CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 22-01600 — CASE

ISCR Case 22-01600denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 22-01600

deniedMar 3, 2023· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old systems administrator was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple delinquent debts totaling $37,193. The Statement of Reasons detailed six specific debts: $12,833, $7,622, $7,124, $4,800, $2,900, and $2,714.

The applicant admitted to all allegations, attributing the financial difficulties to economic downturns. However, the applicant failed to provide any evidence of current financial responsibility or concrete plans to resolve the outstanding debts.

The denial was based on the applicant's admission of the debts and the lack of demonstrated efforts or a credible plan for resolution. Promises of future payments were deemed insufficient without a history of timely financial management. Disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c) were raised in this decision.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to all allegations of delinquent debts totaling $37,193.
The applicant did not provide evidence of financial responsibility or plans to resolve the debts.
Promises to resolve debts in the future were deemed insufficient without a track record of timely payments.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 14, 2022
Answer filedSep 28, 2022
Hearing held—Decision made on the written record without a hearing.
Decision dateMar 3, 2023

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Plans to Mitigate Debts
Importance of a Track Record of Timely Debt Payments in Security Clearance Evaluations

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 judge found multiple delinquent debts totaling over $40,000, which raised significant financial concerns under Guideline F. Despite the applicant's admissions and intentions to resolve the debts, the judge ruled against the applicant, citing a lack of evidence for mitigation and a history of not meeting financial obligations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Delinquent debt of $12,833 $12,833	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Delinquent debt of $7,622 $7,622	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Delinquent debt of $7,124 $7,124	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Delinquent debt of $4,800 $4,800	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Delinquent debt of $2,900 $2,900	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Delinquent debt of $2,714 $2,714	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

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

EA c; ... o _.~ .t::~!~ o ______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS \\ In the matter of: ) ) [Redacted] ) ISCR Case No. 22-01600 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Andrea M. Corrales, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 03/03/2023

STATEMENT OF CASE

FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge: This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Statement of the Case Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on March 21, 2022. On September 14, 2022, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline F. The 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 the adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016). Applicant answered the SOR on September 28, 2022, and requested a decision on the written record without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on October 20, 2022. On October 24, 2022, a complete copy of the file of

relevant material (FORM) was sent to Applicant, who was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s evidence. He received the FORM on November 1, 2022, and did not respond. The case was assigned to me on January 26, 2023. Evidentiary Issue The FORM included a summary of Applicant’s interview with a security investigator on April 26, 2022. The summary was not authenticated as required by Directive ¶ E3.1.20. Department Counsel informed Applicant that he was entitled to comment on the accuracy of the summary; make any corrections, additions, deletions, or updates; or object to consideration of the interview summary on the ground that it was not authenticated. I conclude that Applicant waived any objections to the interview summary by failing to respond to the FORM. “Although pro se applicants are not expected to act like lawyers, they are expected to take timely and reasonable steps to protect their rights under the Directive.” ISCR Case No. 12-10810 at 2 (App. Bd. Jul. 12, 2016).

FINDINGS OF FACT

In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he admitted all the allegations. His admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact. Applicant is a 31-year-old systems administrator employed by a defense contractor since December 2020. He received an associate degree from a community college in 2015. He has never married and has no children. He was cleared for a public trust position by another government agency in 2018, but he has never held a security clearance. A credit report dated April 7, 2022, reflects six delinquent debts charged off for $12,833 (SOR ¶ 1.a); $7,622 (SOR ¶ 1.b); $7,124 (SOR ¶ 1.c); $4,800 (SOR ¶ 1.d); $2,900 (SOR ¶ 1.e); and $2,714 (SOR ¶ 1.f). During an interview with a security investigator in April 2022, Applicant attributed his delinquent debts to a downturn in the economy due to COVID-19. In his answer to the SOR, he stated that he intended to resolve the delinquent debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.fby May 2023 and to resolve the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.dby December 2023. He has not provided any specific information about his plans for resolving the debts.

POLICIES

“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to “control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 2.

Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available and reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 15-01253 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2016). Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02- 31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01- 20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531.

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations The security 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. . . . 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 and the evidence in the FORM establish two disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability to satisfy debts”) and AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”) The following mitigating conditions are relevant: 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; 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. None of the above conditions are established. Applicant’s delinquent debts are recent and numerous. He submitted no evidence showing that they were incurred under unusual circumstances or circumstances largely beyond his control. He submitted no evidence of financial counseling, payments, or payment plans. He has not disputed any of the debts alleged in the SOR. In his answer to the SOR, he promised to resolve some of the debts by May 2023 and the rest by December 2023. However, promises to resolve delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner or otherwise acting in a financially responsible manner.” ISCR Case No. 17-04110 (App. Bd. Sep. 26, 2019). Furthermore, evidence of past irresponsibility is not mitigated by payment of debts only under pressure of qualifying for a security clearance. See ISCR Case No. 16-01211 (App. Bd. May 30, 2018).

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

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. In applying the whole- person concept, an 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. An 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. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis and applied the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(d). Because Applicant requested a determination on the record without a hearing, I had no opportunity to evaluate his credibility and sincerity based on demeanor. See ISCR Case No. 01-12350 at 3-4 (App. Bd. Jul. 23, 2003). After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F, and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts.

FORMAL FINDINGS

I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR: Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a-1.f: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to grant Applicant eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is denied. LeRoy F. Foreman Administrative Judge