CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01893.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01893.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01893.h1

deniedFeb 22, 2017· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 35-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved financial issues totaling approximately $262,744. The Statement of Reasons specifically cited a $5,472 judgment for an unspecified account and a $1,000 past-due cellular phone account that had been sold to a debt purchaser. These issues raised concerns about the applicant's reliability and judgment.

The judge applied Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c), which address a history of not meeting financial obligations and an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. While Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20(b) was considered, which pertains to the financial problems being isolated or not indicative of a pattern, it was ultimately not sufficient to overcome the concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide adequate documentation supporting claims of debt resolution or effective financial management. The judge determined that the applicant's financial difficulties were ongoing and not sufficiently mitigated by circumstances beyond his control, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to provide documentation supporting claims of debt resolution or financial management.
The applicant's financial difficulties were ongoing and not sufficiently mitigated by circumstances beyond his control.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlWhile some financial issues were beyond the applicant's control, many were due to poor judgment.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 14, 2015
Answer filedDec 11, 2015Applicant elected to proceed without a hearing.
Hearing held—Written record decision.
Decision dateFeb 22, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Importance of Providing Documentation for Financial Claims
Evaluation of Judgment and Reliability in Financial Matters Under Guideline F

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 failed to mitigate financial concerns under Guideline F, resulting in a denial of his security clearance. The applicant had multiple delinquent debts, and while one judgment was resolved, the remaining debts were not satisfactorily addressed or documented, leading to a conclusion against the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	a judgment for an unspecified type of account in the amount of $5,472 $5,472	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	a cellular phone account with an unpaid and past-due balance of $1,000 that was sold to a debt purchaser $1,000	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Unknown	(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. 15-01893 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Candace L. Garcia, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

02/22/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

GALES, Robert Robinson, Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns regarding financial considerations. Eligibility for a security clearance and access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

On April 22, 2013, Applicant applied for a security clearance and submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) version of a Security Clearance Application.1 On November 14, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued an 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) (AG) applicable to all adjudications and other determinations made under the Directive, effective September 1, 2006. 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.

It is unclear as to when Applicant received the SOR as there is no receipt in the case file. In a sworn statement, dated December 11, 2015, Applicant responded to the SOR and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.2 A complete copy of the Government’s file of relevant material (FORM) was mailed to Applicant by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) on March 10, 2016, and he was afforded an opportunity, within a period of 30 days after receipt of the FORM, to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. In addition to the FORM, Applicant was furnished a copy of the Directive as well as the Guidelines applicable to his case. Applicant received the FORM on March 18, 2016. Applicant’s response was due on April 17, 2016, but to date, no response has been received. The case was assigned to me on February 10, 2017.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted, with comments, a number of the factual allegations pertaining to financial considerations (¶¶ 1.a., 1.b., 1.d., 1.e., 1.g. through 1.i., 1.l., and 1.m.) of the SOR. He neither admitted nor denied ¶¶ 1.f., 1.j., and 1.k. He denied ¶ 1.c. Applicant’s admissions and comments are incorporated herein as findings 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 35-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has been a team lead and system administrator with the company since April 2008, and was in a different position with the same company at a different location from September 2005 until April 2008.3 He is a June 1999 high school graduate, with additional college credits, but no degree.4 Applicant served on active duty with the U.S. Army from July 1999 until he was honorably discharged for a military-connected disability following a medical evaluation board in October 2004.5 He failed to submit any additional information pertaining to his period of active duty. In this regard, there are no identified awards and decorations. He was granted a secret security clearance in July 1999 associated with his military service, and following his employment with his current employer, he was granted a top secret (TS) security clearance with access to Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI).6 Applicant was married in March 2006, and he has two children (a son born in 2004 and a son born in 2007).7

Financial Considerations8

It is actually unclear what Applicant’s finances were like before they deteriorated. Applicant attributed his financial difficulties to a combination of events that occurred, in part, associated with his purchase of the family residence in 2007. He purchased the residence for $249,000 and was confronted with several issues: 1) he was advised not to bother with a house inspection; 2) mortgage interest was added to the loan, but he failed to see it at closing; 3) heating and cooling costs were much higher than he had been told to expect; 4) the heating and cooling system broke down and his monthly bills increased; and 5) it was a bad decision to purchase the residence during a time when he and his wife were “probably not properly prepared for it.” Adding to his difficulties were: 6) he lost approximately $1,800 per month in extra income when his part-time employer/training mentor shut down, and Applicant’s $800 monthly department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefit ceased; 7) his automobile engine died and $5,000 was required to repair it; 8) his automobile was repossessed; and 9) poor management of available funds.9 With the increased expenses, Applicant tried prioritizing his accounts. The effort proved fruitless, for when his mortgage went into a delinquent status, his efforts to save his mortgage resulted in his other accounts becoming delinquent as well.

The SOR identified 13 purportedly delinquent debts that had been placed for collection, charged off, or filed as judgments, as generally reflected by his April 2013 credit report,10 his July 2014 credit report,11 or his September 2015 credit report.12 Those debts, totaling approximately $262,744, their current status, according to the credit reports, other evidence submitted by the Government, and Applicant’s comments regarding same, are described below.

Only one debt of those listed in the SOR, the judgment for an unspecified type of account in the amount of $5,472 (SOR ¶ 1.a.), has been satisfied – through a garnishment of his wages in 2011 – and that account is resolved.13 As for the remaining debts listed in the SOR that were placed for collection, Applicant either contended that he had paid them off; is making payments; he disputed the account; he tried to make payments; he was unaware of the account or the creditor; or the account was no longer in his more recent credit reports. Regardless of Applicant’s stated status of the individual accounts, he failed to submit any documentation such as receipts, checks, account statements, letters, or evidence of disputes to support his contentions.

Those remaining delinquent accounts, for which there is no evidence of resolution, pending resolution, or dispute, are as follows: a cellular phone account with an unpaid and past-due balance of $1,000 that was sold to a debt purchaser (SOR ¶ 1.b.);14 a bank credit card account with an unpaid balance of $605 that was charged off and sold to a debt purchaser, and supposedly disputed by Applicant claiming that the balance had previously been paid off (SOR ¶ 1.c.);15 an automobile loan with an unpaid and past-due balance of $4,113 for which $4,713 was charged off (SOR ¶ 1.d.);16 three student loan accounts with a combined unpaid balance of $46 (as opposed to the alleged $56) (SOR ¶ 1.e.);17 a cellular phone account with a past due and unpaid balance of $947 (SOR ¶ 1.f.);18 a home mortgage account with a past due balance of $131,963 and an unpaid balance of $248,806 (SOR ¶ 1.g.);19 a bank credit card account with an unpaid balance of $254 which was charged off in the amount of $399 (SOR ¶ 1.h.);20 a telephone account with a past due and unpaid balance of $76 (SOR ¶ 1.i.);21a medical account with an unpaid balance of $200 (SOR ¶ 1.j.);22 a medical account with an unpaid and past due balance of $265 (SOR ¶ 1.k.);23 and two automobile violations with past due balances of $100 and $250 (SOR ¶¶ 1.l. and 1.m.).24

In August 2013, Applicant was interviewed by an investigator form the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) regarding his financial situation. Each of the above accounts was discussed. Despite the passage of approximately three and one-half years since that interview, Applicant failed to take any positive action to either resolve the delinquent accounts or to obtain documentation to support the actions he contends he took with respect to those efforts.

Applicant did not submit a Personal Financial Statement to reflect his net monthly income; monthly expenses; or any monthly remainder which might be available for discretionary spending or savings. There is no evidence of a budget. There is no evidence of any financial counseling. It appears that Applicant’s finances are not yet 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.”25 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.”26

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the AG. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the AG 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.”27 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.28

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.”29

An analysis of a case involving SCI requires consideration of Intelligence Community Directive (ICD) 704, Personnel Security Standards and Procedures Governing Eligibility for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information and Other Controlled Access Program Information, dated October 1, 2008; and Intelligence Community Policy Guidance (ICPG) 704.2, Personnel Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Sensitive Compartmented Information and Other Controlled Access Program Information, dated October 2, 2008. ICD 704 and its five associated ICPG, numbered 704.1 through 704.5, promulgate the currently effective, personnel security policy of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI). ICPG 704.2 sets forth the adjudicative guidelines that are to be used in determining eligibility for access to SCI. The ICPG 704.2 guidelines applicable to this case and the whole-person analysis factors are identical to those approved by the President on December 29, 2005.

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.”30 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 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. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. . . .

The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under AG ¶ 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly, under AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations” may raise security concerns. Applicant’s financial problems initially arose some time in 2007 and thereafter. Accounts became delinquent. A vehicle was repossessed. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) apply.

The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 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 AG ¶ 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, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.” Evidence that “the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control” is potentially mitigating under AG ¶ 20(c). Similarly, AG ¶ 20(d) applies where the evidence shows “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.”31 In addition, AG ¶ 20(e) may apply if “the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue.”

AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(c), 20(d), and 20(e) do not apply. AG ¶ 20(b) minimally applies. The nature, frequency, and recency of Applicant’s continuing financial difficulties make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago” or “was so infrequent.” Applicant attributed a number of family issues as factors contributing to his overall financial problems: 1) when he purchased the family residence he was advised not to bother with a house inspection; 2) mortgage interest was added to the loan, but he failed to see it at closing; 3) heating and cooling costs were much higher than he had been told to expect; 4) the heating and cooling system broke down and his monthly bills increased; and 5) it was a bad decision to purchase the residence during a time when he and his wife were “probably not properly prepared for it.” Adding to his difficulties were: 6) he lost approximately $1,800 per month in extra income when his part-time employer/training mentor shut down, and Applicant’s $800 monthly VA benefit ceased; 7) his automobile engine died and $5,000 was required to repair it; 8) his automobile was repossessed; and 9) poor management of available funds.

While the loss of salary and VA benefits from his part-time job were beyond Applicant’s control, the other factors appear to be judgment-related (poor decisions related to skipping the house inspection, purchasing the house, and poor management of funds) or simple, normally anticipated factors of life (higher costs, interest, and system breakdowns). The repossession of the vehicle was not a factor contributing to his financial problems, but rather a result of those problems.

Clearance decisions are aimed at evaluating an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. They are not a debt-collection procedure. The adjudicative guidelines do not require an applicant to establish resolution of each and every debt alleged in the SOR. An applicant need only establish a plan to resolve financial problems and take significant actions to implement the plan. There is no requirement that an applicant immediately resolve or make payments on all delinquent debts simultaneously, nor is there a requirement that the debts alleged in an SOR be paid first. Rather, a reasonable plan and concomitant conduct may provide for the payment of such debts one at a time.

In this instance, there is one judgment resolved by garnishment, and there is supporting documentation in evidence. As for the remaining delinquent accounts found in the SOR, there are purported actions taken, but there is no documentation to support the existence of any of Applicant’s claimed resolution actions, or payments. He failed to submit receipts, checks, account statements, letters, proposed repayment plans, or evidence of disputes to support any of his contentions. As for his disputes, Applicant merely “disputed” certain accounts, but he failed to articulate a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of those debts, and failed to submit documentation reflecting the disputes, reasons for the disputes, or the results of the disputes. In sum, Applicant offered no documentary evidence of a good-faith effort to resolve or dispute any of his accounts. Applicant had approximately three and one-half years following his OPM interview to resolve his delinquent accounts, but, to date, by his inaction, he has failed to do so. Applicant appears to have acted imprudently and irresponsibly.32 Applicant’s actions, or inactions, under the circumstances confronting him, continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.33

There is no evidence to indicate that Applicant ever received financial counseling. There is no evidence of a budget. Based on the information furnished, it is unclear if Applicant has any meaningful funds remaining at the end of each month for discretionary use or savings. There is no evidence to reflect that Applicant’s financial problems are under control. To the contrary, the overwhelming evidence leads to the conclusion that Applicant’s financial problems are not under control.

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(a):

(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), 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. 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.34

There is some evidence in favor of mitigating Applicant’s conduct. There is no evidence of misuse of information technology systems, or mishandling protected information. He is an honorably discharged former member of the U.S. Army. He has been employed in different positions by the same defense contractor since September 2005. He was granted a secret security clearance in July 1999, and following his employment with his current employer, he was granted a TS/SCI. He candidly acknowledged having some financial difficulties when he completed his e-QIP.

The disqualifying evidence under the whole-person concept is simply more substantial. As noted above, Applicant’s financial problems commenced in 2007 and they continue to the present. The SOR alleged 13 delinquent accounts, and with the exception of one judgment that was resolved by garnishment, there is no documentary evidence to support his contentions that various accounts have been successfully disputed, resolved, or are in the process of being resolved. Other than listing a number of factors that he claimed caused his financial problems, Applicant offered no meaningful explanations as to how those individual factors caused specific financial problems. In addition, there are no explanations for his failure to maintain his accounts in a current status. Based on the evidence presented, Applicant failed to take any positive action to resolve his accounts. There is no evidence of a budget, financial counseling, or that his finances are under control.

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

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. 35

Applicant has demonstrated a poor track record of debt reduction and elimination efforts. The only delinquent debt for which there is documentary evidence of resolution is the judgment that was resolved by garnishment. The remaining delinquent debts seemed to have been ignored. Overall, the evidence leaves me with substantial questions and doubts as to Applicant’s security worthiness. For all of these reasons, I conclude Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial considerations. See AG ¶ 2(a)(1) through AG ¶ 2(a)(9).

FORMAL FINDINGS

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

Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.b. through 1.m: 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 eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

________________________ ROBERT ROBINSON GALES Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Item 3 (e-QIP, dated April 22, 2013). 2 Item 2 (Answer to the SOR, dated December 11, 2015). 3 Item 3, supra note 1, at 12-13. 4 Item 3, supra note 1, at 11-12; Item 4 (Personal Subject Interview, dated August 16, 2013), at 1. 5 Item 3, supra note 1, at 18-19. 6 Item 3, supra note 1, at 33-34. 7 Item 3, supra note 1, at 24-26. 8 General source information pertaining to the financial accounts discussed below can be found in the following exhibits: Item 3, supra note 1; Item 4, supra note 4; Item 5 (Combined Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax Credit Report, dated April 25, 2013); Item 6 (Equifax Credit Report, dated September 17, 2014); Item 7 (Equifax Credit Report, dated September 3, 2015). 9 Item 2, supra note 2, at 4; Item 3, supra note 1, at 36-39. 10 Item 5, supra note 8. 11 Item 6, supra note 8. 12 Item 7, supra note 8. 13 Item 6, supra note 8, at 4; Item 7, supra note 8, at 1; Item 8 (Incident History, dated March 7, 2016). 14 Item 7, supra note 8, at 2. 15 Item 7, supra note 8, at 3; Item 2, supra note 2, at 4. 16 Item 7, supra note 8, at 3. 17 Item 7, supra note 8, at 3-4; Item 2, supra note 2, at 4. It was reported that the creditor had filed a garnishment in the amount of $7,164.67 on January 5, 2015, but there is no documentary evidence (account numbers, credit report listings, or creditor letters) to link that action to these three accounts. See Item 8, supra note 13. 18 Item 7, supra note 8, at 4. 19 Item 2, supra note 2, at 5; Item 4, supra note 9, at 5; Item 5, supra note 8, at 8; Item 6, supra note 8, at 1; Item 7, supra note 8, at 4. 20 Item 2, supra note 2, at 5; Item 5, supra note 8, at 7; Item 6, supra note 8, at 2; Item 7, supra note 8, at 6. 21 Item 5, supra note 8, at 7. 22 Item 5, supra note 8, at 12. 23 Item 5, supra note 8, at 15. 24 Item 5, supra note 8, at 11. 25 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). 26 Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended and modified. 27 “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). 28 See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). 29 Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. 30 See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. 31 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)). 32 “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. 33 See ISCR Case No. 09-08533 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Oct. 6, 2010). 34 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). 35 ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations omitted).