at-home mom. 
Applicant was previously married from June 2010 until a divorce decree was finalized in 
August 2014. The couple separated in 2012, one month after Applicant returned from 
Afghanistan. All but two2 of the debts at issue in this case were opened in Applicant’s 
name by his ex-wife either while he was overseas or shortly after he returned. She did so 
                                                 
1 Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by DOD Directive 5220.6 (Directive), as amended. 
 
2 The debt at SOR 1.h was owed to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) for overpayment of benefits. 
That debt was resolved in February 2018. The debt at SOR 1.m was owed to the Defense Finance and 
Accounting Service (DFAS) for military equipment Applicant had not turned in when he returned from 
deployment. That debt was resolved in June 2016. (AX E; Tr. 38 – 40) 
 
 
3 
 
 
using a general power of attorney he gave her so she could manage their affairs in his 
absence. His ex-wife opened several accounts to buy things they could not afford, 
including a houseful of furniture, two cars, and even orthodontic braces. None of the 
accounts was paid as required during his absence. Applicant had no knowledge of her 
malfeasance until he returned. Even after they separated, she was able to abuse their 
finances by writing checks from their bank account and purchasing a second car. His ex-
wife’s conduct ended when Applicant closed their joint bank account. (GX 1 – 4; Tr. 26 – 
27, 41) 
 
 Despite his ex-wife’s misconduct, Applicant has accepted responsibility for the 
debts because it was he who gave her power of attorney in the first place. In May 2016, 
after nearly a year of steady employment with a defense contractor, Applicant obtained 
the services of a debt management firm (DMF) to negotiate with his creditors and 
establish a monthly repayment plan that would resolve most or all of his outstanding 
debts. Initially, debt payments were delayed by about seven months because DMF was 
unable to implement automatic withdrawals from either of Applicant’s two bank accounts. 
When Applicant submitted his e-QIP, he was paying $700 each month to pay the debts 
at SOR 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.e, and 1.f. To date, only SOR 1.a remains unresolved, but his 
current monthly payment of $483 is now being directed to pay that debt. (GX 1; AX B; AX 
E; Tr. 44 – 45) 
 
 Applicant successfully resolved the debts at SOR 1.g and 1.j after proving to those 
creditors that his ex-wife had misused his identity. In those instances, she had used his 
social security number but with her name on the accounts. Applicant resolved the 
remaining debts listed in the SOR by paying those creditors directly. (AX C – E; Tr. 31 – 
41) 
 
 Applicant’s current finances are sound. He has only two credit cards, which as of 
the hearing, had a combined balance due under $700. He currently earns $81,000 
annually and has no other outstanding debts. Applicant files and pays his taxes as 
required, has a good command of his personal finances, and appears to be living 
modestly and within his means. (AX A; Tr. 28 – 30, 41, 46) 
 
Policies 
 
 Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense 
determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,3 
and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the adjudicative 
guidelines (AG).4 Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(d) 
of the guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept, those factors are:  
                                                 
3 See Directive. 6.3. 
 
4 The current adjudicative guidelines were issued by the Director of National Intelligence on December 10, 
2016, to be effective for all adjudications on or after June 8, 2017. 
 
 
 
4 
 
 
 
  (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. 
 
 The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not 
determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant. However, specific applicable 
guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them as they 
represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified 
information. A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly 
consistent with the national interest5 for an applicant to either receive or continue to have 
access to classified information.  
 
 The Government bears the initial burden of producing admissible information on 
which it based the preliminary decision to deny or revoke a security clearance for an 
applicant. Additionally, the Government must be able to prove controverted facts alleged 
in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it then falls to the applicant to refute, 
extenuate or mitigate the Government’s case. Because no one has a “right” to a security 
clearance, an applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.6 A person who has access 
to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based 
on trust and confidence. Thus, the Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each 
applicant possesses the requisite judgment, reliability and trustworthiness of one who will 
protect the national interests as his or her own. The “clearly consistent with the national 
interest” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s 
suitability for access in favor of the Government.7 
 
Analysis 
 
Financial Considerations  
 
 The Government established that the delinquent debts alleged in the SOR were 
attributable to Applicant. When the SOR was issued, many of those debts had not yet 
been resolved. That information reasonably raised a security concern about Applicant’s 
finances that is articulated at AG ¶ 18: 
 
                                                 
5 See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). 
 
6 See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531. 
 
7 See Egan; AG ¶ 2(b). 
 
 
5 
 
 
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. 
 
More specifically, available information supported application of the disqualifying 
conditions at AG ¶¶ 19(a) (inability to satisfy debts). By contrast, Applicant established 
that his debts arose entirely from events and circumstances beyond his control. It is 
unreasonable to conclude he knew or could have known it was likely that his ex-wife 
would abuse a power of attorney on which most deploying service members rely to ensure 
their obligations are timely met during a prolonged absence from home. 
 
In response to his ex-wife’s actions, Applicant acted responsibly and promptly to 
change his financial circumstances. The couple separated and Applicant closed their 
accounts. Applicant was assigned most of the marital debt in a 2014 divorce. After gaining 
steady employment in the defense industry, Applicant has spent most of the past three 
years resolving all of the debts in which he had no part in generating. Applicant’s finances 
are currently sound and it appears unlikely such financial problems will recur. All of the 
foregoing supports application of the following AG ¶ 20 mitigating conditions: 
  
(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 and/or 
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 
 
 
6 
 
 
 
(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. 
 
 On balance, I conclude the record as a whole is sufficient to mitigate the security 
concerns raised by the Government’s information about Applicant’s finances. I also have 
evaluated this record in the context of the whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(d). 
Particularly noteworthy is the information regarding Applicant’s response to his adverse 
financial circumstances. It reflects well on Applicant’s judgment and reliability. A fair and 
commonsense assessment of the record evidence as a whole shows the security 
concerns about his finances are mitigated. 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section 
E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F:  FOR APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.p:  For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 In light of all of the foregoing, it is clearly consistent with the interests of national 
security for Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a 
security clearance is granted. 
 
 
 
                                        
MATTHEW E. MALONE 
Administrative Judge