CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02738.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02738.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02738.h1

deniedApr 2, 2018· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old DOD contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to significant unresolved financial issues. The Statement of Reasons detailed 23 delinquent debts totaling approximately $97,000. These included 21 student loan debts, one utility debt of $760, and one insurance debt of $681. Specific student loan amounts ranged from $176 to $7,988.

The applicant acknowledged his debts and stated an intention to consolidate and repay them. However, he failed to provide sufficient corroborating documentation to demonstrate any progress or resolution of these financial obligations. No evidence of payments or arrangements to settle the debts was submitted.

Consequently, the applicant's financial problems raised unmitigated questions regarding his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance. The decision cited Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c).

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant provided insufficient evidence of resolution of his financial issues.
There was no corroborating documentation of payments or arrangements to settle debts.
The applicant's financial problems raised unmitigated questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“Once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance.”
— Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 30, 2017
Answer filedOct 2, 2017Applicant did not request a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing was held.
Decision dateApr 2, 2018

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Importance of Corroborating Documentation in Financial Cases
Presumption Against Granting Security Clearance When Concerns Arise

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: denied

The judge found that the applicant had multiple delinquent debts, including numerous student loans and utility debts, which raised significant financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence of resolution or mitigation of these debts led to a decision against granting the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	$1,144 student loan debt $1,144	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	$1,091 student loan debt $1,091	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	$813 student loan debt $813	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	$707 student loan debt $707	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	$707 student loan debt $707	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	$7,988 student loan debt $7,988	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	$579 student loan debt $579	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	$6,781 student loan debt $6,781	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	$5,118 student loan debt $5,118	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	$355 student loan debt $355	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	$3,956 student loan debt $3,956	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	$355 student loan debt $355	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.m	$296 student loan debt $296	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.n	$280 student loan debt $280	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.o	$268 student loan debt $268	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.p	$194 student loan debt $194	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.q	$176 student loan debt $176	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.r	$177 student loan debt $177	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.s	$2,178 student loan debt $2,178	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.t	$1,387 student loan debt $1,387	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.u	$1,319 student loan debt $1,319	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.v	$760 utility debt $760	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.w	$681 insurance debt $681	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

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. 17-02738 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance

For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

04/02/2018 ___________

STATEMENT OF CASE

___________

HARVEY, Mark, Administrative Judge:

Applicant provided insufficient evidence of resolution of his financial issues. Financial considerations security concerns are not mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

On January 12, 2016, Applicant signed his Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) or security clearance application (SCA). Item 3. On August 30, 2017, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued a statement of reasons (SOR) to Applicant under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, February 20, 1960; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), January 2, 1992; and Security Executive Agent Directive 4, establishing in Appendix A the new adjudicative guidelines (AG), effective on June 8, 2017. Item 1.

The SOR detailed reasons why the DOD CAF did not find under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant and recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. Specifically, the SOR set forth security concerns arising under the financial considerations guideline. Item 1. On October 2, 2017, Applicant provided a response to the SOR, and he did not request a hearing. Item 2. On October 17, 2017, Department Counsel completed the File of Relevant Material (FORM). On October 25, 2017, Applicant received the FORM, and he did not respond to the FORM. On February 14, 2018, the case was assigned to me. The case file consists of eight exhibits. Items 1-8. Applicant did not object to any of the Government exhibits, and they were admitted into evidence.

Findings of Fact1

In Applicant’s SOR response, he admitted the SOR allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.w. Item 1. He also provided extenuating and mitigating information.

Applicant is 33 years old, and a DOD contractor has employed him as a server administrator since July 2013.2 Applicant was employed as a senior systems administrator from May 2008 to July 2013, and he was employed from November 2002 to May 2008 as a network engineer. In 2010, he received a bachelor of science degree in information technology management, and in 2011, he received a master’s degree in executive management and business administration.

Applicant served in the Navy from June 1992 to February 1997. In his SCA, he said he received an Other Than Honorable discharge, and he explained that he was “[m]edically discharged. Converted to honorable discharge after 6 months of separation Discharge Detail Other Than Honorable.” He told the Officer of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator that he received a medical discharge, and the medical discharge converted to an honorable discharge. Item 4. When he was in the Navy, he held a top secret security clearance, and he served aboard a submarine. His characterization of service is unclear.

In 1994, Applicant married, and his children were born in 1995, 1997, 1999, 2005, 2008, and 2015. He did not disclose any delinquent debts on his January 12, 2016 SCA. He said at the time he completed his SCA, he was unsure of the status of his debts because he had not obtained a credit report for several years. There is no evidence of security violations, abuse of alcohol, or use of illegal drugs.

Financial Considerations

Applicant’s SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.u allege a total of 21 student loan debts past due for more than 120 days and 2 non-student loan delinquent debts in 1.vutility debt ($760) and 1.winsurance ($681). The SOR student loans are as follows: 1.a ($1,144); 1.b ($1,091); 1.c ($813); 1.d ($707); 1.e ($707); 1.f ($7,988); 1.g ($579); 1.h ($6,781); 1.i ($5,118); 1.j ($355); 1.k ($3,956); 1.l ($355); 1.m ($296); 1.n ($280); 1.o ($268); 1.p ($194); 1.q ($176); 1.r ($177); 1.s ($2,178); 1.t ($1,387); and 1.u ($1,319). On March 10, 2016, Applicant told the OPM investigator that he owed a total of about $97,000 in student loans, and his student loans were in deferment for the last several years. Item 4. Later in his OPM interview, he said his student loans were in default, and he called the creditors and asked about a payment plan. Item 4. None of the creditors called Applicant back to arrange a payment plan. Item 4.

In his October 2, 2017 SOR response, Applicant said he had submitted applications to his student loan creditors to consolidate his student loans to enable him to make a single monthly payment.3 One primary student loan creditor wanted a $487 monthly payment, and he planned to start making those monthly payments in October 2017. For the other primary student loan creditor, he is seeking a loan consolidation, and he plans to negotiate a reasonable settlement and payment plan. He wants to begin making $50 monthly payments to the creditors in SOR ¶¶ 1.vand 1.wbeginning in October 2017.

In the FORM, Department Counsel noted the absence of corroborating or supporting documentation of resolution of the SOR debts. FORM at 2-3. Aside from Applicant’s uncorroborated statements, there is no documentary evidence that Applicant paid, arranged to pay, settled, compromised, or otherwise resolved any of the SOR debts. The record lacks corroborating or substantiating documentation and detailed explanations of the causes for his financial problems and other mitigating information. The FORM informed Applicant that he had 30 days from the receipt of the FORM “in which to submit a documentary response setting forth objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation, as appropriate. If you do not file any objections or submit any additional information . . . your case will be assigned to an Administrative Judge for a determination based solely” on the evidence set forth in this FORM. FORM at 3. He did not respond to the FORM.

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.” 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 applicant’s 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, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.

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, these guidelines are applied 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, 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 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 “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, nothing in this decision should be construed to suggest that it is based, in whole or in part, on any express or implied determination about applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism. It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President, Secretary of Defense, and DNI 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. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996).

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 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). The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b).

ANALYSIS

Financial Considerations

AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concern for financial problems:

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. . . .

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) (citation omitted) 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 presumes a nexus between proven conduct under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s security eligibility.

AG ¶ 19 includes two disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability to satisfy debts”; 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.

(internal citation omitted). The record establishes the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) requiring additional inquiry about the possible applicability of mitigating conditions.

Five financial considerations mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable in this case:

(a) the behavior happened so long ago,4 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 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;5 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.

The DOHA Appeal Board concisely explained Applicant’s responsibility for proving the applicability of mitigating conditions as follows:

Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the Government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The standard applicable in security clearance decisions is that articulated in Egan, supra. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).

ISCR Case No. 10-04641 at 4 (App. Bd. Sept. 24, 2013).

Applicant did not provide documentation relating to his SOR debts such as: (1) proof of payments, including checking account statements, photocopies of checks, or a letter from the creditor proving that he paid or made any payments to the creditor; (2) correspondence to or from the creditor to establish maintenance of contact;6 (3) copies of credible debt disputes sent to the creditor and/or credit reporting companies indicating he did not believe he was responsible for the debt and why he held such a belief; (4) evidence of attempts to negotiate payment plans, such as settlement offers or agreements to show that he was attempting to resolve this debt; or (5) other evidence of progress or resolution.

There is insufficient evidence about why Applicant was unable to make greater documented progress resolving his SOR debts. There is insufficient assurance that his financial problem is being resolved and will not recur in the future. Under all the circumstances, he failed to establish that financial considerations security concerns are mitigated.

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 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) 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 AG ¶ 2(c), “[t]he 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. My comments under Guideline F are incorporated in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under that guideline but some warrant additional comment.

Applicant is 33 years old, and a DOD contractor has employed him as a server administrator since July 2013. He was employed as a senior systems administrator from May 2008 to July 2013. In 2010, he received a bachelor of science degree in information technology management, and in 2011, he received a master’s degree in executive management and business administration. He served in the Navy from June 1992 to February 1997. When he was in the Navy, he held a top secret security clearance, and he served aboard a submarine. He is married and he has six children. There is no evidence of security violations, abuse of alcohol, or use of illegal drugs. The evidence against grant of a security clearance is more substantial. Applicant’s SOR lists 23 delinquent debts. He provided insufficient corroborating or substantiating documentary evidence of payments and an established payment plan or other mitigating information relating to his 23 SOR debts. His actions show lack of financial responsibility and judgment and raise unmitigated questions about Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. See AG ¶ 18. More documented information about inability to pay debts, financial history, or financial progress is necessary to mitigate security concerns.

It is well settled that once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the granting a security clearance. See Dorfmont, 913 F. 2dat 1401. Unmitigated financial considerations security concerns lead me to conclude that grant of a security clearance to Applicant is not warranted at this time. This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot or will not attain the state of reform necessary for award of a security clearance in the future. With more effort towards documented resolution of his past-due debts, and a track record of behavior consistent with his obligations, he may well be able to demonstrate persuasive evidence of his security clearance worthiness.

I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Egan, Exec. Or. 10865, the Directive, and the AGs, to the facts and circumstances in the context of the whole person. Financial consideration security concerns are not mitigated. It is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant security clearance eligibility at this time.

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: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.w: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

_________________________ Mark Harvey Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Some details were excluded to protect Applicant’s right to privacy. Specific information is available in the cited exhibits.

2 Unless stated otherwise, the source of the information in this paragraph and the next paragraph is Applicant’s January 12, 2016 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) or security clearance application (SCA) and his March 10, 2016 Office of Personnel Management personal subject interview. Items 3, 4. 3 All of the information in this paragraph is from Applicant’s SOR response. Item 2. 4 A debt that became delinquent several years ago is still considered recent because “an applicant’s ongoing, unpaid debts evidence a continuing course of conduct and, therefore, can be viewed as recent for purposes of the Guideline F mitigating conditions.” ISCR Case No. 15-06532 at 3 (App. Bd. February 16, 2017) (citing ISCR Case No. 15-01690 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2016)). 5 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) 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)).

6 “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.