PSH-15-0079

*The original of this document contains information which is subject to withholding from
disclosure under 5 U.S. C. § 552. Such material has been deleted from this copy and replaced
with XXXXXX’s.
United States Department of Energy
Office of Hearings and Appeals
In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: October 8, 2015 ) Case No.: PSH-15-0079
____________________________________)
Issued: January 7, 2016
______________________
Administrative Judge Decision
______________________
Shiwali G. Patel, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
individual”) for access authorization under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled
“Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special
Nuclear Material.”1 For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the DOE should restore the
individual’s access authorization.2
I. BACKGROUND
The individual is an employee of a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor and has a suspended
access authorization. A Local Security Office (LSO) summoned the individual for a Personnel
Security Interview (PSI) with a personnel security specialist on April 30, 2015, in order to address
issues concerning his financial indebtedness and omissions in his Questionnaire for National
Security Positions, SF-86 (QNSP). After the PSI, the LSO determined that there was derogatory
information that cast into doubt the individual’s eligibility for access authorization. The LSO
informed the individual of this determination in a letter that set forth the DOE’s security concerns
and the reasons for those concerns. DOE Exhibit (Ex.).1 The Notification Letter also informed the
individual that he was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge in order to resolve the
substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for an access authorization.
1 An access authorization is an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access to classified matter or
special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5. Such authorization will be referred to in this Decision as access authorization
or a security clearance.
2 Decisions issued by the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) are available on the OHA website located at
http://www.energy.gov/oha.
- 2 -
The individual requested a hearing in this matter. The LSO forwarded this request to OHA, and the
OHA Director appointed me the Administrative Judge. The DOE introduced 32 exhibits (Exs. 1-32)
into the record of this proceeding. The individual introduced seven exhibits3 (Exs. A-G) and
presented the testimony of five witnesses at the hearing, including his own. See Transcript of
Hearing, Case No. PSH-15-0079 [hereinafter cited as “Tr.”].
II. REGULATORY STANDARDS
The criteria for determining eligibility for security clearances set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710 dictate
that in these proceedings, an Administrative Judge must undertake a careful review of all of the
relevant facts and circumstances, and make a “common-sense judgment . . . after consideration of all
relevant information.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). I must therefore consider all information, favorable and
unfavorable, that has a bearing on the question of whether restoring the individual’s security
clearance would compromise national security concerns. Specifically, the regulations compel me to
consider the nature, extent, and seriousness of the individual’s conduct; the circumstances
surrounding the conduct; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the age and maturity of the
individual at the time of the conduct; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or reformation and
other pertinent behavioral changes; the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of the conduct; and
any other relevant and material factors. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c).
A DOE administrative proceeding under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 is “for the purpose of affording the
individual an opportunity of supporting his eligibility for access authorization.”
10 C.F.R. § 710.21(b)(6). Once the DOE has made a showing of derogatory information raising
security concerns, the burden is on the individual to produce evidence sufficient to convince the
DOE that granting or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and
security and will be clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The
regulations further instruct me to resolve any doubts concerning the individual’s eligibility for access
authorization in favor of the national security. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a).
III. NOTIFICATION LETTER AND ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The Notification Letter cites information pertaining to subsections (l)4 and (f)5of the criteria for
eligibility for access to classified matter or special nuclear material set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8.
3 The individual’s Exhibits A through C were submitted before the hearing and Exhibits D through G were provided
through a post-hearing submission.
4 Derogatory information includes when an individual “[e]ngaged in any unusual conduct or is subject to any
circumstances which tend to show that the individual is not honest, reliable, or trustworthy; or which furnishes reason to
believe that the individual may be subject to pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress which may cause the individual to
act contrary to the best interests of the national security. Such conduct or circumstances, include, but are not limited to . .
. a pattern of financial responsibility.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(l).
5 Derogatory information exists when an individual “[d]eliberately misrepresented, falsified, or omitted significant
information from a Personnel Security Questionnaire, a Questionnaire for Sensitive (or National Security) Positions.” 10
- 3 -
Ex. 1. In its Notification Letter, the LSO cites the following: 1) the individual has a charged-off
account for $34,314; 2) he has four collection accounts totaling $60,436, which includes a student
loan account of $60,083 and three other accounts of $178, $30 and $145; and 3) he is 60-days past
due in the amount of $1,458 on his mortgage that has a balance of $124,105. Ex. 1. The Notification
Letter also cites the individual’s failure to list six collection accounts and two charged-off accounts
that he had within the previous seven years of completing his QNSP in June 2014. Id. He also failed
to disclose that in March 1981, he was arrested and charged with being a minor in possession of
alcohol in the QNSPs that he submitted the following times: June 2014, December 2011, December
2010, December 2009, June 2009, December 2008, December 2007, January 2007, December 2005,
December 2004, December 2003, April 1999, November 1998, March 1993, and March 1988. Id.
The above information adequately justifies the DOE’s invocation of criteria (l) and (f), and raises
significant security concerns. The 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. See Revised Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, The White House, Guideline F
(December 19, 2005) [hereinafter Adjudicative Guidelines]. Moreover, the deliberate failure to
provide truthful and candid answers during a security clearance process also raises questions about
an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. Id., Guideline
E.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
The individual presented the testimony of five witnesses, including his own testimony. My findings
from the testimony and the exhibits are explained below.
A. Individual’s failure to list past debts and alcohol-related offense in QNSPs
1. Individual’s charge with minor in possession of alcohol
In March 1981, the individual was charged with being a minor in possession of alcohol.6 Ex. 1. In
15 QNSPs that he has submitted since 1988, including the June 2014 QNSP, he never disclosed that
he was charged with an offense involving alcohol or drugs. Ex. 1; Exs. 15-29. During a PSI in July
1990 and a PSI in April 2015, he admitted that he was charged with the offense of minor in
possession of alcohol when confronted about it. Ex. 31 at 4-5; Ex. 30 at 159. In a letter of
interrogatory that the individual submitted in March 2012 (“LOI”), he was asked why he failed to
C.F.R. § 710.8(f).
6 According to the Case Evaluation Sheet from April 2015, in March 1981, the individual was cited for being a minor in
possession of alcohol and fined $35, and he was also cited for urinating in public after being observed by a police officer
urinating in an alley. After he did not pay his fine, two months later, he was arrested on a warrant for failure to pay his
fine. Ex. 5.
- 4 -
respond “yes” to the question asking whether he ever had any alcohol-related charges in his QNSP.
Ex. 13 at 4. The individual indicated that he did not deliberately omit that information, but that he
was “unaware that the citation that was issued to [him] was a Minor in Possession of Alcoholic
Beverages,” and instead believed that it was urinating in public. Ex. 13. He then stated that
“[f]uture QNSP’s [sic] with this question will be answered with a ‘YES.’” Ex. 13. Despite his
statements, he still failed to disclose the charge in his June 2014 QNSP.
At the hearing, the individual recalled that in 1981, he was given a ticket for urinating in public and
that he was arrested a few months later when he failed to appear at the courthouse to take care of that
ticket. Tr. at 141-42. His family knew about the incident and he testified that he disclosed it with
personnel at his job when he was hired to work there. Tr. at 145. His colleagues also know about it
as he has not tried to hide it from them. Tr. at 146. The individual testified that while there was no
excuse for not disclosing the offense in the June 2014 QNSP, he did not intend for the DOE to not
find out about it and he did not intentionally try to mislead the DOE. Tr. at 146-147. He also knows
that the DOE has known about this charge for 20 years based on his previous PSIs and LOI. Tr. at
146.
The individual’s wife was dating him when he got the ticket in 1981 and when he was arrested
months later. Tr. at 36. She recalled that he received the ticket for urinating in an alley when he was
a teenager and that he was arrested because he never paid the ticket. Tr. at 37. She stated that he has
never been arrested again and that he never denied that incident. Tr. at 39-40. In fact, to her
knowledge, her husband has always reported that incident, his friends know about it, and he has
never kept it a secret. Tr. at 54.
2. Individual’s past delinquent accounts
In his June 2014 QNSP, the individual disclosed that he was delinquent on the two student loans
because he was overextended on his home loan, his 401(k) loan and the student loans. Ex. 15. He
also disclosed that his wages were being garnished for one of the student loan accounts. Ex. 15. In
addition, he stated that they will be placing their home up for sale and will take the equity to pay off
the student loans. Ex. 15. Later on, during his April 2015 PSI, the individual admitted that he
omitted disclosing in his June 2014 QNSP that he had six collection accounts and two charged-off
accounts within the seven years before submitting his QNSP. Ex. 2. He explained that he failed to
list three of those collection accounts because he believed that he was current on them and did not
realize that they were placed in collection. Ex. 3. However, he admitted that he knew about the
other three collection accounts and two charged-off accounts when submitting his QNSP. Ex. 3.
The individual previously disclosed some of those same delinquent accounts that he failed to include
in his June 2014 QNSP to the DOE a few years earlier. As an attachment to his December 2011
QNSP, the individual provided a list of his delinquent accounts from the past seven years through an
email dated October 22, 2009 (“October 2009 Email”). Ex. 16. The October 2009 Email listed at
least three collection accounts that the individual should have disclosed in his June 2014 QNSP, but
failed to do so. Ex. 16. The October 2009 Email was also attached to his December 2010 and
December 2009 QNSPs. Ex. 17; Ex. 18.
- 5 -
At the hearing, the individual explained that he did not try to hide the fact that he had financial
difficulties. Tr. at 114. When he was completing his June 2014 QNSP, he asked his wife about their
delinquent accounts and he relied on the information that she gave him. Tr. at 149. He believes that
he did not list some debts, including a delinquent account from 2009 (which he previously disclosed
in his December 2011, December 2010, and December 2009 QNSPs) because he miscalculated
whether the accounts were delinquent in the seven years before June 2014. Tr. at 150. When filling
out the QNSP in the future, the individual plans to review his credit report to ensure that he responds
correctly. Tr. at 129.
The individual’s wife testified that when her husband asked her about their previous delinquent
accounts for his June 2014 QNSP, she knew at the time that they were already paid off years ago and
so she told him that they were already paid off. Tr. at 556. She stated that any debts that he did not
list were due to her belief that they were paid off and so she never mentioned them to him for his
QNSP. Tr. at 57. She thought that as long as they were current on those accounts, they did not have
to be reported. Tr. at 62.
B. Individual’s delinquent accounts
The individual’s wife was solely responsible for paying the bills on their home until about the fall of
2015 after the individual realized that he needed to take more responsibility over his financial
situation. Tr. at 45. He and his wife began experiencing financial troubles a few years after their
son decided to go back to school in 2005 and the individual became a co-signer on his student loans,
which he understood at the time he could be responsible for paying.7 Tr. at 10. His son attended the
primary school in his occupational field in the state where they reside. Tr. at 11. In 2008, after he
already graduated and was working, the individual’s son injured himself and was unable to work for
approximately three months. Tr. at 13. He was therefore unable to make payments on his student
loans and creditors began charging the individual for his son’s loan payments, which the individual
and his wife paid. Tr. at 13-15. In paying off his son’s loans, the individual became overextended
financially and had challenges in meeting his other payments. Tr. at 120. While his son now works,
he does not earn sufficient income to make payments on his loans. Tr. at 14.
The individual experienced further financial difficulties in 2009 and 2010 due to his health problems
and a triple bypass surgery that he had in 2010, and during that period he could not make payments
on the student loans. Ex. 3; Tr. at 15. In order to pay his bills, in the fall of 2009, the individual
withdrew a $50,000 loan from his 401(k) account and used it to pay towards one of the student loan
accounts and other bills. Ex. 7 at 3; Ex. 30 at 12-14; Tr. at 157. That loan from his 401(k) account
was paid off in 2014. Tr. at 155. Around the time his 401(k) account was paid off, in November
2014, the individual’s wages were garnished in the amount of $400, every two weeks, to pay for the
student loan that is currently in collection. Ex. 3; Tr. at 19. Since his wages became garnished, the
individual got behind on his other payments, including his mortgage payments. Ex. 3; Tr. at 121.
7 The $34,314 charged-off account and $60,083 collection account in the Summary of Security Concerns are both for the
student loans that his son took out to finance his education. Ex. 1.
- 6 -
In the summer of 2015, the individual and his wife took out another loan from his 401(k)8 account
for approximately $47,000 to pay off his smaller collection accounts, get caught up on his mortgage
payments, and repair his truck engine that cost $8,700. Tr. at 155, 157. The delinquent accounts that
the individual resolved with his second loan from his 401(k) account include the $145 collection
account from a gas bill and the two accounts for $178 and $30 from medical bills that are listed in
the Summary of Security Concerns. Ex. 1; Tr. at 26. The collection account for $145 was paid off
on July 15, 2015. Ex. C. The collection accounts associated with the medical bills were paid off on
November 25, 2015. Ex. A. There are other outstanding accounts with the same creditor (which are
not listed in the Summary of Security Concerns) that have been either been paid or are disputed9 and
are his wife’s medical bills. Ex. A; Tr. at 26.
As of the hearing, the individual and his wife were current on their mortgage, which has a balance of
$120,000,10 because on August 25, 2015, they paid $8,696 from their 401(k) loan for the months of
March through August 2015. Tr. at 23, 140; Ex. B. The individual testified that they made the
payments for the remaining months. Tr. at 140. His wife explained that now, when the individual’s
paycheck is deposited into his account, he withdraws money to make payments on their mortgage
and any other payments that are due before they use their debit or credit card. Tr. at 17.
The individual and his wife have approximately $20,350 remaining from the 401(k) loan to be used
for emergency purposes and all of their delinquent accounts have been taken care of except the
student loans. Tr. at 158. As the two student loans remain outstanding, with one being paid through
the wage garnishment, the individual and his wife are planning to pay off the loans by either using
the funds from selling their house or using the emergency fund from their 401(k) loan after
negotiating a settlement or payout to resolve the charged-off student loan account. Tr. at 34, 122.
They explained that they have contacted the creditor of the charged-off account to ascertain whether
they can settle their debt but have not made an agreement with them as of the hearing. Tr. at 34, 138.
They would be willing to use the emergency fund to pay that debt if they are able negotiate a
settlement amount. Tr. at 138.
As the individual and his wife are trying to save money to pay off their debts, they moved into his
mother-in-law’s home two years ago in order to fix up their own home and sell it. Ex. 3; Tr. at 19-20,
49. They are not paying any rent to live in his mother-in-law’s home, but they are paying for the
utilities of both homes. Ex. 3. They described the decision to sell their home as difficult as it was
their dream home where they hoped to have lived in for the rest of their lives. Tr. at 66. As early as
8 The individual’s income statement indicates that he is paying back his 401(k) loan through a $401.61 after-tax
deduction per pay period. Ex. D.
9 The individual explained that they are disputing about $3,726 in medical costs, which arose after their insurance
changed while a claim for his wife’s medical procedure was being processed. Tr. at 152-153. He stated that his
insurance company advised him not to pay the bill until the billing company files the right paperwork. Tr. at 153.
10 The account in the Summary of Security Concerns with a balance of $124,105 and past due for $1,458 was for his
mortgage. Ex. 1.
- 7 -
the PSI in April 2015, the individual stated that “the house is presentable to be sold” and that a
neighbor was interested in buying the house. Ex. 30 at 92. Indeed, they had the house on the market
for about 18 months before the hearing, but did not hire a real estate agent because they wanted to
use that money to pay their bills. Tr. at 49, 124. However, they did not immediately sell the house
after the individual’s PSI in April 2015, indicating that they still planned to paint and clean it and
make some repairs to get it ready for sale. Tr. at 45-46. Months later, after finally hiring a real estate
agent, on December 7, 2015, the individual and his wife entered into a real estate listing agreement to
sell their home for $256,000. Tr. at 22; Ex. G. Once they sell their home, they plan to pay off the
student loans with their earnings from the sale. Tr. at 24; 35.
The individual is now making more payments on his own and has become aware of the status of their
accounts without relying completely on his wife. Tr. at 16. He submitted a monthly budget
indicating that after taking into account their expenses, including mortgage payments, he and his
wife have a positive balance of $394. Ex. F. Aside from the student loans, the individual does not
have any other delinquent accounts. Tr. at 26. The individual and his wife testified that they do not
have any car payments because they just own one car, they have not taken a vacation in a very long
time, they do not have any credit card debt, and they do not spend extravagantly. Tr. at 28-32. In
fact, they used to own two vehicles, but because one was stolen after they moved into the
individual’s mother-in-law’s home, the individual decided not to purchase another car due to their
financial situation. Tr. at 28-29. While the individual has two credit cards with an $800 credit limit,
they are only for emergency reasons and have zero balances because he and his wife have not used
the cards in a long time. Tr. at 32, 133. The individual’s wife testified that if they sell their home,
their intention is to just buy her a small vehicle to get to and from places as necessary and not spend
any more of the money that they earn from the sale. Tr. at 35.
C. Individual’s colleagues’ testimonies
The individual’s colleague and friend who has known him for over 30 years, and supervised him at
work for 10 years, testified that the individual is cautious in his approach to work, does not take
shortcuts, and is reliable. Tr. at 71-84. He has also socialized with the individual and knows his
family. Tr. at 75, 82. He stated that he has never known the individual to be an extravagant spender,
and that instead, the individual has always been a conservative spender, describing him as someone
who “watches his money pretty close.” Tr. at 76. The individual has talked to him about selling his
home and explained that he did not want to use a realtor because of the fees associated with hiring
one. Tr. at 78. He also told him that he wanted to save his money to pay his bills. Tr. at 78. The
individual’s colleague and friend also knew about the incident from 1981 and testified that it was
common knowledge at his workplace. The individual did not hide the fact that he received a ticket
for urinating in an alley while he was intoxicated when he was 18 years old. Tr. at 79. With regard
to his financial problems, he stated that the individual has also made those problems known to them
at work, asking for guidance on how to fix them. Tr. at 80.
Another colleague of the individual who has known him for 22 years testified that she would
describe him as dependable and hard working. Tr. at 88. She stated that he is very honest and
reliable. Tr. at 89, 91. She is also familiar with the incident in 1981 and that she knows of one other
- 8 -
person – her boss – who is aware of that incident. Tr. at 93. Furthermore, the individual’s
supervisor, who has known the individual for 21 years, testified that he is very dependable and
honest. Tr. at 101. Over the years he has learned about the individual’s financial struggles, stating
that he has been very forthcoming about it. Tr. at 102. He also stated that the individual does not
spend extravagantly and that he has no reason to believe that the individual could ever be coerced or
blackmailed into providing sensitive information because of his financial duress or the incident from
1981. Tr. at 105.
V. ANALYSIS
As stated above, the regulations compel me to consider the nature, extent, and seriousness of the
individual’s conduct; the circumstances surrounding the conduct; the frequency and recency of the
conduct; the age and maturity of the individual at the time of the conduct; the absence or presence of
rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the likelihood of continuation
or recurrence of the conduct; and any other relevant and material factors. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c).
It is in consideration of the regulations and the Adjudicative Guidelines referenced below, that I have
concluded that the individual sufficiently resolved the concerns raised by the LSO.
A. Deliberate misrepresentations, falsifications or omissions – Criterion (f)
After due deliberation and consideration of the witness testimony and the exhibits, I conclude that
the individual has resolved the concerns regarding his omissions of past delinquent accounts and of a
charge of minor in possession of alcohol from his QNSPs. Specifically, I do not find that his
omissions were deliberate or that he intended to conceal derogatory information related to his past
criminal conduct, which was relatively minor and occurred more than 30 years ago when he was a
teenager, or his financial indebtedness, much of which he already disclosed previously to the DOE.
Regarding the criminal charge that the individual failed to list in 15 QNSPs, which I recognize is not
an insignificant amount, it does not appear that he deliberately failed to disclose it so as to influence
his qualifications for employment or a security clearance. See Adjudicative Guidelines E at ¶ 16(a).
Notably, based on the testimony of his colleagues and wife, he did not try to hide that over 30 years
ago he was ticketed for urinating in public and then arrested for failing to pay the ticket; he was also
forthcoming about being charged as a minor in possession of alcohol or cited for urinating in public
when confronted about it by the DOE. All three witnesses who have worked with him for years,
including one who is his supervisor, stated that they knew about the incident. Moreover, the
individual testified that when he was hired to work for his employer, he disclosed that incident to
personnel at his job. His wife also stated that his friends are aware of that incident that the individual
has never tried to keep it a secret.
The individual also acknowledged that while there was no excuse for failing to disclose the charge,
he did not do it intentionally or try to mislead the DOE. Despite how many times he failed to list this
in his QNSP, the testimony of his witnesses strongly convince me that this was not an incident that
he deliberately tried to conceal. Moreover, his admissions during his PSI in April 2015 and LOI
answers in March 2012 also convince that he was not intentionally being unforthcoming with that
- 9 -
information. While his failure to disclose the alcohol-related charge exhibits a lack of care in
completing the QNSP, particularly after being confronted about it in the past by the DOE, I do not
find that he acted deliberately so as to mislead anyone or the DOE.
With regard to the delinquent accounts from the last seven years that the individual failed to disclose
in his June 2014 QNSP, I find that his omissions were not deliberate. The record indicates that he
believed that he was current on three of the six collections accounts that he failed to list; he
acknowledged that he knew about the other three collection and two charged-off accounts that he did
not list. However, he stated, and his wife confirmed, that because she was more familiar with their
accounts and payments, he relied on what she told him, which was that they did not need to be
reported. Additionally, it does not appear that he tried to conceal his financial problems as he listed
his two large delinquent accounts – the two student loans – in the June 2014 QNSP, and noted that
he was overextended on his home loan, his 401(k) loan, and the student loans. Further, the
individual also disclosed some of the same debts that he failed to include in his 2014 QNSP in the
October 2009 Email, which he attached to three of his previous QNSPs in December 2011,
December 2010, and December 2009. He explained that his failure to list accounts that he had
within seven years of submitting his June 2014 QNSP was due to a miscalculation of how long ago
those accounts were delinquent. While again, he may not have exercised the best care in completing
the QNSP, and should have reviewed his credit report, I do not find that he deliberately omitted this
information from the DOE. Thus, the individual has resolved the concerns under criterion (f).
B. Delinquent debts – Criterion (l)
I also find that the individual has resolved the concerns regarding his delinquent debts. First, his
financial problems were largely due to conditions that were beyond his control – primarily that his
son was not able to pay his student loans due to his injury, unemployment and insufficient income,
and that his own health issues and surgery in 2010 rendered it difficult for him to pay his expenses.
See Adjudicative Guidelines F at ¶ 20(b). Even though he knew that he could be responsible for his
son’s student loans when he became a co-signer, his son was initially paying his loans after
graduating from school, until he injured himself and was no longer able to make the payments
himself. It was when the individual and his wife made the payments to the student loan creditors,
that they become financially overextended, and then further extended when the individual had to
undergo surgery and had health problems in 2009 and 2010. Under those circumstances, the
individual appeared to have acted as responsibly as he could. He borrowed from his 401(k) in the
fall of 2009 to make payments on the student loans and other outstanding expenses and has paid back
his 401(k) account as of 2014. As to all of the delinquent accounts, except the student loans, the
individual has either resolved the accounts completely or become current on his payments, such as
his mortgage. See Adjudicative Guidelines F at ¶ 20(d).
Moreover, the individual did not spend money extravagantly or make unnecessary purchases. In fact,
two years ago, he and his wife moved into his mother-in-law’s home in order to prepare their own
home for sale. While he waited a considerable time to actually put his house for sale, his further
indebtedness was not caused by his own irresponsible behavior. See Adjudicative Guidelines F at ¶
19(b). As the individual recently hired a real estate agent to sell his home, he has made progress
- 10 -
towards resolving both of the student loans, which are his only remaining delinquent debts. He has a
realistic and attainable plan to resolve delinquent student loan accounts. Furthermore, the individual
and his wife also have a positive balance in their monthly budget and they have approximately
$20,350 from their current 401(k) loan to use for emergency purposes.
In all, the record does not demonstrate that there was any spending beyond their means to have
caused the individual and his wife’s financial problems. See Adjudicative Guidelines F at ¶ 19(e). In
fact, it demonstrates the opposite – that they have been very careful in spending their money and are
solely focused on resolving their debts and saving money. Hence, for these reasons, I find that the
individual has sufficiently resolved the concerns under criterion (l).
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I have found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession
of the DOE that raises serious security concerns under criteria (l) and (f). After considering all the
relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive common-sense manner,
including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing, I have found that
the individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to mitigate all of the security concerns at issue. I
therefore find that restoring the individual’s access authorization will not endanger the common
defense and is clearly consistent with the national interest. Accordingly, I have determined that the
individual’s access authorization should be restored. The parties may seek review of this Decision
by an Appeal Panel under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Shiwali G. Patel
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: January 7, 2016