ISCR Case No. 20-00175

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 20-00175 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Moira Modzelewski, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 03/31/2021

Curry, Marc E., Administrative Judge: Applicant failed to mitigate the security concern generated by her delinquent debts. Clearance is denied. Statement of the Case On May 26, 2020, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations, explaining why it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the national security to grant security clearance eligibility. The DOD CAF took the action 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 Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) effective for any adjudication made on or after June 8, 2017. On November 2, 2020, Applicant answered the SOR, denying all of the allegations. She requested a decision without a hearing. On December 21, 2020, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Materials (FORM). On January 25, 2021, Applicant received a copy of the FORM, and she was instructed to file any objections, or to supplement the file within 30 days of receipt. She did not file a response. Subsequently, on March 11, 2021, the case was assigned to me.

Applicant is a 42-year-old woman who has been married since 2018. A previous marriage ended in divorce in December 2011. (Item 7 at 26) She has a bachelor’s degree, earned in 2000, and two master’s degrees, earned in 2002 and 2007, respectively. Between 2007 and 2014, she pursued another degree at an online university. (Item 3 at 11-13) Since 2018, she has been working as an instructional systems designer for a defense contractor. (GE 3 at 14) Applicant has 28 delinquent debts, totaling approximately $290,000. Nearly all of them constitute student loans. Applicant denied all of the debts, asserting that she has either paid them in full, or is paying them in monthly payment plans. She discussed these delinquent debts with an investigative agent during an April 2019 interview. She was given an opportunity to provide documentation corroborating her dispute of these delinquencies, and did not do so. (Item 4 at 9) She did not provide any corroborating evidence when she completed her answer to the SOR, and she did not provide any evidence substantiating her denials in response to the FORM. Applicant contends that her financial issues began in 2014. (Item 4 at 7) In November of that year, she took a tropical vacation. (Item 3 at 35) She took another tropical vacation in 2017. (Item 3 at 40) She has not received any financial counseling. (Item 4 at 9)

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(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 ¶ 1(d) 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. 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. 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(d). They 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.

Guideline F: Financial Considerations The security concerns about financial considerations are set forth in AG ¶ 18, as follows: 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 or sensitive information . . . . An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. Applicant’s extensive delinquent debts generate security concerns under AG ¶ 19(a), “inability to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations.” The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable: 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; AG ¶ 20(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and 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. Applicant did not provide any evidence explaining how her debts became out of control, nor did she provide any evidence substantiating her contention that they have either been paid or are being paid through payment plans. Under these circumstances, none of the mitigating conditions apply. I conclude Applicant has failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concern.

I considered the whole-person concept factors when I evaluated the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F, and they do not warrant a favorable conclusion.

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.bb: Against Applicant

_____________________ In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Marc E. Curry Administrative Judge