CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 23-01168 — CASE

ISCR Case 23-01168denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 23-01168

deniedFeb 1, 2024· Hon. Nichole L. Noel· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old federal contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved delinquent debts totaling $25,973. The Statement of Reasons specifically cited this outstanding debt.

Disqualifying conditions under Guideline F were raised because the applicant failed to provide sufficient corroborating evidence for his claims of financial hardship. Furthermore, it was determined that he possessed the means to resolve his debts but did not take appropriate actions to do so.

The denial was ultimately based on the applicant's failure to establish a clear plan for resolving his financial problems or to demonstrate a consistent track record of debt repayment. Consequently, his security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to provide corroborating evidence for his claims of financial hardship.
He has the means to resolve his debts but did not take appropriate actions to do so.
The applicant did not establish a plan to resolve his financial problems or demonstrate a track record of debt repayment.

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)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“Unresolved delinquent debt is a serious security concern because failure to satisfy debts 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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 7, 2023
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision without a hearing.
Hearing held—Decision made without a hearing.
Decision dateFeb 1, 2024

Cite For

Failure to Provide Corroborating Evidence for Financial Hardship Claims
Inability to Establish a Plan for Debt Resolution
Serious Security Concerns Related to Unresolved Delinquent Debt

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 unresolved delinquent debt totaling $25,973, which he admitted. The judge found that the applicant's financial issues were exacerbated by personal circumstances, but ultimately ruled against him due to his inability and unwillingness to satisfy his debts.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has unresolved delinquent debt totaling $25,973. $25,973	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (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

\\F~/. Ci r.. o _.,~ nr,~~ > 'tr ______________ ______________ DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS ' In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 23-01168 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Karen A. Moreno-Sayles, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 02/01/2024

STATEMENT OF CASE

NOEL, Nichole L., Administrative Judge: Applicant contests the Department of Defense’s (DOD) intent to deny his eligibility for a security clearance. Applicant claims his financial problems were caused by events beyond his control that resulted in $25,973 in unresolved delinquent debt. He did not provide sufficient evidence to corroborate his claims of financial hardship. Furthermore, the record supports a finding that he has failed to resolve his delinquent accounts despite having the means to do so. Clearance is denied. Statement of the Case On June 7, 2023, the DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under the financial considerations guideline. This action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended, as well as DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated 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, implemented on June 8, 2017. DOD adjudicators were unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant’s security clearance. Applicant answered the SOR and requested a decision without a hearing. The Government submitted its written case on August 22, 2023. The Government provided Applicant a complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) and the Directive. In the FORM, the Government informed Applicant that it was offering the January 24, 2023 summary of his subject interview with a background investigator into evidence. The Government advised Applicant of his ability to object to, correct, add, delete, or update the information in the subject interview summary. The Government further advised him that failure to respond could result in a determination by the administrative judge that he waived any objection to the document’s admissibility. He acknowledged receipt of the FORM on September 7, 2023. He did not respond. Accordingly, the attachments to the FORM are admitted to the record as Government’s Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5 without objection from either party.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant, 43, has worked for his employer, a federal contracting company since January 2021. He has worked in the aviation industry since March 2013, in positions abroad and domestically. He was initially granted access to classified information during his military service from May 2000 to May 2012, when he was medically retired. He completed his most recent security clearance application (SCA) in December 2022. He disclosed eight delinquent accounts, totaling $28,456. He cited the Covid-19 pandemic and having multiple deaths in the family as the reasons for his financial problems. The ensuing investigation revealed Applicant has payment plans in place for two unalleged debts and has seven unresolved delinquent accounts, totaling $25,973, which are alleged in the SOR. He admits all the alleged debts. (GE 1-3) In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he stated that his financial problems were caused by two layoffs during the Covid-19 pandemic, the unexpected deaths of two family members whose funeral expenses he had to pay, and his choice to accept lower paying jobs to meet the demands of his family life. However, he only reported one Covid-related job change on his SCA. He did not report any deceased close relatives on the SCA, nor did he offer any specific information about the deceased relatives or provide detail about the financial burdens caused by their deaths. The record also does not contain any information regarding his underemployment or the resulting financial impact. (GE 1-2) Applicant provided information about his finances in his April 2023 response to DOD interrogatories. He reported that he had established payment plans for two delinquent accounts, totaling $65 per month. He also provided a personal financial statement. In addition to his annual salary of $106,000, he receives approximately $21,000 annually in disability income from the Department of Veterans Affairs. He reported having more than $3,341 in disposable income after paying his recurring monthly expenses. At the time he answered the interrogatories, he admitted he had not

made any payment arrangements for the seven debts that were ultimately alleged in the SOR. (GE 4)

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. These 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. According to AG ¶ 2(c), 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 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. 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance decision. Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that adverse decisions shall be “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

Unresolved delinquent debt is a serious security concern because failure to “satisfy debts [or] 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.” (AG ¶ 18). Here, the SOR alleges, and the record supports a finding that Applicant is indebted to seven creditors for $25,973.

________________________ The Government has established its prima facie case that certain of the financial considerations apply, specifically: AG ¶ 19(a) inability to satisfy debts; AG ¶ 19(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; and, AG ¶ 19(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations. None of the mitigating financial considerations concerns apply. Applicant claims his financial problems were caused by events beyond his control; however, his claims are not corroborated by the record. Furthermore, the available information shows he has the means to pay his delinquent debts, but it does not contain an explanation for his failure to do so. Based on the record, doubts remain about Applicant’s current security worthiness. In reaching this conclusion, I have also considered the whole-person factors at AG ¶ 2(d). Security clearance adjudications are not debt-collection proceedings. The AGs do not require an applicant to immediately resolve or pay each and every debt alleged in the SOR, to be debt free, or to resolve first the debts alleged in the SOR. An applicant needs only to establish a plan to resolve financial problems and take significant actions to implement the plan. He has not done so. Applicant has not established the necessary track record of debt repayment necessary to mitigate the concerns alleged in the SOR.

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, Financial Considerations: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 1.a – 1.g: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

Based on the record, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. National security eligibility for access to classified information is denied. Nichole L. Noel Administrative Judge