CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 21-00927 — CASE

ISCR Case 21-00927denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 21-00927

deniedJan 27, 2022· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old single applicant with an adult child was denied a U.S. national security clearance primarily under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from significant unresolved financial debts exceeding $22,000.

Specifically, the applicant admitted to owing Creditor A approximately $14,336 and Creditor B about $8,346, both past-due. These debts triggered disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines paragraphs 19(a), 19(b), and 19(c).

The administrative judge determined that the applicant's explanations for not addressing these substantial debts were insufficient and demonstrated irresponsibility. Consequently, the applicant failed to mitigate the financial security concerns, leading to the denial of eligibility.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to significant financial debts totaling over $22,000.
The applicant's rationale for not addressing the debts was deemed insufficient and irresponsible.
The applicant failed to mitigate the financial security concerns under the applicable guidelines.

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

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 11, 2021
Answer filedJul 5, 2021
Hearing held—Decided on the written record without a hearing.
Decision dateJan 27, 2022

Cite For

Insufficient Rationale for Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Failure to Mitigate Significant Financial Debts
Importance of National Security in Clearance Decisions

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 significant past-due debts totaling over $22,000, which he admitted but did not address responsibly. The judge found the financial concerns against the applicant, leading to a denial of national security eligibility and a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits he is indebted to Creditor A for a past-due debt of about $14,336. $14,336	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other
1.b	Applicant admits he is indebted to Creditor B for a past-due debt of about $8,346. $8,346	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	Claimed Other

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: 21-00927

) Applicant for Security Clearance )

Appearances For Government: Moira Modzelewski, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se January 27, 2022

STATEMENT OF CASE

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge: Statement of Case On June 5, 2020, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-86). On June 11, 2021, 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 on July 5, 2021. He admitted all of the SOR allegations, except for the last one, 1.d., and requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing. On July 28, 2021, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case. A complete copy of the

File of Relevant Material (FORM), containing seven Items, was mailed to Applicant on September 29, 2021, and received by him on October 9, 2021. The FORM notified Applicant that the Government withdrew the allegations in subparagraphs 1.c. and 1.d., and that he had an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. Applicant failed to respond to the FORM.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Guideline F – Financial Considerations Applicant is 43 years old, single, and has an adult child. (Item 3 at pages 7, 19 and 21.) He attributes his delinquencies to the “uncertainty of healthcare/employment during the COVID-19 pandemic. (Answer.) 1.a. Applicant admits he is indebted to Creditor A for a past-due debt of about $14,336. He avers “I have felt it is better to keep money in the bank to cover unexpected medical treatment and loss of employment.” (Answer.) As the pandemic is not an excuse for one to not satisfy his or her financial obligations, this allegation is found against Applicant. 1.b. Applicant admits he is indebted to Creditor B for a past-due debt of about $8,346. He avers “I have felt it is better to keep money in the bank to cover unexpected medical treatment and loss of employment.” (Answer.) As the pandemic is not an excuse for one to not satisfy his or her financial obligations, 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 that he has yet to address. These facts establish prima facie support for the foregoing disqualifying conditions, and shift the burden to Applicant to mitigate those concerns. The guideline includes two 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; and (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. Applicant has more than $22,000 of admitted past-due debt, which he has chosen not to address. He is instead keeping his monies “in the bank,” while speculating on possible, future job and health issues. This rationale is not acting responsibly under the circumstances. Applicant has not mitigated the financial security concerns under the provisions of AG ¶¶ 19(a) through 19(c). 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. Applicant has not met his 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: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a. and 1.b: 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