1 
        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
  DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
In the matter of: )
)
) ISCR Case No: 18-01360 
)
)
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
For Government: Aubrey M. DeAngelis, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
______________ 
Decision 
______________ 
DAM, Shari, Administrative Judge: 
Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns related to 
unpaid delinquent debts. Based on a review of the pleadings and exhibits, national 
security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
Statement of the Case 
On May 23, 2018, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued to Applicant a 
Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F (Financial 
Considerations). The action was taken under Executive Order 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 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.  
03/19/2019
 
 
 
 
2 
 Applicant answered the SOR in writing on May 23, 2018, and requested that her 
case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing 
(Answer). On October 17 and November 6, 2018, Department Counsel mailed Applicant 
the Government’s written case. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), 
containing eight Items, was received by her on November 9, 2018. The FORM notified 
Applicant that she had an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, 
extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of receipt of the FORM. Applicant timely 
submitted additional information, and did not object to the Government’s Items. I marked 
that information as Applicant Exhibit (AE) A. Items 1 through 8 and AE A are admitted 
into evidence without objection. DOHA assigned the case to me on February 7, 2019. 
 
Findings of Fact 
 
 Applicant denied ten of the eleven allegations contained in the SOR and provided 
explanations. She admitted the allegation in ¶ 1.e. (Item 3) 
 
 Applicant is 36 years old and married since 2012. She has a seven-year-old child. 
She has earned some college credits. She has worked for federal contractors since 2006 
and has held a security clearance since 2008. (Item 4) 
 
 In May 2016, Applicant submitted an electronic Questionnaires for Investigations 
Processing (e-QIP). In February 2018, she was interviewed by a government investigator 
about her background and financial delinquencies. The investigator inquired about 12 
medical debts that became collection accounts in 2015 and appeared on her July 2016 
credit bureau report (CBR). Applicant stated she did not recognize 10 of the accounts, 
but would investigate them. She said she had two medical debts that she could not pay 
after her son’s birth in April 2012, because she did not have enough money. She said she 
subsequently paid them. (Item 8) 
 
 Based on the July 2016 CBR, the SOR alleged 11 delinquent medical debts that 
totaled $19,367. They arose between August 2011 and December 2012, and became 
collection accounts between September 2015 and November 2015. In her Answer to the 
SOR, Applicant stated that she was only responsible for one debt, ¶ 1.e.1 She said she 
was making payments on it and had lowered the balance. She did not submit proof of her 
assertion. She stated that she had no knowledge of the other 10 alleged debts. (Items 3, 
8) 
 
 With her Answer to the SOR, Applicant provided an August 2016 document from 
a credit-reporting agency indicating that it deleted numerous debts after investigating the 
disputes she filed regarding them. The following debts were disputed and deleted: ¶ 1.c 
for $3,528; ¶ 1.g for $757; ¶ 1.h for $625; and ¶ 1.i for $584. Applicant did not provide 
evidence documenting the basis for her disputes or the deletions. (Item 3) 
                                            
1 In her Answer, Applicant confused two SOR debts. She misstated the amount of the alleged debt in ¶ 
1.e as $2,936. The correct amount in ¶ 1.e is $1,859. The amount of $2,936 is alleged in ¶ 1.d, and is 
seemingly the debt she said she is paying. (Item 3) 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
 Applicant submitted a November 2016 credit report from another credit-reporting 
agency noting that the following debts were “no longer on file” and removed from her 
credit report: ¶ 1.a for $3,806; ¶ 1.b for $3,717; ¶ 1.d for $2,936; ¶ 1.f for $811; and ¶ 1.j 
for $375. She did not provide any evidence documenting the basis for removal of the 
debts from her credit report, such as they were wrongly reported, or the debts were paid. 
She stated that she also needed to have the credit bureaus remove the debt alleged in ¶ 
1.k for $369, but gave no reason. (Item 3) 
  
 Applicant submitted a document confirming that she had participated in a credit 
restoration program since August 2016. The program provides budget and credit 
counseling services. (AE A) She did not provide a budget or other information related to 
her financial obligations from which to determine current financial reliability or compliance 
with payment agreements.  
 
 Applicant provided performance evaluations for 2017, 2016, 2015, and 2014. All 
of the evaluations consistently rate her as “meeting expectations” and “exceeding 
expectations” in various categories. (AE A)  
 
Policies 
 
 When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the 
administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations 
for each guideline, the AG list potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions, which 
are useful 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s 
overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According 
to AG ¶ 2(c), 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere 
speculation or conjecture. 
 
Directive ¶ E3.1.14 requires the Government to present evidence to establish 
controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Directive ¶ E3.1.15 states that an “applicant is 
responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or 
 
 
 
 
4 
mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the 
ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance 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 
the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or 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.  
 
Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that an adverse decision 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 Executive Order 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple 
prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information.) 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F: Financial Considerations 
 
The security concerns relating to the guideline for financial considerations are set 
out in AG & 18:  
 
Failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet 
financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or 
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise 
questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to 
protect classified information. Financial distress can also be caused by 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 acts 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) 
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 
 
 
 
 
5 
presumes a nexus between proven conduct under any of the Guidelines 
and an applicant’s security eligibility.  
 
  AG ¶ 19 includes three disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern 
and may be disqualifying in this case: “(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 ISCR Case No. 08-12184 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 7, 2010), the Appeal Board 
explained: 
 
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. 
 
The record establishes the above disqualifying conditions, requiring additional inquiry 
about the possible applicability of mitigating conditions. 
 
AG ¶ 20 sets out five conditions that could potentially mitigate financial security 
concerns under this guideline: 
(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, or a death, divorce or separation), 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; 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. 
 
With support from substantial record evidence, the SOR alleges 11 medical 
delinquent debts totaling $19,367, which arose over a period of two years. Applicant did 
not produce evidence that the delinquent debts happened so long ago; that they occurred 
 
 
 
 
6 
under circumstances that are unlikely to recur; or that they occurred under circumstances 
that were beyond her control and she acted responsibly under the circumstances. There 
is no evidence to establish mitigation under AG ¶¶ 20(a) or (b).  
 
Applicant produced evidence that she has been enrolled in a program since August 
2016 that provides credit and budgetary services; however, she did not provide credible 
evidence that her delinquent debts are paid, resolved, or under control. AG ¶ 20(c) applies 
minimally. Applicant said she was making payments on one debt, but failed to submit 
proof of those payments. AG ¶ 20(d) does not apply.  
 
Applicant reported that 10 of the 11 delinquent debts alleged in the SOR have been 
deleted or no longer appear on her credit report, implying that she is not responsible for 
them. In order to establish mitigation under AG ¶ 20(e), Applicant must provide evidence 
that she had a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debts or 
otherwise took actions to resolve the issues. The fact that a creditor has charged off or 
deleted a debt is not a valid basis to mitigate a debt under AG ¶ 20(e). “Mere evidence 
that debts no longer appear on credit reports is not reason to believe that they are not 
legitimate or that they have been satisfactorily resolved.” ISCR Case No. 16-02941 at 2 
(App. Bd. Dec. 29, 2017) (citing ISCR Case No. 14-03747 at 2-3 (App. Bd. Nov. 13, 
2015)). Applicant failed to establish mitigation under this guideline for security concerns 
arising from any of the debts.  
  
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 relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the 
nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 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) 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 AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant national security eligibility 
must include an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the 
guidelines and the whole-person concept. 
 
I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all 
facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under 
Guideline F in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were 
addressed under that guideline, but some warrant additional comment. 
 
 
 
 
7 
 
Applicant is a 36-year-old woman who has worked for defense contractors since 
2006, and held a security clearance since 2008. Her employer commends her work 
performance. During 2011 and 2012, she accumulated 11 delinquent medical debts that 
were sent to collection agencies in 2015, as reflected on a later credit report. In 2016, 10 
of those debts were deleted from her credit report or no longer appear on it. As a result, 
she asserts no responsibility for their resolution and provides no explanation for the 
circumstances underlying them or basis for filing disputes. Those alleged debts totaled 
over $19,000 and remain relevant in evaluating her eligibility to hold a security clearance. 
Applicant said she was resolving a $2,900 debt, but did not provide documentation 
confirming payments on it. Overall, she did not provide sufficient evidence of debt 
resolution.  
   
The record evidence leaves me with doubt as to Applicant’s judgment and 
suitability for a security clearance. Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns 
arising under the financial considerations guideline.  
 
Formal Findings 
 
 Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as 
required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: 
 
Paragraph 1, Guideline F:        AGAINST APPLICANT 
 
Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.k:      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 a security clearance. 
National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. 
 
                                            
   
_________________ 
SHARI DAM 
Administrative Judge