ISCR Case No. 19-03634

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 19-03634 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Mary Margaret Foreman, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 04/08/2021

LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge: Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the financial considerations guideline. He did not present documentation to support his burden of proof. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case On March 10, 2020, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Adjudicative Guideline F (financial considerations). The action was taken under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by DOD on June 8, 2017. Applicant responded to the SOR and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s file of relevant material (FORM) on January 6, 2021. Applicant received the FORM on January 19, 2021. Applicant did not object to the Government’s evidence, and provided no response to the

FORM. The Government’s evidence, included in the FORM and identified as Items 1 through 6, is admitted without objection. The case was assigned to me on March 25, 2021. Based on my review of the documentary evidence, I find that Applicant has not mitigated financial considerations security concerns.

In response to the SOR, Applicant admitted all allegations with explanations. (Item 2) He is 46 years-old and twice divorced. He has one adult stepchild. (Item 4) Applicant served in the U.S. Army from June 1993 to July 2001, when he was honorably discharged. He completed a security clearance application on January 30, 2019. He retired from state government employment in 2014 after working 11 years. He has worked for his current employer since October 2017. He reports no periods of unemployment. (Item 3) Applicant does not currently hold a security clearance. (Item 3) Financial The SOR alleges that Applicant has about $36,639 in delinquent consumer and medical debt. (Items 5, 6). The allegations are supported by Applicant’s credit report and his security clearance application. He admits each debt; however, SOR 1.d and 1.h are duplicates. Applicant attributes the delinquent debts to his second divorce in 2016. (Item 3) However, the record is absent of his actions to resolve the delinquent debts. In Applicant’s 2019, subject interview, he stated that the status of the delinquent accounts was accurate. (Item 4) On some accounts, he did not seem aware of the status. Although, not listed in the SOR, in his subject interview he is currently in a payment plan with the IRS for tax year 2015. (Item 4) Applicant stated his financial situation is improving and his credit score is increasing, but provided no substantiating documentation. He stated that he has changed his lifestyle by no longer using credit cards and trying to save more money. He received some financial counseling and debt consolidation more than seven years ago. (Item 4) At the interview, Applicant was given an opportunity to submit documentation regarding the financial delinquencies. He failed to provide any documentation or dispute information. (Item 4) Applicant is gainfully employed. There is no information in the record concerning his salary, use of a financial counselor (except the counseling more than seven years ago), or budget. There is one positive character reference. Applicant provided no documentation to support payment on any of the delinquent debts.

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 to be used 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, administrative judges apply the guidelines 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.” 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 the 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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Section 7 of Exec. Or. 10865 provides that adverse 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 Exec. Or. 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).

Guideline F (Financial Considerations) The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 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 . . . . This concern is broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly compromise classified information to raise money. It encompasses concerns about a person’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified information. A person who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012). Applicant’s admissions, corroborated by his credit reports, establish two disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶¶ 19(a) (“inability to satisfy debts”); and 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”). The security concerns raised in the SOR may be mitigated by the following potentially applicable factors: 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; 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, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; AG ¶ 20(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; and AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. Applicant admitted, and his credit reports confirm, that he is responsible for the delinquent debts. He blames the debts on his divorce in 2016, but provided no

information to support a nexus between the 2016 divorce and the delinquent debts. He has not provided any documentation that supports any of the mitigating conditions. Based on the scant evidence produced by Applicant, it is impossible to conclude he made a sufficient good-faith effort to resolve his debts or that his financial situation is under control. The Government has cause to question whether Applicant has his finances under control. Despite gainful employment, there is no evidence that Applicant has made any payments on any of the delinquent debts. Any doubts must be resolved in favor of the Government.

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 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 a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Because protection of the interests of national security is the principal focus of these adjudications, any remaining doubts must be resolved by denying eligibility for access to sensitive information.

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.g: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant

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’s eligibility for a security clearance. Continued eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Noreen A. Lynch Administrative Judge