ISCR Case No. 16-01948.h1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-01948 ) Applicant for a Security Clearance )

For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq.

For Appellant: Pro se

03/27/2017 ______________

______________

CURRY, Marc, Administrative Judge:

Appellant fell behind on his child support and student loan payments during a lengthy period of unemployment between August 2013 and June 2014. Since regaining full-time work he has contacted his creditors and organized payment plans, to which he has been adhering. Applicant has mitigated the security concerns. Clearance is granted.

Statement of the Case

On August 4, 2016, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations, and explaining why it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the national interest to grant security clearance eligibility for him. The DOD CAF took the action 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 Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG) effective within the DOD on September 1, 2006. Applicant answered the SOR on August 18, 2016, admitting the allegations, and requesting a hearing, whereupon the case was assigned to me on February 13, 2017. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals issued a notice of hearing on March 2, 2017, scheduling the case for March 20, 2017. The hearing was held as scheduled. I considered three Government exhibits (GE 1 – GE 3), and four Applicant exhibits (AE A – AE D), together with Applicant’s testimony. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on March 27, 2017.

Appellant is a 42-year-old married man with three children ranging in age from nine to sixteen. The two older children are from an earlier relationship. He lives with his wife and his youngest child, and shares custody of the older children. Applicant has a Bachelor of Science degree in science and consumer studies. Applicant works for a defense contractor in the field of acquisitions and project management. (Tr. 14) He has been in this line of work for 17 years, and held a security clearance from 2001 to 2010. (Tr. 15)

Applicant has been working for his current employer for two years. He is highly respected on the job. According to his employer, Applicant “almost single-handedly ensures [the] office effectively initiates and maintains extensive engagement with some of the information technology industry’s largest . . . companies.” (AE A at 1-2) Moreover, per his supervisor, “to say [Applicant] is a critical member of our team would be an understatement.” (AE A at 1) Applicant was recently promoted to team leader.

In August 2013, Applicant was laid off from his previous job. (Tr. 16) He was subsequently unemployed for the next nine months. He tried to make ends meet with a combination of freelance contracting jobs, and other part-time work, but gradually began falling behind on his debts. By the time he obtained another full-time job in June 2014, he had exhausted his savings, totaling $3,000. He also had incurred approximately $15,000 of delinquent child support debt (subparagraph 1.a) and $24,000 of delinquent student loan debt (subparagraphs 1.b – 1.c). (Tr. 28)

Once Applicant regained full-time employment in June 2014, he contacted his creditors, and initiated payment plans. Under his child support plan, he pays $1,000 monthly, one-third of which is applied to the delinquency. As of the hearing date, he had paid $3,100 in 2017, and, in sum, had reduced the delinquency by $4,000 (AE C; Tr. 26)

Applicant resumed his student loan payments in August 2016. Since then, he has paid the creditor $196 per month. (AE D) He has reduced the balance by approximately $2,000.

Applicant never had financial problems before the 2013 layoff. He and his wife completed a financial management course between 2011 and 2012. (Tr. 28) He earns $70,000 annually, approximately $40,000 less than he earned before being laid off in 2013.

Every recommended personnel security decision must be a commonsense decision based on all available evidence, both favorable and unfavorable. The decision must be arrived at by applying the standard that the grant or continuance of a security clearance or access to classified information is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.

The adjudicative process is a careful weighing of a number of variables in considering the “whole-person” concept. It recognizes that we should view a person by the totality of his or her acts, omissions, motivations, and other variables. Each case must be judged on its own merits. No unfavorable personnel security clearance or access determination may be made without granting the individual concerned the procedural benefits set forth in the Regulation.

In all adjudications, the protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. Therefore, any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information is resolved in favor of national security. In reaching this recommended decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.

Financial Considerations

Under this guideline, “failure or inability 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 information” (AG ¶ 18). Appellant history of delinquent debt triggers the applicability of AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations.”

The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable:

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, or a death, divorce, or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

AG ¶ 20(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and AG ¶ 20(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.

Applicant’s financial problems did not occur because of irresponsible spending. Instead, they occurred after he lost his job in 2013 and was subsequently unemployed or underemployed for nine months. Since regaining full-time employment, Applicant has contacted his creditors and has steadily been repaying his debts, consistent with payment plans. He has done so despite earning less than two-thirds of what he earned before the 2013 layoff. Under these circumstances, all of the mitigating conditions, as referenced above, apply.

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an appellant’s security eligibility by considering the totality of the Appellant’s conduct and all the circumstances. An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a):

(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.

In reaching my conclusion, I considered Applicant’s stellar work record, the cause of his financial delinquencies, and his current financial stability.

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 – 1.c: For Applicant

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

_________________ MARC E. CURRY Administrative Judge