CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01872.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01872.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01872.h1

grantedSep 19, 2017· Hon. Mark W. Harvey· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a 51-year-old information technology operations manager and former Marine Corps staff sergeant whose security clearance was initially questioned under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons detailed several financial allegations, including a state tax lien from January 2012 for $22,626, a charged-off credit card debt of $14,495, a medical debt of $323 placed for collection, an unspecified charged-off debt, and a student loan of $23,645 placed for collection. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under AG ¶ 19(a), (b), (c), and (f).

However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. He demonstrated financial responsibility by resolving his state tax and medical debts. Furthermore, he established payment plans for his remaining debts, indicating a commitment to fulfilling his financial obligations.

The judge also considered the applicant's honorable military service, which included deployments in combat zones, as a positive factor. Based on the applicant's demonstrated financial responsibility and honorable service, the security clearance was GRANTED, applying mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20(a), (b), (d), and (g).

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant resolved his state tax and medical debts, demonstrating financial responsibility.
He established payment plans for remaining debts, indicating a commitment to financial obligations.
The applicant's honorable military service and deployment in combat zones contributed positively to his case.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(f)raisedFailure to Pay Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax as Required

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedBehavior Happened Long Ago or Infrequently
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors
AG ¶ 20(g)appliedArrangements with Tax Authority

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 12, 2016
Answer filedOct 7, 2016
Hearing heldJun 13, 2017
Decision dateAug 21, 2017Record closed on this date.

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Impact of Military Service on Security Clearance Decisions
Criteria for Establishing Financial Responsibility in Security Clearance Cases

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant had resolved several financial issues, including paying off a state tax lien and a medical debt, while other debts were in payment plans. The financial considerations security concerns were mitigated, leading to the granting of the applicant's security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	a state C tax lien was entered against Applicant in January 2012 for $22,626. $22,626	For Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (f) failure to file / fraudulent filing of tax returns or unpaid tax	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts (g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.b	Applicant has a charged-off debt on a credit card for $14,495. $14,495	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.c	Applicant has a medical debt placed for collection for $323. $323	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.d	a charged-off debt of unspecified amount.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	a student loan placed for collection for $23,645. $23,645	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor

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 No. 16-01872 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance

For Government: Andrew H. Henderson, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

09/19/2017 ___________

STATEMENT OF CASE

___________

HARVEY, Mark, Administrative Judge:

Applicant provided sufficient evidence of resolution of his financial issues. He paid two of the debts on his statement of reasons (SOR), and the other three SOR debts are in payment plans. Financial considerations security concerns are mitigated. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

Statement of the Case

On August 5, 2015, Applicant completed and signed his Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) or security clearance application (SCA). (Government Exhibit (GE) 1) On September 12, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued an SOR to Applicant under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, February 20, 1960; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), January 2, 1992; and the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, effective on September 1, 2006 (Sept. 1, 2006 AGs).

The SOR detailed reasons why the DOD CAF did not find under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue a security clearance for him, and recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. Specifically, the SOR set forth security concerns arising under the financial considerations guideline. On October 7, 2016, Applicant responded to the SOR. (HE 3) On March 7, 2017, Department Counsel was ready to proceed. On April 24, 2017, the case was assigned to me. On May 8, 2017, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing, setting the hearing for June 13, 2017. (Tr. 13-14; HE 1) Applicant’s hearing was held as scheduled.

During the hearing, Department Counsel offered five exhibits; Applicant offered seven exhibits; there were no objections; and all proffered exhibits were admitted into evidence. (Tr. 15-18; GE 1-5; Applicant Exhibit (AE) A-AE G) On June 21, 2017, DOHA received a copy of the hearing transcript. On July 13, 2017, Applicant provided seven exhibits, which were admitted without objection. (AE H-AE N) On August 21, 2017, the record closed.

While this case was pending a decision, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) issued Security Executive Agent Directive 4, establishing in Appendix A the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AGs), which he made applicable to all covered individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position. The new AGs supersede the Sept. 1, 2006 AGs and are effective “for all covered individuals” on or after June 8, 2017. Accordingly, I have evaluated Applicant’s security clearance eligibility under the new AGs.1

Findings of Fact2

In Applicant’s SOR response, he admitted the SOR allegations in ¶¶ 1.a, 1.c, and 1.e. He also provided extenuating and mitigating information. Applicant’s admissions are accepted as findings of fact. Additional findings of fact follow.

Applicant is 51 years old, and he has been employed as an information technology operations manager since November 2011. (Tr. 7, 9; GE 1) He has not had any periods of unemployment in the past 10 years. (Tr. 9) He has held a security clearance since 1996. (Tr. 23) In 1983, he graduated from high school. (Tr. 7) He served in the Marine Corps from 1983 to 1997, and he was honorably discharged as a staff sergeant. (Tr. 7-8, 18) His specialty was signals intelligence operator and Spanish linguist. (Tr. 8) In 1990, he received a bachelor’s degree, and in 2004, he received a master’s degree in computer information systems. (Tr. 8) In 1986, he married. (Tr. 7) His son was born in 1989, and he is a Marine deployed overseas. (GE1; GE 2)

Applicant worked in Iraq from November 2007 through November 2008 and from June 2010 to August 2011, and in Afghanistan from May 2009 to December 2009 on behalf of a government contractor. (Tr. 9, 20-21; AE B) Applicant was subjected to enemy fire on several occasions. (Tr. 21)

Financial Considerations

Applicant’s SOR lists the following allegations, and their status is as follows:

SOR ¶ 1.a alleges a state C tax lien was entered against Applicant in January 2012 for $22,626. Before Applicant deployed to Iraq in 2007, he lived in state F, and his state of residence for tax purposes was F. (Tr. 22) While he was in Iraq, his spouse moved to state C, and his home in state F was rented. (Tr. 22) From November 2008 to May 2009, he lived in state C before being deployed to Afghanistan in May 2009. (AE B) Applicant received bad tax advice that he could continue to claim residency in state F while he was in Iraq. (Tr. 24) In 2011, Applicant discovered under state C tax law he had been a state C resident since 2009. (Tr. 22) Applicant amended his state C tax returns for 2009 and 2010, and calculated that he owed almost $23,000 to state C. (Tr. 22-23) In 2012, he began a $400 monthly payment plan to resolve the debt. (Tr. 23) His annual state and federal income tax refunds were applied to this debt. (Tr. 23) On June 12, 2017, state C wrote Applicant and said the following debts including penalties and interest were paid: 2009 for $14,020; 2010 for $11,653; and 2011 for $16,949. (AE C) His state C tax debt is paid. (Tr. 23, 34; AE C)

SOR ¶ 1.balleges Applicant has a charged-off debt on a credit card for $14,495. Applicant’s spouse used the credit card for her business. (Tr. 24) Applicant said that the creditor agreed to charge off the debt, and Applicant would not seek business with the creditor in the future. (Tr. 25-26) Applicant was unsure of the status of the debt because his credit report showed a zero balance, and he has not received any communications from the creditor or collection agents. (Tr. 25-27) The last payment was made in July 2011, and the account was charged off in August 2013. (AE G at 2) In July 2017, Applicant made a $50 payment to the creditor, and in August 2017, he made a $75 payment to the creditor. (AE I; AE K; AE L)

SOR ¶ 1.calleges Applicant has a medical debt placed for collection for $323. Applicant was unaware of the debt until he received the SOR. (Tr. 28) Once he became aware of the debt, he began paying it off, and it was paid in January 2017. (Tr. 28, 34; AE F)

SOR ¶ 1.dalleges a charged-off debt of unspecified amount. His credit report shows a $10,707 debt was charged off, and then referred for collection in 2013. (Tr. 29; GE 4 at 12) On August 14, 2017, the original creditor responded to Applicant’s request for information and said the creditor was advising the credit reporting companies to remove the debt from his credit reports. (AE H) A collection agent contacted Applicant seeking $11,979, and on August 11, 2017, Applicant paid the creditor $25. (AE M)

SOR ¶ 1.e alleges a student loan placed for collection for $23,645. Applicant was using his debit card to make automatic payments on his student loans; however, there was a fraud alert, and his card was terminated. (Tr. 31-32) He failed to renew the automatic payments when his debit card was reissued. (Tr. 31) His student loan was transferred to a different creditor. (Tr. 32) He did not open the notices from the new creditor because he thought they were confirmations of payments. (Tr. 33) In January 2016, he began the process of consolidating his student loans, and in November 2016, he began a payment plan with the creditor. (Tr. 31; AE E at 2-3) On June 8, 2017, the creditor wrote a $125 payment was received on May 28, 2017, and a $125 payment was received on June 28, 2017. (AE D) The current balance owed is $21,672. (AE D) The past-due amount is zero. (AE D) His spouse handled the family finances, and he was unaware payments were not being made. (Tr. 33)

Applicant’s March 2, 2017 credit report, the most recent credit report of record, lists 23 accounts, including the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.d, and 1.e. (GE 5) All accounts, except the debt in SOR ¶ 1.b, show a zero balance. Except for the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.d, and 1.e, the comments indicate the debts were paid, pays as agreed, or transferred. (GE 5)

POLICIES

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security emphasizing, “no 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 applicant’s 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.

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, these guidelines are applied 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, 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 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 “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, nothing in this decision should be construed to suggest that it is based, in whole or in part, on any express or implied determination about applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism. It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President, Secretary of Defense, and DNI 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. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996).

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 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). The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b).

ANALYSIS

Financial Considerations

AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concern for financial problems:

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. . . .

The Appeal Board explained the scope and rationale for the financial considerations security concern in ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012) (citation omitted) as follows:

This concern is broader than the possibility that an applicant might knowingly compromise classified information in order to raise money in satisfaction of his or her debts. Rather, it requires a Judge to examine the totality of an applicant’s financial history and circumstances. The Judge must consider pertinent evidence regarding the applicant’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting the national secrets as well as the vulnerabilities inherent in the circumstances. The Directive presumes a nexus between proven conduct under any of the Guidelines and an applicant’s security eligibility. AG ¶ 19 includes four disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability to satisfy debts;” “(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so;” “(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;” and “(f) . . . failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required.” In ISCR Case No. 08-12184 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 7, 2010), the Appeal Board explained:

It is well-settled that adverse information from a credit report can normally meet the substantial evidence standard and the government’s obligations under [Directive] ¶ E3.1.14 for pertinent allegations. At that point, the burden shifts to applicant to establish either that [he or] she is not responsible for the debt or that matters in mitigation apply.

(internal citation omitted). The record establishes the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a), 19(b), 19(c), and 19(f) requiring additional inquiry about the possible applicability of mitigating conditions.

Six financial considerations mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable in this case:

(a) the behavior happened so long ago,3 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, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

(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;

(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;4 (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; and

(g) the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements.

The DOHA Appeal Board concisely explained Applicant’s responsibility for proving the applicability of mitigating conditions as follows:

Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the Government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The standard applicable in security clearance decisions is that articulated in Egan, supra. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).

ISCR Case No. 10-04641 at 4 (App. Bd. Sept. 24, 2013).

Applicant provided important mitigating information. He was deployed to combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan for 33 months. His spouse handled his finances. He received bad advice about state of residence for state income tax. These are circumstances partially or fully beyond his control that harmed his finances.

Applicant paid his state tax debt and his medical debt. Two credit card debts and one student loan debt are in payment plans. There is no evidence of financial counseling. AG ¶ 20(a), 20(b), 20(d), and 20(g) apply. Based on Applicant’s track record of paying or resolving his debts, future new delinquent debt “is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on [Applicant’s] current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” and “there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control.” His payments of his debts showed good faith. He has sufficient income to keep his debts in current status and to continue making progress paying his remaining debts. I am confident that Applicant will conscientiously endeavor to maintain his financial responsibility. His efforts are sufficient to mitigate financial considerations security concerns.

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 the 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.

Under AG ¶ 2(c), “[t]he ultimate determination” of whether to grant a security clearance “must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines” and the whole-person concept. My comments under Guideline F are incorporated in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under that guideline but some warrant additional comment.

Applicant is 51 years old, and he has been employed as an information technology operations manager since November 2011. He served in the Marine Corps from 1983 to 1997, and he was honorably discharged as a staff sergeant. In 1990, he received a bachelor’s degree, and in 2004, he received a master’s degree in computer information systems. In 1986, he married, and his son was born in 1989.

Applicant worked in Iraq or Afghanistan for 33 months from November 2007 to August 2011. He was subjected to enemy fire on several occasions. He served in a U.S. designated combat zone, and he made contributions to the U.S. military at personal risk. These circumstances increase the probability that Applicant will recognize, resist, and report any attempts by a foreign power, terrorist group, or insurgent group to coerce or exploit him. See ISCR Case No. 07-00034 at 2 (App. Bd. Feb. 5, 2008). His past honorable service in combat zones weigh towards approval of his security clearance. See ISCR Case No. 07-00034 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 5, 2008) (noting as mitigation that “. . . Applicant put his life in danger on at least one occasion to protect American lives and interests in Afghanistan.”).

Applicant’s SOR alleges five delinquent debts. He paid two SOR debts, and he began making payments to address the other three SOR debts. His March 2, 2017 credit report lists 23 accounts. All accounts, except the debt in SOR ¶ 1.b, show a zero balance. Except for the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.d, and 1.e, the comments indicate the status of the debts is paid, pays as agreed, or transferred. The Appeal Board has addressed a key element in the whole-person analysis in financial cases stating:

. . . the concept of meaningful track record necessarily includes evidence of actual debt reduction through payment of debts. However, an applicant is not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and every debt listed in the SOR. All that is required is that an applicant demonstrate that he has . . . established a plan to resolve his financial problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan. The Judge can reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for the reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. See Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination.) There is no requirement that a plan provide for payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such debts one at a time. Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the SOR.

ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). He understands what he needs to do to establish and maintain his financial responsibility. He took reasonable actions under his particular financial circumstances to address his delinquent debts. Applicant has established a “meaningful track record” of debt re-payment, and I am confident he will maintain his financial responsibility.5

I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Egan, Exec. Or. 10865, the Directive, and the AGs, to the facts and circumstances in the context of the whole person. I conclude that financial considerations security concerns are mitigated. It is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant security clearance eligibility.

FORMAL FINDINGS

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 through 1.e: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

_________________________ MARK HARVEY Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Application of the AGs that were in effect as of the issuance of the SOR would not change my decision in this case. The new AGs are available at http://ogc.osd.mil/doha/5220-6 R20170608.pdf.

2 Some details were excluded to protect Applicant’s right to privacy. Specific information is available in the cited exhibits. 3 A debt that became delinquent several years ago is still considered recent because “an applicant’s ongoing, unpaid debts evidence a continuing course of conduct and, therefore, can be viewed as recent for purposes of the Guideline F mitigating conditions.” ISCR Case No. 15-06532 at 3 (App. Bd. February 16, 2017) (citing ISCR Case No. 15-01690 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 13, 2016)).

4 The Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a “good faith” effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts:

In order to qualify for application of [the “good faith” mitigating condition], an applicant must present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or some other good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does not define the term “good-faith.” However, the Board has indicated that the concept of good- faith “requires a showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.” Accordingly, an applicant must do more than merely show that he or she relied on a legally available option (such as bankruptcy) in order to claim the benefit of [the “good faith” mitigating condition].

(internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004) (quoting ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)). 5 Failure to comply with payment plans or other delinquent debt will raise a security concern. The Government has the option of following-up with more questions about Applicant’s finances. The Government can re-validate Applicant’s financial status at any time through credit reports, investigation, and interrogatories. Approval of a clearance now does not bar the Government from subsequently revoking it, if warranted. “The Government has the right to reconsider the security significance of past conduct or circumstances in light of more recent conduct having negative security significance.” ISCR Case No. 10- 06943 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 17, 2012). An administrative judge does not have “authority to grant an interim, conditional, or probationary clearance.” ISCR Case No. 10-06943 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 17, 2012) (citing ISCR Case No. 10-03646 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 28, 2011)). See also ISCR Case No. 04-03907 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 18, 2006) (stating, “The Board has no authority to grant [a]pplicant a conditional or probationary security clearance to allow her the opportunity to have a security clearance while she works on her financial problems.”). This footnote does not imply that this decision to grant Applicant’s security clearance is conditional.