CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-02787 — CASE

ISCR Case 18-02787denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-02787

deniedApr 2, 2019· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old federal contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 15 delinquent debts totaling approximately $27,091. The Statement of Reasons specifically cited these outstanding debts as the primary concern.

Despite acknowledging that her husband's unemployment contributed to her financial difficulties, the applicant did not provide evidence of efforts to mitigate these debts. She also failed to demonstrate financial responsibility or present documentation of any payment agreements or disputes regarding the outstanding amounts.

The denial was based on the unresolved nature of the 15 delinquent debts and the applicant's inability to show proactive steps toward resolving them or managing her finances responsibly.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had 15 delinquent debts totaling approximately $27,091 that remained unresolved.
The applicant failed to provide evidence of efforts to mitigate her debts or demonstrate financial responsibility.
The applicant did not present documentation of any payment agreements or disputes regarding her debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 7, 2018
Answer filedJan 4, 2019Applicant elected to have her case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateApr 2, 2019

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Impact of Unresolved Debts on Trustworthiness
Importance of Demonstrating Financial Responsibility in Security Clearance Cases

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 against the applicant on financial considerations, citing 15 delinquent debts totaling approximately $27,091. The applicant admitted to most allegations but claimed financial difficulties due to her husband's unemployment, which the judge did not find sufficient to mitigate the security concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant owed 15 delinquent debts totaling approximately $27,091. $27,091	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	Claimed Financial Event Outside Control
1.b–1.o	14 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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: ) ) ) ADP Case No. 18-02787 ) Applicant for Public Trust Position ) Appearances For Government: Bryan Olmos, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________ COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge: Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations trustworthiness concerns. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied. Statement of the Case On December 7, 2018, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. DOD acted under Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines effective June 8, 2017 (AG). Applicant answered the SOR on January 4, 2019, and elected to have her case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on January 23, 2019. The evidence included in the FORM is identified as Items 3-6 (Items 1 and 2 include pleadings and transmittal information). The FORM was mailed to Applicant, who received it on February 6, 2019. Applicant was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant did not file objections, but she 04/02/2019

offered exhibits (AE) A-C, which were admitted into evidence without objection. The case was assigned to me on March 28, 2019.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted all but one of the SOR allegations (SOR ¶ 1.n). Her admissions are incorporated as findings of fact. After a review of the pleadings and evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact.

Applicant is a 46-year-old employee of a federal contractor. She has worked for this employer since October 2009. She has earned college credits and holds technical certifications. She is married for the second time and has three adult children. Her husband is sporadically employed as a contractor and experienced severe medical issues in 2016.1

The SOR alleged Applicant owed 15 delinquent debts totaling approximately $27,091. The debts included a repossessed vehicle and consumer debts. The allegations are supported by credit reports from November 2017 and October 2018, her answers to questions from a defense investigator in September 2018 (PSI), and admissions in her SOR answer.2

Applicant explained that she got behind on her debts because of her husband’s unemployment, requiring her to pay all their bills from her earnings. In her PSI, she acknowledged contact by the various creditors, but she failed to respond due to her inability to repay the debts. She documented completing a 30-minute financial consultation with a money coach in March 2019. The consultation included describing strategies to deal with her debt problems. She did not provide any documentation showing that she had paid any of the debts, or that she had entered into any payment agreements with any creditors. She did not provide documentation to dispute any debts. Her debts remain unresolved.3

Applicant did not provide any information about her current financial situation or a budget. She provided three character letters from coworkers. She is described as a dedicated, hardworking, and trusted employee.4

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a public trust position, the administrative judge must consider the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the AG. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of

1 Items 2-3.

2 Items 2, 4-6.

3 Item 2, 4; AE A-B.

4 AE C.

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. According to AG ¶ 2(a), 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 national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.

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 as to obtaining a favorable trustworthiness decision.

A person who seeks access to sensitive 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 sensitive information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard sensitive information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of sensitive information.

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

AG ¶ 18 expresses the trustworthiness concern for financial considerations:

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 trustworthiness concern insofar as it may result from criminal activity, including espionage.

The guideline notes several conditions that could raise trustworthiness concerns. I have considered all of them under AG ¶ 19 and the following potentially apply:

(a) inability to satisfy debts; and

Applicant incurred 15 delinquent debts that remain unpaid. I find both the above disqualifying conditions are raised.

The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate trustworthiness concerns arising from financial difficulties. I have considered all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 and the following potentially apply:

(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;

(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

(c) the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;

(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and

(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue.

None of the above mitigating conditions fully apply. Applicant’s husband had periods of unemployment, but she failed to present evidence that she acted responsibly in addressing her delinquent debts. She presented no evidence of taking any action to contact creditors, set up payment plans, or pay the debts. There is some evidence of financial counseling. She failed to establish a track record of financial responsibility.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for access to sensitive information by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d):

(1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for access to sensitive information must be an overall commonsense assessment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept.

I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under that guideline, but some warrant additional comment.

I considered her husband’s unemployment. However, Applicant failed to produce evidence of any action taken to address her delinquent debts.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for access to sensitive information. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations trustworthiness concerns.

FORMAL FINDINGS

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

Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.o: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances, it is not clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for access to sensitive information. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied.

________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge