CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-02966.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-02966.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-02966.h1

deniedApr 23, 2012· Hon. Elizabeth M. Matchinski· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old composite fabricator was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to approximately $17,373 in delinquent debt. The Statement of Reasons detailed 24 separate allegations of outstanding debt, including medical bills, credit card balances, credit union debts, apartment debt, telephone debt, judgment debt, and a debt for a repossessed vehicle. These debts ranged from $27 to $2,691, with many in collection or charged off.

The applicant had been consistently employed since October 2009. However, the decision noted that he made little progress in resolving his financial obligations. Disqualifying conditions under Guideline F were raised, specifically concerning a history of not meeting financial obligations and an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.

While mitigating conditions were considered, the applicant admitted to all debts but failed to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence of repayment efforts. The denial was based on the applicant's significant delinquent debt as of October 2011 and his failure to demonstrate substantial progress in addressing these financial issues despite consistent employment, raising concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant owed approximately $17,373 in delinquent debt as of October 2011.
The applicant admitted to all debts without providing satisfactory explanations or evidence of repayment efforts.
The applicant failed to demonstrate significant progress in addressing his financial obligations despite being employed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial problems were attributed to medical issues and periods of unemployment.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedDisputed Legitimacy of Past-due DebtSome debts were shown to be duplicate listings.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 17, 2011
Answer filedNov 4, 2011Requested decision without a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made based on written submissions.
Decision dateApr 23, 2012

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Debt Under Guideline F
Failure to Demonstrate Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Financial Obligations
Impact of Financial Issues on Reliability and Trustworthiness Assessments

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 owed approximately $17,373 in delinquent debt, with multiple accounts in collection and a history of not meeting financial obligations. Despite some claims of mitigating circumstances, the judge ruled against the applicant on all financial allegations, citing a lack of demonstrated progress in resolving the debts.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	$127 medical debt $127	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	$2,691 apartment debt in collection $2,691	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	$51 medical debt $51	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	$1,239 credit union debt in collection $1,239	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	$359 medical debt $359	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	$941 credit card debt in collection $941	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	$105 telephone debt in collection $105	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	$1,132 credit union debt in collection $1,132	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	$27 medical debt in collection $27	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	$1,147 judgment debt $1,147	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	$345 credit union debt past due 120 days $345	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	$732 retail revolving credit balance charged off $732	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.m	$2,023 collection debt $2,023	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.n	$534 collection debt $534	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.o	$1,183 charge-off debt $1,183	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.p	$1,883 charge-off debt $1,883	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.q	$770 retail revolving credit balance charged off $770	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.r	$2,000 debt for repossessed vehicle $2,000	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.s	$1,135 credit card debt in collection $1,135	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.t	$1,883 auto loan debt in collection $1,883	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.u	$544 retail revolving charge debt in collection $544	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.v	$789 medical debt in collection $789	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.w	$114 medical debt in collection $114	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.x	$114 medical debt in collection $114	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.y	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

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. 10-02966 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

04/23/2012 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

MATCHINSKI, Elizabeth M., Administrative Judge:

Applicant owes about $17,373 in delinquent debt. Although he was on disability and more recently unemployed for short periods, he has been consistently employed since October 2009. He has made little progress toward resolving his past-due accounts. Clearance denied.

Statement of the Case

On October 17, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR)1 to Applicant, detailing the security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, why it was unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him a security clearance. DOHA took action under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR allegations on November 4, 2011, and he requested a decision without a hearing. On January 16, 2012, the Government submitted a File of Relevant Material (FORM) consisting of ten exhibits (Items 1-10).2 DOHA forwarded a copy of the FORM to Applicant on January 24, 2012, and instructed him to respond within 30 days of receipt. Applicant received the FORM on January 31, 2012. He elected not to respond by the February 29, 2012 due date, and on March 21, 2012, the case was assigned to me to consider whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The SOR alleged under Guideline F that as of October 17, 2011, Applicant owed $23,488 in delinquent debt (SOR 1.a-1.y), including a $1,147 unpaid credit card judgment (SOR 1.j). Applicant admitted the debts without explanation. After considering the Government’s FORM, including Applicant’s Answer (GE 3), I make the following findings of fact.

Applicant is a 33-year-old composite fabricator, who has been employed by a defense contractor since October 2009. Applicant previously worked for the company from July 2007 to January 2008, but there is no indication that he held a DOD security clearance during that time. (GE 4.)

Applicant pursued college studies from January 1997 to May 2001, although he did not earn a degree. Since September 2001, Applicant has been cohabiting on and off with his girlfriend, with whom he has had some relationship problems. As of December 2009, Applicant was spending most weekends with her and their three children. They have a daughter born in October 2002 and sons born in June 2005 and June 2008. (GE 4.)

From January 2002 to February 2003, Applicant was a runner for a private company. For the next nine months, he worked in the warehouse for a furniture retailer. He then worked as an installer for a garage door company until May 2007. Following a brief period of unemployment, in July 2007 he entered the defense industry as a fabricator for his current employer, although he stayed only six months. Applicant worked as a “CNC operator” for a succession of private well-drilling companies between January 2008 and October 2009, excepting some additional unemployment from March 2009 to July 2009, and September 2009 to October 2009. He has been consistently employed by his defense contractor employer since October 2009. (GE 4.)

On December 7, 2009, Applicant executed an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP). He responded affirmatively to a couple of financial record inquiries covering the last seven years: 26.g, any bills or debts turned over to a collection agency, and 26.h, any account or credit card suspended, charged off, or cancelled for failing to pay as agreed. He answered “Yes” as well to question 26.nconcerning any debts currently over 90 days delinquent. Applicant listed the debts in SOR 1.a, 1.c, 1.e-1.h, 1.m-1.n, 1.q, and 1.u (duplicated in SOR 1.r). Although Applicant responded “No” to question 26.b, whether he had any possessions or property voluntarily or involuntarily repossessed or foreclosed within the last seven years, he indicated that he had a car repossessed for failure to make his loan payments (SOR 1.u). Applicant attributed the vehicle repossession to the lender setting a monthly payment beyond what had been promised in a refinancing. Applicant explained that he fell behind on his other bills when he was out of work on disability for six months after he was assaulted in 2006. He indicated that now that he had a job, he would be able to make payment arrangements with his creditors. (GE 4.)

A check of Applicant’s credit on December 22, 2009, revealed a previously undisclosed court judgment of $1,147 (SOR 1.j) filed in August 2008, and some medical debts in collection, including a $789 debt (SOR 1.x). (GE 5.) On January 20, 2010, Applicant was interviewed by an authorized investigator for the DOD about the adverse credit accounts on his e-QIP and his credit report. Applicant explained that he utilized his credit cards to make payments on some credit card accounts and living expenses while he was out of work on disability. Applicant denied any knowledge of the outstanding judgment against him, although he admitted that he had an account with the credit lender at one time that went delinquent. He indicated that he incurred the debt in SOR 1.h, knowing that he did not have the funds in his account, and the debt in SOR 1.dconsisted of overdraft charges. Applicant did not deny the medical or consumer credit card debts on his record. He asserted he was able to meet his current obligations, and he intended to use his income tax refund to make payments on his past-due debts. (GE 6.)

In January 2010, Applicant paid off a $700 fine for a March 2009 domestic violence incident involving his girlfriend. (GE 6.) As of October 2010, he owed $900 in child support. While the debt had not been paid as of November 2011, there is no indication that he owed any additional arrearage. (GE 9.)

At DOHA’s request, Applicant detailed efforts to address his debts as of April 14, 2011. He provided documentation showing a balance of $68.27 due on the account in SOR 1.cdue to interest. He planned to pay the debt in $20 installments. He had also arranged to make monthly payments of $20 toward SOR 1.nand of $25 to another creditor.3 Initial payments were due by April 27, 2011. (GE 7.)

Subsequent credit checks of July 13, 2011, and January 16, 2012, reflected no progress toward resolving his past-due accounts. (GEs 8, 9.) The delinquency history of the debts in the SOR is set forth in the following table. Debt alleged in SOR Delinquency history Payment status 1.a $127 medical debt $85 debt incurred Mar. No payments as of Jan. 2006, for collection Aug. 2012. (GE 9.) 2006; $114 in collection with agency in SOR 1.y Dec. 2009; $132 balance Jan. 2012. (GEs 4-6, 8-9.) 1.b $2,691 apartment debt in $2,443 debt from Jan. 2009, No payments as of Jan. collection for collection Dec. 2009; 2012. (GE 9.) balance $2,691 Jun. 2011, $2,778 Dec. 2011. (GEs 8- 9.) 1.c $51 medical debt $51 dental debt from Dec. Arranged to make $20 2007, for collection May payments starting Apr. 2011 2008; $61 balance with (GE 7); no evidence of assignee in SOR 1.v Dec. payments. 2009, $68.27 balance Apr. 2011. (GEs 4-8.) 1.d $1,239 credit union debt $860 overdraft debt from No payments as of Nov. in collection Aug. 2006, for collection 2011. (GE 3.) Sep. 2006; balance $1,115 Oct. 2009, $1,239 Feb. 2011. (GEs 6, 8-9.) 1.e $359 medical debt $264 dental debt from Feb. No payments as of Nov. 2007, for collection Jul. 2011. (GE 3.) 2007; balance $318 Feb. 2009, $359 Sep. 2010. (GEs 4-6, 8-9.) 1.f $941 credit card debt in Opened Jan. 2002, $664 No payments as of Nov. collection balance from Jul. 2006 for 2011. (GE 3.) collection Feb. 2007; balance $925 Dec. 2009, $941 Feb. 2010. (GEs 4-5, 8-9.) 1.g $105 telephone debt in $104 balance from Feb. No payments as of Nov. collection 2009 for collection; $105 2011. (GE 3.) balance Jan. 2010. (GEs 4- 6, 8-9.) 1.h $1,132 credit union debt $997 balance from Sep. No payments as of Nov. in collection 2007 for collection; balance 2011. (GE 3.) $1,132 Feb. 2009, $1,142 Apr. 2009. (GEs 4-6, 8-9.) 1.i $27 medical debt in $26 medical debt from Feb. No payments as of Nov. collection 2007; $27 for collection Jun. 2011. (GE 3.) 2007. (GEs 5, 8-9.) 1.j $1,147 judgment debt Credit card account opened No payments as of Nov. Jul. 2003,4 $1,147 judgment 2011. (GE 3.) Aug. 2008; $1,673 balance Dec. 2009. (GEs 4-6, 8-9.) 1.kcredit union debt $345 Auto loan $13,772 opened Paying 31 to 60 days late as past due 120 days Mar. 2006, current on of Jan. 2012. (GE 9.) $11,846 balance Dec. 2009; $345 past due on $7,467 balance Jul. 2011, $349 past due on $5,845 balance Jan. 2012. (GEs 8, 9.) 1.l $732 retail revolving Credit card opened Nov. No payments as of Dec. credit balance charged off 2005, last activity Jul. 2006; 2011. (GE 9.) $732 for collection Feb. 2008; $732 charge-off balance Dec. 2011. (GEs 5- 6, 8-9.) 1.m $2,023 collection debt Credit card opened Mar. No payments as of Dec. 2003,5 high credit $1,135, 2011. (GE 9.) last activity Jun. 2006; $1,479 for collection Oct. 2008; balance $2,023 balance Jun. 2011, $2,125 Dec. 2011. (GEs 4-6, 8-9.) 1.n $534 collection debt Retail charge opened Mar. Arranged to pay in $20 2002, $536 high credit, last installments starting Apr. activity Jun. 2006; for 2011 (GE 7); no evidence of collection Jul. 2007, with payments. listed assignee Sep. 2008; $534 balance Jun. 2011. (GEs 4-6, 8.) 1.o $1,183 charge-off debt Opened May 2004, high No payments as of Jun. credit $1,000; $1,183 2011. (GE 9.) charge-off balance Jun. 2011. (GEs 8-9.) 1.p $1,883 charge-off debt Same debt as SOR 1.u See SOR 1.u. 1.q $770 retail revolving Opened Dec. 2001, $770 in No payments as of Nov. credit balance charged off collection Sep. 2007. (GEs 2011. (GE 3.) 4-5, 8-9.) 1.r $2,000 debt for Same debt as 1.u (GE 6.) See SOR 1.u. repossessed vehicle 120 days past due 1.s $1,673 collection debt Same debt as SOR 1.j See SOR 1.j. 1.t $1,135 credit card debt in Same debt as SOR 1.m See SOR 1.m. collection 1.u $1,883 auto loan debt in Joint auto loan of $26,730 No payments as of Nov. collection opened Aug. 2004, last 2011. (GE 3.) activity Aug. 2005; $2,025 past due on $18,015 balance Oct. 2005; refinanced Mar. 2006; vehicle repossessed, $1,883 charge-off balance May 2009. (GEs 5-6, 8-9.) 1.v $61 medical debt in Same debt as SOR 1.c See SOR 1.c. collection 1.w $544 retail revolving Opened Jan. 2003, last No payments as of Nov. charge debt in collection activity Nov. 2007; $544 high 2011. (GE 3.) credit charged off and sold as of Oct. 2007. (GE 5.) 1.x $789 medical debt in $789 debt for collection May No payments as of Nov. collection 2008. (GEs 5, 6.) 2011. (GE 3.) 1.y $114 medical debt in Same debt as SOR 1.a See SOR 1.a. collection

POLICIES

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion the Executive Branch has in regulating access to information pertaining to national security, emphasizing that “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be considered in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overall adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), 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 decision.

The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision.

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. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

The security concern 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.

Guideline F notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. The Government alleged that as of October 2011, Applicant had 25 accounts that were past due in the aggregate $23,488. Applicant admitted all of the debts as alleged, although the evidence shows that some of the accounts were alleged in the SOR more than once. The loan for the repossessed car was apparently refinanced, and DOHA alleged the debt under the names of the original lender, the refinancing lender, and the current holder. Based on the latest available debt information, Applicant owed about $17,373 in delinquent debt as of the end of 2011. AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” are established.

Concerning potentially mitigating conditions, AG ¶ 20(a), “the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” cannot reasonably apply, given the absence of any demonstrated progress toward resolving his past-due debt balances. AG ¶ 20(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, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances,” applies to the extent that his financial problems can be attributed to medical issues or unemployment. About $1,375 of his delinquent debt is clearly medical or dental. Applicant submits that another $3,267 of his debt (SOR 1.h, 1.m) is medical. The debt was incurred on consumer credit accounts, which could have been used to pay medical expenses. Applicant was apparently out of work on disability for six months in 2006, and he was unemployed from May 2007 to June 2007, March 2009 to July 2009, and September 2009 to October 2009. The evidence corroborates the negative impact of his disability in 2006. Several non-medical accounts went delinquent in 2006 (SOR 1.d, 1.f, 1.l-1.n, and 1.w). However, AG ¶ 20(b) does not mitigate Applicant’s failure to address the debts, including a court judgment, once he was gainfully employed. The apartment debt in SOR 1.band the telephone debt are from the January to February 2009 timeframe, when Applicant had employment income.

Applicant is credited with making repayment arrangements with three of his creditors or their assignees around April 2011. Yet, with no evidence of any payments in the record before me, I cannot conclude that the financial concerns are fully mitigated under either AG ¶ 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” or AG ¶ 20(c), “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.” AG ¶ 20(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,” applies only in that some of the alleged debts (SOR 1.p, 1.r-1.t, 1.v, and 1.y) were shown to be duplicate listings and not additional balances.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must consider the totality of an applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances in light of the nine adjudicative process factors in AG ¶ 2(a).6

Applicant was candid from the outset about his financial difficulties, which were caused in part by factors outside of his control. While he has a responsibility to repay his creditors, he is not required, as a matter of law, to establish resolution of every debt alleged in the SOR. Applicants for security clearance need only establish a plan to resolve financial problems and take significant actions to implement the plan. There is no requirement that an applicant make payments on all delinquent debts simultaneously, nor is there a requirement that the debts alleged in the SOR be paid first. See ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008). Applicant indicated on his e-QIP in December 2009 that he could begin repaying his debts, now that he was fully employed. He has provided no reasonable explanation for why he has not satisfied any of his past-due debts as of January 2012. His January 2012 credit report shows a $900 child support balance. A substantial child support obligation could explain a lack of progress in resolving his old debts, but even so, a couple of his medical debts are under $100, and the telephone debt is only $105. The evidence falls considerably short of showing that he has done all that he can to address his financial problems. Based on the record before me, I am unable to conclude that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant security clearance eligibility.

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

Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.i: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.l: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.m: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.n: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.o: Against Applicant For Applicant7 Subparagraph 1.p: Subparagraph 1.q: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.r: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.s: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.t: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.u: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.v: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.w: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.x: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.y: For 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.

________________________ Elizabeth M. Matchinski Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 In response to interrogatories (Gov. X 6), Applicant corrected his name to note that he is a junior. The SOR does not include the suffix. 2The exhibits were pre-marked as Gov. X 1-10, respectively. The exhibits are referred to as GE 1-10 in this decision. 3Applicant provided information about contacts with a collection agency, but it is unclear which debt is currently held by that assignee. 4Applicant listed the debt as a medical debt on his e-QIP. (GE 4.) Credit reports show the debt was incurred on a credit card account, which could have been used to pay medical expenses. 5 Applicant listed it as a medical debt of $1,682 on his e-QIP. (GE 4.) 6 The factors under AG ¶ 2(a) are as follows: (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. 7Favorable findings are returned to those allegations that do not represent additional debt but are instead duplicate listings.