CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 19-04067 — CASE

ISCR Case 19-04067denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 19-04067

deniedAug 2, 2021· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old married applicant was denied national security eligibility under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to over $55,000 in delinquent debts. The Statement of Reasons detailed six specific financial allegations. The applicant admitted to a $37,000 car loan with Creditor A, claiming monthly payments of $400 and a reduced past-due balance of $15,000. Additionally, the applicant admitted to past-due debts of approximately $14,700 to Creditor B, $5,400 to Creditor C, $844 to Creditor D, and $841 to Creditor E. The applicant also admitted to a past-due debt with Creditor F, asserting it had been paid off.

The administrative judge found that the applicant admitted to all listed debts. However, the applicant failed to provide evidence to substantiate claims of debt reduction, such as the asserted reduction of the car loan or the payoff of the debt to Creditor F.

The denial was based on the applicant's admission of multiple delinquent debts exceeding $55,000, the lack of evidence supporting any claimed debt reduction, and the failure to respond to the government's formal case or provide any mitigating evidence. Consequently, the applicant's request for national security eligibility was deemed inconsistent with national interest and was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple delinquent debts totaling over $55,000.
The applicant failed to provide evidence supporting claims of debt reduction.
The applicant did not respond to the government's formal case or provide mitigating evidence.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 22, 2020
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested decision on the written record without a hearing.
Decision dateAug 2, 2021

Cite For

Failure to Provide Evidence of Debt Mitigation Under Guideline F
Significant Delinquent Debts as a Disqualifying Factor
Lack of Response to Formal Case as Detrimental to Applicant's Position

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 applicant has multiple past-due debts totaling over $75,000, including a significant car loan. The judge found all allegations against the applicant due to a lack of supporting documentation for claims of debt reduction and payment.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits a $37,000 car-loan debt to Creditor A; but avers she is making monthly payments of $400, and that the past-due debt has been reduced to $15,000. $37,000	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant admits that she has a past-due debt to Creditor B in the amount of about $14,700. $14,700	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant admits that she has a past-due debt to Creditor C in the amount of about $5,400. $5,400	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant admits that she has a past-due debt to Creditor D in the amount of about $844. $844	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant admits that she has a past-due debt to Creditor E in the amount of about $841. $841	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant admits that she has a past-due debt to Creditor F, but avers that the past-due debt has been paid off.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	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: 19-04067 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Adrienne M. Driskill, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se August 2, 2021

STATEMENT OF CASE

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: Statement of Case On April 10, 2019, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-86). On April 22, 2020, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DoD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. (Item 1.) The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 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 National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AG), effective June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR soon thereafter. She admitted all of the SOR allegations concerning her delinquent debts, and requested that her case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing. (Item 1.) On March 26, 2021, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case. A complete copy

of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), containing six Items, was mailed to Applicant on or about March 26, 2021. The FORM notified Applicant that she had an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. Applicant submitted nothing in response to the FORM.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Guideline F – Financial Considerations Applicant is 44 years old. She is married, and has no children. (Item 2 at pages 7, and 21–22.) 1.a. Applicant admits a $37,000 car-loan debt to Creditor A; but avers she is making monthly payments of $400, and that the past-due debt has been reduced to $15,000. As Applicant has submitted nothing in support of this averment, this allegation is found against Applicant. 1.b. Applicant admits that she has a past-due debt to Creditor B in the amount of about $14,700. As she has submitted nothing further in this regard, this allegation is found against Applicant. 1.c. Applicant admits that she has a past-due debt to Creditor C in the amount of about $5,400. As she has submitted nothing further in this regard, this allegation is found against Applicant. 1.d. Applicant admits that she has a past-due debt to Creditor D in the amount of about $844. As she has submitted nothing further in this regard, this allegation is found against Applicant. 1.e. Applicant admits that she has a past-due debt to Creditor E in the amount of about $841. As she has submitted nothing further in this regard, this allegation is found against Applicant. 1.f. Applicant admits that she has a past-due debt to Creditor F, but avers that the past-due debt “has been paid off.” As Applicant has submitted nothing in support of this averment, this allegation is found against Applicant.

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility.

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 AG ¶ 2 describing 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 applicable guidelines in the context 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. I have not drawn inferences based on mere speculation or conjecture. Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an “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, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” A person applying for national security eligibility seeks to enter 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 national security eligibility. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified or sensitive information. Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of EO 10865, “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination 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 concerns relating to the guideline for financial considerations are set out in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part: 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. . . . AG ¶ 19 describes three conditions that could raise security concerns and may be disqualifying in this case: (a) inability to satisfy debts; (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; and (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. Applicant has significant past-due indebtedness. These facts establish prima facie support for the foregoing disqualifying conditions, and shift the burden to Applicant to mitigate those concerns. The guideline includes seven conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate the security concerns arising from Applicant’s alleged financial difficulties: (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;

(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; (f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income; and (g) the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements. None of these apply; and as such, Financial Considerations is found against Applicant.

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 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. According to AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether to grant national security eligibility must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the applicable guidelines and the whole-person concept. I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s judgment, eligibility, and suitability for a security clearance. She has not met her burden to mitigate the security concerns arising under the guideline for financial considerations.

FORMAL FINDINGS

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

________ Paragraph 1, Guideline F: Subparagraphs 1.a through1.f:

AGAINST APPLICANT Against 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 national security eligibility and a security clearance. National security eligibility is denied. Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge