CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03452.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03452.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03452.h1

grantedAug 4, 2017· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old defense contractor employee was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant obtained a personal loan to consolidate other debts but failed to make required monthly payments, leading to the account becoming delinquent and eventually charged off. This raised disqualifying conditions F.19.a, F.19.b, and F.19.c.

However, the judge applied mitigating conditions F.20.b, F.20.c, and F.20.d. The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve the debt by establishing a repayment plan shortly before the hearing. Furthermore, the applicant's financial situation had improved due to a higher salary and the implementation of a structured budget.

The judge concluded that the applicant's recent actions indicated a commitment to resolving financial issues, and the financial problems were now under control. Consequently, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant established a repayment plan for the delinquent debt shortly before the hearing.
The applicant's financial situation improved with a higher salary and a structured budget.
The applicant's recent actions indicated a commitment to resolving financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.19.araisedInability to Satisfy Debts
F.19.braisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
F.19.craisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

F.20.bappliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
F.20.crejectedReceived Financial CounselingThe applicant had not received financial counseling prior to the hearing.
F.20.dappliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance and access to classified information is granted.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 16, 2016
Answer filedJan 17, 2017
Hearing heldJun 21, 2017Applicant contacted creditor on the day of the hearing.
Decision dateAug 2, 2017

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Good-faith Efforts to Repay Debts
Impact of Recent Financial Stability on Security Clearance Eligibility

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant mitigated the financial concerns under Guideline F, ultimately granting eligibility for a security clearance. The applicant's financial issues were primarily due to a brief period of unemployment, and he has since taken steps to address his debts, including establishing a repayment plan.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant obtained a personal loan to pay off other debts, but he failed to make the required monthly payments and the account became delinquent. It was charged off. $25,091	For Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Debt Paid in Full Documented Payment Plan with Creditor

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline F). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Full decision

The complete, official text — footnotes and signatures included — is in the original PDF.

Decision text, by section

DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

HEARING

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) --- ) ISCR Case No. 16-03452 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Allison Marie, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

08/04/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

GALES, Robert Robinson, Administrative Judge:

Applicant mitigated the security concerns regarding financial considerations. Eligibility for a security clearance and access to classified information is granted.

Statement of the Case

On January 12, 2016, Applicant applied for a security clearance and submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) version of a Security Clearance Application.1 On December 16, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to him, under Executive Order 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 the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility For Access to Classified Information (December 29, 2005) applicable to all adjudications and other determinations made under the Directive, effective September 1, 2006.2 The SOR alleged security concerns under Guideline 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.

Applicant received the SOR on December 29, 2016. On January 17, 2017, he responded to the SOR and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel indicated the Government was prepared to proceed on February 17, 2017. The case was assigned to me on March 22, 2017. A Notice of Hearing was issued on May 3, 2017. I convened the hearing as scheduled on June 21, 2017.

During the hearing, two Government exhibits (GE) 1 and GE 2 were admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant testified. The transcript (Tr.) was received on June 29, 2017. I kept the record open to enable Applicant to supplement it. He took advantage of that opportunity and timely submitted a number of documents, which were marked and admitted as Applicant exhibits (AE) A through AE K, without objection. The record closed on August 2, 2017.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the sole factual allegation pertaining to financial considerations (¶ 1.a.) of the SOR. Applicant’s admission is incorporated herein as a finding 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 45-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has been a systems administrator with the company since April 2016. He previously held a variety of relatively short-term positions with other employers between December 2009 and April 2016. He was unemployed from August 2015 until October 2015, and self-employed from August 2008 until December 2009. He is a June 1990 high school graduate, and he has several college credits, but no degree. Applicant enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in August 1990, and he served on active duty until October 1999. In October 2011, he entered the U.S. Air Force Reserve. He was granted a top-secret security clearance in June 1991, access to sensitive compartmented information (SCI) in August 1997, and a secret security clearance in October 2009. Applicant was married in May 2001 and divorced in February 2010. He remarried in April 2010. He has a 17-year old stepson as well as a stepdaughter with whom he does not communicate. Military Service, and Awards and Decorations

During Applicant’s period of active duty, he was awarded the Air Force Achievement Medal, the Air Force Outstanding Unit Award (two awards), the Air Force Good Conduct Medal (three awards), the National Defense Service Medal, the Air Force Overseas Short Tour Ribbon (two awards), the Air Force Longevity Service Award Ribbon (two awards), the Non-Commissioned Officer Professional Military Education Graduate Ribbon, and the Air Force Training Ribbon.3 Applicant’s enlisted performance reports generally improved each year, and when he received his most recent active duty report, covering 1998, his performance was rated as the best of all categories, and he was recommended for immediate promotion. His most recent assessments as a member of the Air Force Reserve are a mixture of above average and truly among the best.4

Financial Considerations5

It is unclear what Applicant’s personal finances were like before they deteriorated. He apparently had some financial issues several years earlier, but according to Applicant, they had been resolved. In October 2014, in an effort to consolidate his debts to reduce his total monthly payments, Applicant applied online for a $23,031 loan. At that time, his annual salary was about $90,000. His debts were merely the result of “just normal dealings, day-to-day life,” without any specific reasons.6 None of the accounts that he sought to consolidate was delinquent. Applicant experienced his first serious delinquency when he became unemployed in August 2015. His wife started working. Although he was not receiving unemployment benefits, they had sufficient savings to help carry them financially for a short time. He also obtained a $1,000 loan from a friend to assist in covering living expenses. Although Applicant obtained another job in October 2015, for reasons not fully explained except that he was scrambling to make sure he could pay everything else, Applicant was unable to resume his monthly payments to the creditor. The account became delinquent, was placed for collection, charged off, and sold.

In January 2016, a collection agent sent Applicant an email regarding the account, and eventually started calling him. Applicant did not take any steps to address the debt after it was placed for collection.7 The unpaid balance on the account increased to $25,091.17. Applicant continued ignoring the debt because it was so big.8 Instead, he set up a plan. He sought cheaper housing, reduced spending, and increased income. He prioritized a list of things that needed attention such as shelter and food. He paid off his truck. During the hearing, Applicant stated that he had a budget, but he acknowledged that it was out of date in light of the new repayment agreement. He also acknowledged that he had never received credit counseling.9 He subsequently indicated that he was scheduled for credit counseling, but the date of such counseling was late August 2017.

Applicant made no effort to contact the creditor until the day of the hearing – six months after the SOR was received. On June 21, 2017, mere hours before the hearing, Applicant called the current creditor to set up a repayment plan. Under that agreement, commencing on the day following the hearing, Applicant was expected to make 60 monthly payments of $209.09.10 He submitted evidence of payments for June 22, 2017, July 10, 2017, and July 24, 2017.11

During the hearing, Applicant stated that his annual salary rose to $97,500, effective in April 2017, and he anticipated earning $700 from his reserve activities over the entire year. He estimated a net monthly income of $6,000, and $800 in disposable income. He also indicated that his wife was expected to return to work in July 2017 with an annual salary of $30,000. It does not appear that she did so. Applicant submitted a Personal Financial Statement to reflect $5,818 as his net monthly income; $3,330 in normal monthly expenses plus $1,231.10 in debt payments; and a monthly remainder of $178 available for discretionary spending or savings.12 Applicant contends that he has no other delinquencies, but he acknowledged that the accounts that he had initially sought to pay off with the consolidation loan now have increased, but not delinquent, balances. He also acknowledged owing approximately $15,000 in court-mandated debts associated with his divorce from his ex-wife. It appears that Applicant’s finances are 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.”13 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.”14

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, 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.”15 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.16

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.”17 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.”18 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.

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set out in ¶ 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 ¶ 19(a), an “inability to satisfy debts” is potentially disqualifying. In addition, ¶ 19(b) may apply if there is an “unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so.” Similarly, under ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations” may raise concerns. Applicant obtained a personal loan to pay off other debts, but he failed to make the required monthly payments and the account became delinquent. It was charged off. ¶¶ 19(a), 19(b), and 19(c) apply.

The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition may be mitigated where “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.” Also, under ¶ 20(b), financial security concerns may be mitigated where “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.” Evidence that “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” is potentially mitigating under ¶ 20(c). Similarly, ¶ 20(d) applies where the evidence shows “the individual initiated and is adhering to a good- faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.”19

I have concluded that ¶ 20(c) applies and ¶¶ 20(b) and 20(d) partially apply. ¶ 20(a) does not apply. The nature, frequency, and recency of Applicant’s continuing financial difficulties since about 2015 make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago” or “was so infrequent,” or that it is “unlikely to recur.” As noted above, there was only one factor that occurred in August 2015 – unemployment – and that factor only lasted until October 2015. That situation was largely beyond his control, but since that status only lasted for two months, it is clearly a somewhat stale and limited issue which, over time, or at least during 2016, should have been overcome.

Applicant obtained employment in October 2015, and his annual salary eventually rose to $97,500, effective in April 2017. He estimated a net monthly income of $6,000, and $800 in disposable income. Yet, there is little evidence that he made any good-faith efforts to address his debt after he became, once again, employed. Instead, he simply ignored that delinquent account and focused on spending his available funds elsewhere, like paying off his truck loan rather than making any payments on his delinquent debt. Applicant’s position indicates the absence of any priority to timely address his aging debt. Applicant never received financial counseling. However, because Applicant eventually agreed to a repayment plan, and he is adhering to that good-faith effort to repay his overdue creditor, it appears that he is finally in the process of resolving his sole delinquent debt. Applicant’s financial problems are now under control. Under the circumstances, Applicant did not act responsibly by failing to address his one delinquent account until the morning of the hearing.20 Nevertheless, Applicant’s most recent actions have removed any doubt regarding his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.21

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.22

There is some evidence against mitigating Applicant’s conduct. In October 2014, in an effort to consolidate his debts and to reduce his total monthly payments, Applicant obtained a $23,031 loan. At that time, his annual salary was about $90,000. Applicant was unemployed from August 2015 until October 2015, and his finances were negatively impacted. He made no payments on the loan, preferring to focus on other accounts. The account became delinquent, was placed for collection, charged off, and sold. Even after he obtained a new position, with a substantial salary, he continued to ignore the one delinquent account. Instead, he chose to pay off his truck loan. Applicant made no effort to contact the creditor until the day of the hearing – six months after the SOR was received. On June 21, 2017, mere hours before the hearing, Applicant called the current creditor to set up a repayment plan. The mitigating evidence under the whole-person concept is simply more substantial. Applicant is an active duty veteran who is currently serving in the U.S. Air Force Reserve. There is no evidence of misuse of information technology systems, or mishandling protected information. There was one factor that contributed to Applicant’s financial issues, and that was his brief period of unemployment. Applicant finally approached the creditor of his delinquent, charged-off account, and entered into a repayment agreement. He is adhering to that good-faith effort to repay his overdue creditor, and he has submitted evidence of payments for June 22, 2017, July 10, 2017, and July 24, 2017. Applicant’s financial problems are now under control.

The Appeal Board has addressed a key element in the whole-person analysis in financial cases stating:23

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 finally demonstrated a fair track record of debt reduction and elimination efforts, aggressively avoiding his only long-standing debt until hours before the hearing. His efforts were supposedly hindered, in part, by his brief period of unemployment, but once that situation was corrected, there was little change in his efforts. With an annual salary of over $90,000, Applicant initially chose to ignore his debt, but he finally reversed his direction. Overall, the evidence no longer leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all of these reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial considerations. See SEAD 4, App. A, ¶ 2(d)(1) through AG ¶ 2(d)(9).

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

________________________ ROBERT ROBINSON GALES Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 GE 1 (e-QIP, dated January 12, 2016). 2 Effective June 8, 2017, by Directive 4 of the Security Executive Agent (SEAD 4), dated December 10, 2016, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for all covered individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position, were established to supersede all previously issued national security adjudicative criteria or guidelines. Accordingly, those guidelines previously implemented on September 1, 2006, under which this security clearance review case was initiated, no longer apply. In comparing the two versions, there is no substantial difference that might have a negative effect on Applicant in this case. 3 AE C (Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214), dated October 31, 1999); AE D (Air Force Achievement Medal, dated February 12, 1997).

4 AE E (Enlisted Performance Reports, various dates).

5 General source information pertaining to the financial issues discussed below can be found in GE 2 (Equifax Credit Report, dated October 3, 2016).

6 Tr. at 28-29.

7 Tr. at 35-36.

8 Tr. at 47-50 9 Tr. at 51-52.

10 AE A (Letter, dated June 21, 2017); Tr. at 36-38.

11 AE I (Check, dated June 22, 2017); AE J (Check, dated July 10, 2017); AE K (Check, dated July 24, 2017).

12 AE F (Personal Financial Statement, dated August 1, 2017). Applicant also submitted a separate list of the bills he currently has, and while some of the numbers differ from the information set forth in his Personal Financial Statement, they are sufficiently similar. One exception is the difference in the remainder figures he submitted. The Personal Financial Statement shows $178, but the separate list reflects a remainder of $564. See AE G (List, undated).

13 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 14 Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended and modified.

15 “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).

16 See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005).

17 Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 18 See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. 19 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)). 20 “Even if Applicant’s financial difficulties initially arose, in whole or in part, due to circumstances outside his [or her] control, the Judge could still consider whether Applicant has since acted in a reasonable manner when dealing with those financial difficulties.” ISCR Case No. 05-11366 at 4 n.9 (App. Bd. Jan. 12, 2007) (citing ISCR Case No. 99- 0462 at 4 (App. Bd. May 25, 2000); ISCR Case No. 99-0012 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 1999); ISCR Case No. 03-13096 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2005)). A component is whether he or she maintained contact with creditors and attempted to negotiate partial payments to keep debts current.

21 See ISCR Case No. 09-08533 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Oct. 6, 2010).

22 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). 23 ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations omitted).