CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00153.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00153.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00153.h1

grantedJul 17, 2017· Hon. Robert Robinson Gales· hearing

Summary

A 62-year-old defense contractor employee was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant's financial difficulties primarily stemmed from a 2014 layoff, which led to several delinquent accounts. These included a home improvement account with an unpaid balance of $42,379, a telephone account with a $954 balance, a furniture store account with an $86 past-due balance, a medical account for $250, and a bank credit card with a $3,280 remaining balance.

The Statement of Reasons cited these specific debts, raising disqualifying conditions. However, the applicant demonstrated a strong commitment to resolving these issues. The judge found that the financial problems were largely beyond the applicant's control, particularly given the timing of the layoff relative to the accumulation of debt.

Mitigating conditions were applied, as the applicant had taken significant steps to address his financial situation, and most accounts were current by the time of the decision. Ultimately, the security clearance was granted, reflecting the applicant's efforts and the judge's finding that the financial issues did not pose an undue security risk.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant demonstrated a commitment to resolving his financial issues.
Most of the applicant's accounts were current at the time of the decision.
The applicant's financial difficulties were largely due to circumstances beyond his control.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(e)raisedExcessive Indebtedness

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(a)appliedBehavior Occurred Long Ago or Infrequently
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived Financial CounselingNo evidence of financial counseling was presented.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Debts
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedReasonable Basis to Dispute DebtsNo documented proof of disputes was provided.

Key Rule Quoted

“An applicant needs only to establish a plan to resolve financial problems and take significant actions to implement the plan.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 13, 2016
Answer filedJul 6, 2016Applicant elected to proceed without a hearing.
Hearing held—Written record decision.
Decision dateJul 17, 2017

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Consideration of Circumstances Beyond the Applicant's Control
Importance of Demonstrating a Plan to Resolve Financial Problems

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, resulting in a decision to grant eligibility for a security clearance. The applicant's financial difficulties were largely attributed to circumstances beyond his control, including a layoff and medical issues, and he demonstrated efforts to resolve his debts.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	This is a home improvement account, opened in October 2014 – six months after Applicant was laid off – with an unpaid balance of $42,379 that was placed for collection and charged off. $42,379	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly	—
1.b	This is a telephone account with an unpaid balance of $954 that was placed for collection in 2015. $954	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly	—
1.c	This is a furniture store account with a $4,500 credit limit and an unpaid and past-due balance of $86 that was charged off in August 2013. $86	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly	—
1.d	This is a medical account with an unpaid balance of $250 that was placed for collection in 2013. $250	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	This is a bank credit card account with a $3,500 credit limit and remaining balance of $3,280 that became $244 past due and was placed for collection. $3,280	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—

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. 16-00153 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Aubrey M. De Angelis, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

07/17/2017 ______________

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 August 25, 2015, Applicant applied for a security clearance and submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) version of a Security Clearance Application.1 On June 13, 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 June 27, 2016. In a sworn statement, dated July 6, 2016, Applicant responded to the SOR and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing.3 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 September 7, 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 previous Adjudicative Guidelines applicable to his case. Applicant received the FORM on September 22, 2016. Applicant’s response was due on October 22, 2016, but to date, no response has been received. The case was assigned to me on July 3, 2017.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted, with comments, all of the factual allegations pertaining to financial considerations (¶¶ 1.a. through 1.e.) of the SOR. 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 62-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has been a senior earned value management (EVM) associate with the company since August 2015, contingent upon being granted a secret clearance. He was previously a senior financial analyst with another major defense contractor from April 2003 until April 2014, when he was laid off during a reduction in force. He received a bachelor’s degree in business administration in 1985. Applicant has never served in the U.S. military. He has never been granted a security clearance. Applicant was married in September 1977 and divorced in September 1981. He remarried in June 1987. He has one daughter, born in 1992, and three stepchildren. Financial Considerations4

It is unclear what Applicant’s finances were like before they deteriorated. In April 2014, because of a reduction in force, Applicant’s employer laid him off along with other higher paid and experienced employees. He remained unemployed from April 2014 until August 2015. During that period, Applicant exhausted his savings making payments to his creditors, but at some point, not otherwise specifically identified, various accounts became delinquent due to his having insufficient funds to continue doing so. Applicant addressed a number of accounts to prevent them from becoming delinquent. He also resolved other accounts. Applicant’s September 2015 credit report reflects 6 derogatory or delinquent accounts along with 26 current accounts. His 2015 e-QIP also identified several allegedly delinquent accounts. In July 2016, Applicant contended he had previously paid off, settled, or otherwise resolved a number of accounts.

The SOR identified five purportedly delinquent debts that had been placed for collection or charged off, as generally reflected by his September 2015 credit report or his May 2016 credit report. Those debts, totaling approximately $43,913, their current status, according to the credit reports, other evidence submitted by the Government, and Applicant’s comments regarding same, are described below.

(SOR ¶ 1.a.): This is a home improvement account, opened in October 2014 – six months after Applicant was laid off – with an unpaid balance of $42,379 that was placed for collection and charged off.5 Applicant contended that the contractor indicated that $598 monthly payments would be deferred until December 2015, but the finance company indicated payments were required immediately. Applicant contended that the creditor has agreed to settle the account once Applicant returns to work. He failed to submit any documentation that supports his contentions that he reached out to the creditor in an effort to resolve this account, or that the creditor agreed to forestall the repayment requirements. The account has not been resolved.

(SOR ¶ 1.b.): This is a telephone account with an unpaid balance of $954 that was placed for collection in 2015.6 Applicant purportedly disputed the allegation that the account was delinquent and claimed that he had previously paid it in full.7 Applicant failed to submit any documentation such as receipts, cancelled checks, account statements, or creditor acknowledgments that supports his contention that he paid the account. He also failed to produce documentation that he had disputed the credit report information. However, it should be noted that his May 2016 credit report no longer lists the account. Accordingly, although there is no such documentation, I conclude that the account has been resolved.

(SOR ¶ 1.c.): This is a furniture store account with a $4,500 credit limit and an unpaid and past-due balance of $86 that was charged off in August 2013.8 Applicant contended that the item purchased came with a six-month no-payment promotional grace period that the salesperson failed to acknowledge. The remainder of the original balance had already been paid, and the $86 late fee was wrongly applied to the account. Applicant stuck to his principles and purportedly disputed the charge.9 He failed to produce documentation that he had disputed the charge. In July 2016, because of the security clearance issue, Applicant agreed to pay the amount to clear his record. He failed to submit any documentation such as receipts, cancelled checks, account statements, or creditor acknowledgments that supports his contention that he paid the account. The account has not been resolved. However, considering the amount in question, it has minimal security significance.

(SOR ¶ 1.d.): This is a medical account with an unpaid balance of $250 that was placed for collection in 2013.10 Applicant submitted documentation reflecting that his health insurance paid $39,219.20 for medical services performed and medications administered during the period April 18, 2013, through May 1, 2013. It also indicated that Applicant had made a $250 payment with a credit card at check-in. The remaining balance was zero.11 The account has been resolved.

(SOR ¶ 1.e.): This is a bank credit card account with a $3,500 credit limit and remaining balance of $3,280 that became $244 past due and was placed for collection.12 Applicant made a $435 payment in July 2016, and he brought the account current. The remaining balance as of July 6, 2016 was $2,902.20.13 The account has been resolved, as the creditor no longer refers to it as delinquent.

Applicant did not submit a Personal Financial Statement to reflect his net monthly income; monthly expenses; or any monthly remainder that might be available for discretionary spending or savings. There is no evidence of a budget. There is no evidence of any financial counseling. Nevertheless, Applicant is dedicated to resolving his few remaining delinquent accounts and looks forward to an improved financial situation with his new employer once he obtains a security clearance. Because the majority of his accounts in his most recent credit report are listed as current, and he has taken positive steps to resolve accounts that were not listed in the SOR as well as some that were so listed, 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.”14 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.”15

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.”16 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.17 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.”18

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.”19 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. “Consistent spending beyond one's means or frivolous or irresponsible spending, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, a history of late payments or of non-payment, or other negative financial indicators” may raise concerns under ¶ 19(e). Applicant’s inability to satisfy all of his debts allowed some of them to become delinquent, and others to be charged off. His home improvement loan, argued by Department Counsel to be irresponsible under his financial circumstances at the time, started several months after he was laid off. His stand on principle led him to refuse, for a lengthy period, to pay off one minor account balance of $89 that he felt was a false charge. ¶¶ 19(a), 19(b), 19(c), and 19(e) 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.”20 In addition, ¶ 20(e) may apply if “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.”

I have concluded that ¶ 20(b) applies, and ¶¶ 20(a), 20(c), 20(d), and 20(e) partially apply. The nature, frequency, and recency of Applicant’s continuing financial difficulties since April 2014 make it difficult to conclude that it occurred “so long ago” or “was so infrequent.” Applicant had a good employment history as well as a good financial history before his lay-off. That lengthy lay-off, as well as the medical issues associated with the erroneously reported delinquent medical account, were factors that contributed to his financial problems, and were largely beyond Applicant’s control. Nevertheless, despite being unemployed, Applicant initiated and continues to adhere to a good-faith effort to repay his overdue creditors or otherwise resolve his debts. He addressed several accounts that were not listed in the SOR and also those that were so listed. Despite his unemployment, Applicant’s efforts resulted in the successful resolution of a number of accounts.

Clearance decisions are aimed at evaluating an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. They are not a debt-collection procedure. The guidelines do not require an applicant to establish resolution of each and every debt alleged in the SOR. An applicant needs only to 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.

While there is no evidence to indicate that Applicant ever received financial counseling, and it remains unclear if he has funds remaining at the end of each month for discretionary use or savings, there is evidence to reflect that Applicant’s financial problems are under control. His most recent credit report reflects the vast majority of his accounts are current, and his more recent resolution of accounts improved his current financial record. With little income, Applicant exhausted his savings to address his debts, and, under the circumstances, acted responsibly by addressing his delinquent accounts and by initiating efforts to work with his creditors.21 Applicant’s actions under the circumstances no longer cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.22

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.23

There is some evidence against mitigating Applicant’s conduct. Applicant allowed some of his accounts to become delinquent, and others to be charged off. His home improvement loan occurred several months after he was laid off, a seemingly irresponsible expense since he was unemployed at the time. His stand on principle led him to refuse, for a lengthy period, to pay off one minor account balance of $89. He submitted no financial information to indicate his current financial status, and he failed to submit documentation regarding some of his SOR-related accounts.

The mitigating evidence under the whole-person concept is simply more substantial. There is no evidence of misuse of information technology systems, or mishandling protected information. Before his lay-off, Applicant was an employee of a major defense contractor for a lengthy period. He candidly acknowledged having some financial difficulties with several creditors when he completed his e-QIP.

As noted above, Applicant’s financial problems arose sometime after he was laid off and he exhausted his savings while maintaining a number of accounts to keep them current. Additional issues were caused by several factors: deferred payment agreements with two creditors were not honored; an erroneous late charge was applied to an account that had already been satisfied; and Applicant was not credited with a payment on a bill with a zero balance. Applicant resolved a number of non-SOR accounts as well as most of those alleged in the SOR. The one large unpaid balance awaits satisfaction once he is granted a security clearance, a fact to which he is committed.

The Appeal Board has addressed a key element in the whole-person analysis in financial cases stating:24 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 demonstrated a positive track record of debt reduction and elimination efforts, addressing his debts, and promising to take additional corrective actions. His efforts are hindered by his employment situation. Overall, the evidence leaves me without 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

Subparagraphs 1.a. through 1.e: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

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

________________________ ROBERT ROBINSON GALES Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Item 4 (e-QIP, dated August 25, 2015). 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 Item 3 (Answer to the SOR, dated July 6, 2016). 4 General source information pertaining to the financial accounts discussed below can be found in the following exhibits: Item 3, supra note 3; Item 4, supra note 1; Item 5 (Combined Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax Credit Report, dated September 15, 2015); Item 6 (Equifax Credit Report, dated May 6, 2016).

5 Item 5, supra note 4, at 6; Item 6, supra note 4, at 6.

6 Item 5, supra note 4, at 7.

7 Item 3, supra note 3,at 1. 8 Item 5, supra note 4, at 15; Item 6, supra note 4, at 1.

9 Item 3, supra note 3,at 1.

10 Item 5, supra note 4, at 7; Item 6, supra note 4, at 5.

11 Receipt and Billing Detail, various dates, attached to Item 3, supra note 3.

12 Item 5, supra note 4, at 8; Item 6, supra note 4, at 5.

13 Account Details, dated July 6, 2016, attached to Item 3, supra note 3. 14 Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988).

15 Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended and modified.

16 “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).

17 See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). 18 Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.

19 See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. 20 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)). 21 “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.

22 See ISCR Case No. 09-08533 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Oct. 6, 2010). 23 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).

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