ISCR Case No. 21-00324

______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) [Name Redacted] ) ISCR Case No. 21-00324 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Jeff Kent, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 12/03/2021

KATAUSKAS, Philip J., Administrative Judge: Applicant provided sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial security concerns arising from his problematic financial history. Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is granted. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on January 21, 2020. The Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on March 16, 2021, detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The DOD CAF acted 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 Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines, effective within the DOD as of June 8, 2017. Applicant answered the SOR on May 14, 2021, and elected a decision on the written record by an administrative judge of the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). On March 9, 2021, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s file of

relevant material (FORM), including documents identified as Items1 through 5. Applicant was sent the FORM on June 10, 2021, and he received the FORM on June 30, 2021. He was afforded 30 days after receiving the FORM to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant responded to the FORM on August 2, 2021 (Response). The SOR and the answer (Items 1 and 2) are the pleadings in the case. Items 3 through 5 and Applicant’s response to the FORM are admitted without objection. The case was assigned to me on September 10, 2021.

After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings and exhibits submitted, I make the following findings of fact. Applicant is 32 years old, was divorced in November 2019, and has no children. He is a high school graduate and served in the U.S. Air Force from 2008 through November 2017, when he was honorably discharged. (Item 3.) The SOR alleged that Applicant has three delinquent debts totaling over just over $32,000. (Item 1.) Applicant admitted those allegations. He claimed that his delinquencies were caused by being unemployed from November 2017 until September 2018 when he was hired by his current employer. (Item 2.) The record shows no other periods of unemployment for Applicant. (Item 3.) In his August 2, 2021 Response, Applicant submitted documents evidencing that in July 2021 he successfully resolved his SOR delinquencies. When the FORM was submitted, the SOR debts were delinquent. (Item 4.) Applicant had not previousy submitted any documents showing that he was addressing those debts.

It is well established that no one has a right to a security clearance. As the Supreme Court held, “the clearly consistent standard indicates that security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988). The adjudicative 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 access to classified information 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, an “applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining 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 that an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.

Guideline F, Financial Considerations The security concern relating to the guideline for financial considerations 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 an individual might knowingly compromise classified information in order to raise money. It encompasses concerns about an individual’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified information. An individual who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012). The guideline notes conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 19. The following are potentially applicable in this case:

(a) inability to satisfy debts; and (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. The SOR debts are established by the Applicant’s admissions and the Government’s credit report. AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) apply. The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties. The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable: (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, or a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; and (d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. Applicant’s lengthy period of unemployment caused by his honorable discharge from the service was unusual and largely beyond his control. Although the magnitude of the SOR debts was significant, Applicant successfully resolved them to the satisfaction of his creditors. I find that AG ¶¶ (a), (b), and (d) apply. Under AG ¶ 2(a), 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 also considered the whole-person concept. Applicant leaves me with no questions or doubts as to his eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For these reasons, I conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising under Guideline F, financial considerations.

_____________________________

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: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a.-c.: For Applicant

In light of all of the circumstances presented, it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted. Philip J. Katauskas Administrative Judge