CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01893.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01893.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01893.h1

deniedOct 19, 2017· Hon. Noreen A. Lynch· hearing

Summary

A 50-year-old professor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved financial issues. The Statement of Reasons detailed several concerns, including a Chapter 13 bankruptcy filed in March 2007 and dismissed in March 2008. The applicant also denied two state tax liens, one from 2006 and another from 2015, and claimed he did not owe $120,000 on a mortgage for which he had made no payments since 2012. Additionally, the applicant denied multiple collection accounts.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to resolve his tax issues and delinquent debts. He did not provide documentation to support his claims of disputing debts or present a plan for repayment.

The decision concluded that the applicant's financial problems were ongoing and not caused by events beyond his control, leading to the determination that he posed a security risk.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to resolve his tax issues and delinquent debts.
He did not provide documentation to support his claims of disputing debts or a plan for repayment.
The applicant's financial problems were ongoing and not caused by events beyond his control.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“Failure to meet one’s 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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 1, 2016
Answer filed—Timely response requested an administrative determination.
Hearing heldOct 19, 2017
Decision date—Decision issued after case assignment on 10/01/2017.

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing Evidence of Financial Rehabilitation
Impact of Financial Obligations on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 that the applicant's financial issues, including unresolved debts and tax liens, raised significant security concerns under Guideline F. The applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial rehabilitation or a plan to address these debts, leading to a decision against granting the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in March 2007, which was dismissed in March 2008.	Against Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant denied two state tax liens, one filed in 2006 and another filed in 2015.	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Denied	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant stated that he does not owe $120,000 on the mortgage and has not made any payments since 2012. $120,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant denied four collection accounts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant denied two state tax liens, one filed in 2006 and another filed in 2015.	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant denied four collection accounts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant denied four collection accounts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant denied four collection accounts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—

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. 16-01893 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 10/19/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:

Applicant contests the Department of Defense’s (DOD) intent to deny his eligibility for a security clearance to work in the defense industry. Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his failure to resolve his tax issues and his unresolved delinquent debts. Clearance is denied.

Statement of the Case

On September 1, 2016, the DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under the financial considerations guidelines1 Applicant timely answered the SOR and requested an administrative determination.

On November 22, 2016, Department Counsel sent Applicant the Government’s written case, known as a file of relevant material (FORM). With the FORM, Department Counsel forwarded to Applicant eight exhibits for admission into the record. The exhibits accompanying the FORM and the documents Applicant submitted with his Response are admitted into the record. On October 1, 2017, I was assigned the case for decision.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

While the case was pending decision, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) issued Security Executive Agent Directive 4, establishing the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) applicable to all covered individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position. The 2017 AG superseded the AG implemented in September 2006, and they are effective for any adjudication made on or after June 8, 2017. Accordingly, I have applied them in this case.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is 50 years old. He works in academia, as a professor. He has various graduate degrees. He worked with the U.S. Army Research Laboratory from 1986-1988 and 1989-1996. He held a clearance for that job, but has not had one since. (Item 4) Applicant is married and has three children. Applicant completed his most recent security clearance application in June 2015, disclosing a delinquent home mortgage from 2007, which he said was the subject of a legal action. (Item 4) The ensuing investigation confirmed these details as well as other unresolved financial issues.

Applicant’s current background investigation revealed financial problems more extensive than those he disclosed on his June 2015 security clearance application. Applicant filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy in March 2007, which was dismissed in March 2008. He admitted it, but he gave no reason other than he “outspent” his budget. (1.a) He stated during his investigative interview in late 2015, that he could not maintain payments on his mortgage loan. (Item 6) The home went to foreclosure, but at the time of his interview, his wife and family members were living there and not making mortgage payments. (Item 6) He was emphatic that he does not owe $120,000 on the mortgage. (1.c) and has not made any payments since 2012. It is not clear from the record as to the current status because he did not submit any information. It appears that he is in a legal dispute with the company. After receiving an e-mail from Department Counsel requesting specific information, Applicant still did not provide information that would clearly show that he does not owe any amount after the foreclosure. (Item 3)

Applicant denied two state tax liens, one filed in 2006 and another filed in 2015. (1.band 1.e). He denied four collection accounts. (1.d, 1.f-1.h) The liens and the four collection accounts are confirmed on recent credit bureau reports. (Items 5 and 7). During his interview, he claimed to have no knowledge of the liens or allegation of collection accounts, but would research the accounts and resolve them. However, he did not provide any documentation that he has satisfied the allegations. Applicant did not send any information with his Answer to the SOR. The information that he attached as a response to the FORM, does not address the tax liens or the collection accounts. In his letter in response to FORM, he stated that he is now disputing them, but provided no documentation. His budget and income are sufficient that he could pay the delinquent debts and tax liens and resolve his delinquent accounts. In his response to the FORM, Applicant indicated that he would start paying his delinquent accounts when he was interviewed, but has provided no plan.

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.

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 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 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.

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 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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.

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

Financial Considerations

Applicant’s finances remain a source of concern. Failure to meet one’s 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.2 Applicant’s admissions and the credit reports establish the Government’s prima facie case that Applicant has a history of not meeting his financial obligations and that he filed a chapter 13 bankruptcy in 2007, but in 2008 it was dismissed. Applicant presented no information as to the cause of his financial difficulties, other than he “overspent”. He presented no documentation with his answer to the SOR, and even after receiving an e- mail from Department Counsel regarding specific information about the status of his home mortgage, tax liens and other collection accounts, he did not provide relevant information. He stated that he was disputing items, but did not provide any evidence to confirm his assertion. Applicant’s financial problems are ongoing and were not caused by events beyond his control. Although Applicant has expressed a desire to repay his creditors, the alleged accounts remain unresolved and Applicant did not present a plan for resolving them.

After a review of the record and a consideration of the whole-person factors at AG ¶ 2(d), I conclude that Applicant’s financial problems render him unsuitable for continued access to classified information at this time. It is Applicant’s burden to provide information to show what action he has taken towards paying, settling, or otherwise resolving any of his debts, in order to show that the debts are no longer a security concern. This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot or will not attain the type of financial stability necessary to reapply for national security eligibility in the future. Rather, it is recognition of the fact that financial issues have historically been a motivating factor behind acts of espionage. The award of a security clearance is not a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence, but is based on applying the factors, both disqualifying and mitigating, to the evidence presented. While a favorable decision is not warranted at this time, he may present persuasive evidence of financial rehabilitation and reform in the future.

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, Financial Considerations: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a-1h: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

________________________ Noreen A. Lynch Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 The DOD CAF acted 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 Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, implemented on September 1, 2006. 2 AG ¶ (18).