1 
 
 
                                   
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 
DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS 
           
             
 
 
                           
 
In the matter of: ) 
 ) 
  )  ISCR Case No. 18-01660 
 ) 
Applicant for Security Clearance ) 
 
 
Appearances 
 
For Government: Aubrey De Angelis, Esq., Department Counsel 
For Applicant: Pro se 
05/30/2019 
______________ 
 
 
Decision 
______________ 
 
 
GLENDON, John Bayard, Administrative Judge: 
 
This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (financial 
considerations). Applicant failed to file his federal and state tax returns, as required, for 
four years and owes taxes to the federal government. He has mitigated the security 
concerns raised by his past actions. Eligibility for access to classified information is 
granted. 
 
Statement of the Case 
 
On November 19, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications 
Facility (DOD CAF) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security 
concerns under Guideline F. The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order 10865, 
Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended 
(Exec. Or.); DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance 
Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative 
guidelines (AG) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security 
Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), for all adjudicative decisions on or after 
June 8, 2017. 
 
2 
 
 The SOR alleges that Applicant failed to file his 2009, 2010, 2016, and 2017 federal 
and state income tax returns as required and that he is indebted to the federal government 
in the amount of $1,487 for taxes due for 2014. The SOR also alleges that he has a 
delinquent credit-card account that is in collection in the amount of $1,624. 
 
Applicant responded to the SOR on December 18, 2018 (SOR Response). In his 
response, he admitted each of the SOR allegations regarding his untimely federal tax 
filings. He also admitted his federal tax debt for 2014, but asserted that he has made 
some partial payments on this debt. As for his state tax filings, he admitted the SOR 
allegations regarding 2009, 2010, and 2016, but wrote that he filed his 2017 state tax 
return in November 2018. He denied the SOR allegation regarding credit-card debt and 
wrote that he had agreed to a payment plan with the creditor settling this debt and made 
the last payment on December 7, 2018. He requested a hearing before an administrative 
judge.  
 
The case was assigned to me on February 13, 2019. On February 21, 2019, the 
Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing scheduling 
the hearing to be held on March 13, 2019. I convened the hearing as scheduled.  
 
At the hearing, Department Counsel offered five documents into evidence, which 
were marked as Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5. These exhibits were admitted 
into the record without objection. Applicant testified and offered 17 exhibits, which were 
marked as Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A through Q and were admitted without objection. A 
character witness also testified. I left the record open until March 27, 2019, to give 
Applicant the opportunity to submit additional documentary evidence. At Applicant’s 
request, I extended the time for him to submit additional evidence until April 22, 2014.  
 
During the period March 16, 2019, through April 16, 2019, Applicant made several 
post-hearing submissions. On April 23, 2019, he requested an additional four months to 
provide additional evidence. I denied his request on the same day. That correspondence 
is marked as Hearing Exhibit (HE) I. In an attempt to avoid any miscommunication caused 
by Applicant’s multiple and rather confusing post-hearing submissions, Department 
Counsel prepared a list of the exhibits that Applicant submitted. I have marked her May 
3, 2019 list as HE II. In that list, Department Counsel described two documents that she 
had no record of receiving. I have marked her email identifying those documents as HE 
III. On May 13, 2019, I emailed Applicant and asked him to confirm the accuracy of 
Department Counsel’s list, HE II, and to produce the two missing documents. He was 
unable to produce one of the documents. My email and Applicant’s response are marked 
as HE IV.  
 
On May 17, 2019, I received physical copies of all of Applicant’s post-hearing 
exhibits and created a list of the documents, which I have marked as HE V. I marked 
these documents as AE R through MM. Absent objection, all of Applicant’s post-hearing 
exhibits are admitted into the record. I also have marked an email thread regarding the 
accuracy and completeness of this list as HE VI. DOHA received the transcript of the 
hearing (Tr.) on March 27, 2019.  
 
3 
 
Findings of Fact1 
 
 Based upon Applicant’s admissions in his SOR Response, and after a careful 
review of his testimony, and that of his character witness, and the documentary evidence 
admitted into the record, I make the following findings of fact. 
 
Applicant, age 30, is seeking a security clearance in connection with an 
employment with a federal contractor to work as a personnel security background 
investigator. He submitted his security clearance application on July 20, 2017, and began 
working in this position in October 2017. This is Applicant’s first, full-time position as an 
adult. At the time of the hearing, he earned an hourly wage of $17. After the hearing, he 
submitted a paystub showing that he had received a raise to $23.50 per hour. He is also 
pursuing a part-time job to increase his income. (AE DD.) 
 
During the period May 2015 to October 2017, Applicant worked 30 hours a week, 
and often less, in an hourly position for a public school district during the school year. He 
was unpaid for one and one half months each summer. During the school year, his income 
varied by the number of school days in each month. Some months, his monthly net pay 
was $800 and in other months, his net pay was half that amount. His hourly rate was 
about $13-$14. He also maintained part-time employment on an “on-call” basis, which 
provided work on occasional weekends. His hourly rate at his second job started at about 
$12 and was increased to $15. His income in 2015 was approximately $19,000, which 
included a premature withdrawal from his IRA. His income increased to $30,000 to 
$40,000 in 2016 and 2017,2 but during the summer of 2016, his income dropped so low 
that he had to take out a loan from a car-title lender to pay his rent. He is still paying off 
that loan, which is current and is not the subject of an SOR allegation. (Tr. 28-32, 34, and 
42-43; AE C-F, I, L, and P.) 
 
During the period 2006 through 2012, Applicant attended college and graduated 
with a bachelor’s degree. In 2017, he earned a master’s in business administration. He 
worked multiple part-time jobs while earning his degrees. He attended graduate school 
full time over a two-year period while working for the public school district. He has never 
married and has no children. He lived with his father until January 2015 and has lived on 
his own since then. In January 2016, Applicant’s monthly rent increased to $795 and by 
January 2019, his rent for the same apartment had increased to $1,200. These significant 
rent increases caused Applicant financial stress and difficulty living on his limited income. 
(AE G and H.) 
 
                                                          
1 Applicant’s personal information is extracted from his security clearance application, dated July 20, 2017, 
(GE 1), unless otherwise indicated by a parenthetical citation to the record. 
 
2 He also withdrew funds from his IRA in both 2016 and 2017. (AE J and K.)  
 
 
4 
 
 In his SOR Response, Applicant admitted that he failed to file his federal tax returns 
for 2009 and 2010, when he was 20 and 21 years old, respectively (SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b).3 
He was a college student at that time. He filed his 2009 tax return after the hearing. The 
return reflects an adjusted gross income of $12,751, but the return is incomplete and does 
not show if he owed any taxes. The Form 1040A that he filed for 2009 indicates that he 
was entitled to a single exemption worth $3,650 and a standard deduction of $5,700, 
which would result in taxable income of $3,401. According to the 2009 wage and income 
tax transcript he submitted after the hearing, his total income tax withholding from the 
wages he earned working at three jobs that year was $691, or 29% of his taxable income. 
There is no evidence in the record that he owes any taxes for 2009, and it is unlikely that 
he has any residual tax liability for that year. (AE LL and FF.) 
 
 As noted above, Applicant admitted in his SOR Response that he failed to file his 
2010 federal tax return, however, this was erroneous. After the hearing, he provided an 
IRS Account Transcript for 2010, which shows that he filed his tax return on April 15, 
2011, and paid on that date the balance of the taxes due in the amount of $289. (AE GG.) 
 
 In response to the Government’s interrogatories, Applicant provided transcripts for 
tax years 2011 through 2015, which reflect that he filed his tax returns on time each year4 
and owed no taxes, with the exception of 2014. He owes $1,486 in back taxes for 2014, 
which is the subject of the SOR ¶ 1.e. Initially, the IRS calculated that he was due a refund 
of $1,996, but then it recalculated his taxes and determined he owed $1,866, plus interest 
of $97. Applicant established an installment agreement in October 2016 and made seven 
payments of $100 each. He then defaulted, and the IRS terminated the installment 
agreement in April 2017. (GE 2 at 10, GE 3 at 9-15.)  
 
 Applicant failed to file his 2016 and 2017 federal income tax returns, as required. 
Although not alleged, he also owes back taxes for those years. He filed these returns 
after the hearing. In September or October of 2018, he made a $40 payment. In October 
2018, he filed a request with the IRS to establish an installment payment plan, which 
provided for monthly payments of $60. The IRS rejected his proposed payment plan as 
insufficient. On January 10, 2019, he submitted a second proposal to pay $100 per month. 
As of the hearing date, he was waiting for the IRS to respond. After the hearing, the IRS 
responded and agreed to an installment payment plan pursuant to which Applicant pays 
$100 per month by automatic electronic payment on the 15th of each month. By email 
dated May 15, 2019, Applicant advised that the IRS received its first payment of $100 
under the payment plan. In addition, the IRS notified Applicant that he owed $1,573 for 
                                                          
3 In response to the Government interrogatories, Applicant provided an IRS Account Transcript for 2008, 
which shows that he had an adjusted gross income of $5,907 and was due a refund of $172. According to 
this IRS document, he filed the return on June 1, 2009. (GE 3 at 7.) 
 
4 His 2011 tax transcript shows a filing date of April 30, 2012, which was about 15 days late. He received a 
refund that year, as well as in 2012 and 2013. (GE 3 at 12.) 
 
 
5 
 
2014 and that he owes $2,802 for 2016 and $2,668 for 2017.5 (Tr. 27-28, 37, 40-41, and 
44-45; AE J, K, O, S, T, U, V, W, and AA; HE VI at 1-2.)  
 
 With the help of a tax professional, Applicant filed his 2018 federal tax return on 
time and was due to receive a small refund. He under withheld on his taxes in 2016 and 
2017 due to his limited income while working two jobs and by incurring a tax penalty for 
premature withdrawals from his IRA.6 In 2018, he corrected his error with the advice of a 
tax professional. His inability to pay his taxes in those years is the reason for his failure 
to file his tax returns in a timely manner. (AE HH.) 
 
 In his SOR Response, Applicant admitted the SOR allegations in ¶¶ 1.f, 1.g, and 
1.h that he failed to file his 2009, 2010, and 2016 state tax returns, as required. As noted 
above, he denied the allegation in SOR ¶ 1.i regarding his 2017 state tax return, claiming 
that he filed this return in November 2018. That return was actually due in April 2018. 
After the hearing, he submitted a 2009 state tax return, dated April 15, 2019, and a 2010 
state tax return, dated April 8, 2019. In addition, he submitted after the hearing copies of 
his 2016 and 2017 state tax returns, which were prepared by a tax professional and are 
undated. They reflect that he owes his state $463 and $662 for 2016 and 2017, 
respectively. In an email sent after the hearing, Applicant wrote that he had determined 
that he had also failed to file his 2015 state tax return. He submitted a copy of this return, 
which was prepared by a tax professional and is undated. The return reflects a tax due of 
$69. He also provided a letter from the state which indicates that he has a zero balance 
for 2015. In December 2018, he made a payment of $847 to the state for tax year 2017 
to avoid the state’s threatened garnishment of his pay. After the hearing, he provided 
documentation that reflected that he has a zero balance with the state for that year. It 
appears that he has no tax liability to the state for tax year 2017 and earlier.7 A tax 
professional prepared his 2018 state tax return, which was filed in a timely manner. (Tr. 
30 and 37-37; AE N at 1-2, S, U, W, BB, CC, JJ, and MM) 
 
 The SOR also alleges one credit-card debt owed to a bank in the amount of $1,624. 
(SOR ¶ 1.j.) This account became delinquent in April 2017 and was settled in November 
2018. He wrote in an exhibit that he paid this debt with six monthly payments of $117. He 
                                                          
5 The IRS also calculated that he owed $147 for 2015, which is inconsistent with its July 29, 2018 Account 
Transcript for that year, which reflects a $0 balance. (AE Y; GE 3 at 14.) 
 
6 Applicant testified that his tax error was related to his graduate school, which he described as “an up-and-
coming vocational school,” not a regular graduate school program. He also admitted that he under withheld 
on his payroll taxes. (Tr. 27-28; AE B.) On a related matter, AE B reflects Applicant’s enrollment in June 
2015 in this graduate program, but the exhibit does not show that he earned any credits or graduated. I 
accept Applicant’s assertion in his SCA that he graduated from this educational program as credible 
because I found Applicant’s testimony on all subjects to be honest and forthcoming, though with occasional 
confusion regarding certain issues. (GE 1 at 10.) 
 
7 Applicant attached to his interrogatory responses an August 2018 document that reflects he owes no state 
taxes for the years 2010 through 2015 and a separate document, dated August 2018, acknowledging that 
he filed his 2016 return as requested by the state and that he owed nothing further for 2016. (GE 2.) 
 
6 
 
also provided a December 11, 2018 letter from the credit-card issuer stating that this debt 
was satisfied. (AE A and M; GE 5 at 2.)  
 
Policies 
 
 “[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 
484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to 
“control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an 
individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The 
President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants 
eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly 
consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 2.  
 
Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the 
criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules 
of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge 
applies these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An 
administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense 
decision. An administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information 
about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. 
 
 The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with 
access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and 
endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the 
possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard 
classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible 
extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified 
information. 
 
Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in 
no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 
§ 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant 
has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have 
established for issuing a clearance. 
 
 Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the 
personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from 
being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of 
establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 
“Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. 
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines 
presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria 
listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 
(App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). 
 
 
7 
 
 Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial 
evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the 
facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, 
and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-
31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). 
 
An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent 
with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-
20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if 
they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 
 
Analysis 
 
Guideline F, Financial Considerations 
 
 The SOR contains ten allegations under Guideline F. The security concern under 
this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 18, as follows: 
 
Failure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial 
obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or 
unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise 
questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to 
protect classified or sensitive information. . . . An individual who is financially 
overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise 
questionable acts to generate funds. . . .  
 
 This concern is broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly 
compromise classified information to raise money. It encompasses concerns about a 
person’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified 
information. A person who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, 
unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. See ISCR 
Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012). 
 
 Applicant’s admissions, testimony, and the documentary evidence in the record 
establish the following potentially disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a) 
(“inability to satisfy debts”), AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”), 
and AG ¶ 19(f) (“failure to file . . . annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns or 
failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required”). 
 
 The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: 
 
AG ¶ 20(a): the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or 
occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not 
cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good 
judgment; 
 
 
8 
 
AG ¶ 20(c): the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling 
for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit 
credit counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem 
is being resolved or is under control;  
 
AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to 
repay creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and 
 
AG ¶ 20(g): the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax 
authority to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those 
arrangements. 
 
 Adjudicative Guideline ¶ 20(a) has been partially established. Applicant failed to 
file his 2009, 2016, and 2017 federal tax returns and his 2009, 2010, 2016, and 2017 
state tax returns, as required, and he failed to pay all of his 2014 federal taxes.8 These 
deficiencies, however, occurred under somewhat unusual circumstances, are unlikely to 
recur, and do not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. 
In 2009 and 2010, he was a young college student, who literally worked his way through 
college employed in as many as three jobs in one year. His income was minimal, and he 
paid all of his federal and state taxes through his tax withholding. His failure to file his tax 
returns was merely the result of his young age, his lack of experience in the adult world, 
and an absence of adult supervision.  
 
Applicant’s failure to file his federal and state tax returns in 2016 and 2017 in a 
timely manner is more problematic because he was older, though he was working his 
way through graduate school at the time. He was underemployed in low-wage, hourly 
positions, and he was trying to live on his own at a time when he was not financially 
capable of doing so. Something had to give, and he made the poor choice that it would 
be his tax filing and payment responsibilities.  
 
Prior to the hearing, Applicant did not appreciate that he had to address his tax 
filing and payment delinquencies, but it is quite evident from his flurry of activity after the 
hearing that he undertook responsible, mature steps to address his tax responsibilities. 
He filed all of his federal tax returns and negotiated a payment plan with the IRS that he 
could afford to pay and has begun paying off his total federal tax delinquency of about 
$7,000, which includes the $1,500 alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e for 2014. He also filed his 2018 
federal and state tax returns and paid all amounts due, as required.  
 
With respect to his state returns, Applicant filed the delinquent returns after the 
hearing and had paid his overdue taxes prior to the hearing. He also paid off an 
outstanding credit-card account over a six-month period prior to the hearing in a mature, 
responsible manner. The fact that his remedial steps took place after his receipt of the 
SOR, and in some instances, after the hearing, prevents me from applying this mitigating 
condition fully, but I give weight to my conclusion that now that he is employed in his first 
                                                          
8 The record evidence established that Applicant filed his 2010 tax return and paid his taxes, as required.  
 
9 
 
adult job earning a proper wage for a person with his education, I strongly believe that 
his past conduct will not recur.  
 
 Adjudicative Guideline ¶ 20(c) has been established because Applicant has 
received tax counseling from a tax professional and has addressed and corrected the 
mistakes in his management of his tax responsibilities. Although many of Applicant’s 
mitigating actions took place after the hearing, there is a clear indication that his tax 
problems are being resolved and are under control. 
 
 Adjudicative Guideline ¶ 20(d) has been partially established. The evidence shows 
that Applicant has initiated an effort to pay his delinquent taxes and resolve his past-due 
taxes and one credit-card account. The fact that his actions post-date his receipt of the 
SOR, however, undercuts a finding of “good faith” and prevents full application of this 
mitigating condition.  
 
 Adjudicative Guideline ¶ 20(g) is also partially established. Applicant has filed all 
of his delinquent tax returns and has paid his state tax debt. The fact that he made his 
first payment to the IRS under a new installment payment plan after the close of the 
record does not have the same mitigation value as evidence of a series of regular 
payments that demonstrate a significant track record of compliance. Having said that, 
however, I am convinced that Applicant is committed to paying his federal tax debt and 
will continue to do so over the coming months and years. 
 
Whole-Person Concept 
 
 Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a 
security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful 
consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. In applying the whole-
person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a 
security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant 
circumstances and applying the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d).9  
 
 I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis. 
Some adjudicative factors deserve further discussion. I have taken into consideration 
Applicant’s young age in 2009 and 2010 and his minimal income and tax liability at that 
time. Any errors he made then were due to his lack of maturity in dealing with adult 
responsibilities related to his tax-filing obligations. I have also taken into account his 
personal situation in the period 2014 to 2017. He had just moved out of his father’s home 
in 2015 and was attending graduate school full-time to improve his employment and 
                                                          
9 The factors are: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding 
the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the 
individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) 
the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for 
the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of 
continuation or recurrence.  
 
 
10 
 
income opportunities. During that period, he worked two part-time, low-paying jobs trying 
to be independent. He had difficulty paying his rent, especially in the summer, when he 
lost the income from his primary job with the public school district. It appears that he could 
not pay his 2014 taxes in 2015 and that he under withheld on his federal and state taxes 
in 2016 and 2017 due to his lack of sufficient net income to pay for his basic needs. With 
net incomes from his primary job of $400-$800 per month, he was clearly underemployed 
as a college graduate. His failure to file his federal and state tax returns on time in those 
two years, as alleged in the SOR is problematic, but not surprising, again considering his 
age and his likely discovery that he owed taxes in those years that he could not pay.  
 
 In October 2017, Applicant finally obtained employment that gave him sufficient 
hours and pay to begin to act like a responsible adult. He filed his 2017 tax return in 
November, which was a little after the automatic extension date, and he owes a modest 
amount of taxes. He filed his 2018 federal and state tax returns, as required, with the help 
of a tax professional and owes nothing. Moreover, he has taken a mature approach to 
dealing with his past tax debts dating back to 2014. He has set up an installment payment 
plan with the IRS, and he has paid off his state tax obligations. 
 
 Applicant presently works in the personnel security environment and is very aware 
of the importance of financial responsibility and why it is important to an evaluation of 
one’s security worthiness. Applicant’s character witness, who has known Applicant his 
entire life, testified that he was proud of Applicant’s development and maturity. I respect 
his opinion, and I am convinced that Applicant will responsibly address his relatively small 
federal tax debt, as he has with his one delinquent credit-card debt. Applicant lived a 
number of years on the edge of financial insecurity and now he has the opportunity to use 
his educational credentials to work at his first, responsible adult job and earn an income 
worthy of a well-educated adult. He has worked too long and too hard to get to where he 
is today to risk losing everything by acting irresponsibly.  
 
 After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F and 
evaluating all of the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has 
mitigated the security concerns raised by his financial considerations. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
11 
 
Formal Findings 
 
 I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: 
 
 Paragraph 1. Guideline F:   FOR APPLICANT 
 
  Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.j: For Applicant 
 
Conclusion 
 
 I conclude that it is clearly consistent with the national security interests of the 
United States to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance 
is granted. 
 
 
 
 
John Bayard Glendon 
Administrative Judge