CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-02086.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-02086.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02086.h1

deniedSep 20, 2017· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 61-year-old defense contractor and former military service member was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from multiple delinquent debts and the falsification of his security clearance application.

The applicant admitted to five specific delinquent debts, including a deficiency after an automobile repossession and four delinquent consumer credit accounts, totaling approximately $15,368. These debts were corroborated by a credit report. The applicant did not provide evidence of payments or payment agreements for these obligations.

Furthermore, the applicant answered "No" to all questions regarding financial delinquencies on his security clearance application, which was determined to be a deliberate falsification. The judge concluded that the financial issues were ongoing and unmitigated, and that the omission of these delinquencies undermined the integrity of the security clearance process.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple delinquent debts totaling approximately $15,368, which were corroborated by a credit report.
The applicant failed to provide documentary evidence of payments or payment agreements for his debts.
The applicant's omission of financial delinquencies from his security clearance application was deemed a deliberate falsification.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)appliedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts From Any Personnel Security Questionnaire

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 20, 2016
Answer filedOct 19, 2016Requested decision on the record without a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing held; decision made on the record.
Decision dateSep 20, 2017

Cite For

Denial Based on Ongoing Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Lack of Mitigating Evidence for Financial Distress

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct allegations, specifically regarding the falsification of his security clearance application. The applicant denied the allegation but did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns raised by his conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	The applicant falsified his security clearance application (SCA) by answering 'No' to all questions about financial delinquencies.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had five delinquent debts totaling approximately $15,368, including a deficiency after an automobile repossession and four delinquent consumer credit accounts. The applicant's financial issues were attributed to loss of employment, but the judge determined that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of responsible conduct or mitigation, leading to a decision against the applicant on all financial allegations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	deficiency after an automobile repossession	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	delinquent consumer credit account	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	—	—
1.c	delinquent consumer credit account	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	—	—
1.d	delinquent consumer credit account	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	—	—
1.e	delinquent consumer credit account	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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) [Redacted] ) ISCR Case No. 16-02086 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Douglas Velvel, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

09/20/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge:

This case involves security concerns raised under Guidelines F (Financial Considerations) and E (Personal Conduct). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on January 19, 2016. On September 20, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guidelines F and E. The DOD acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by DOD on September 1, 2006.1 Applicant answered the SOR on October 19, 2016, and requested a decision on the record without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on November 9, 2016. On November 14, 2016, 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 11, 2016, and submitted a timely response, which was included in the record without objection. The case was assigned to me on September 7, 2017.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he admitted the delinquent debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.e, attributing them to loss of employment. He denied falsifying his SCA, as alleged in SOR ¶ 2.a. His admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact.

Applicant is a 61-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from December 1977 to January 1998 and was honorably discharged. He received a security clearance in the Air Force. He married in April 1981. He and his spouse have an adult son, and his spouse has a daughter from a previous relationship.

Applicant served as a flight engineer for a civilian airline from February 2004 to August 2006. He was unemployed from August to December 2006 after the airline went out of business. He worked as an electronic assembler for a non-government employer from December 2006 to May 2007 and as a flight engineer for a defense contractor from May 2007 to September 2012. He was unemployed from September 2012 to February 2013. He worked as an aircraft mechanic from February to October 2013, and was laid off from October to December 2013. He worked as a refurbishing technician from December 2013 to March 2014, and was unemployed from March to July 2014. He worked as a machine operator from July 2014 to April 2015, when he was fired after being accused of working a cross-word puzzle while operating a machine. He was unemployed from April to June 2015, when he began his current job.

When Applicant submitted his SCA, he answered “No” to all the questions about financial delinquencies. In his answer to the SOR, he denied falsifying his SCA and explained that he answered “No,” because a “Yes” answer activated a drop-down menu asking for detailed information that he did not have, and he could not continue completing the SCA until he supplied the additional information.

In Applicant’s response to the FORM, he stated that he was paying his delinquent debts through payment agreements. He did not submit any documentary evidence of payments or payment agreements.

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, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.

Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines (AG). 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.” See 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 [or her] 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; see AG ¶ 2(b).

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

The SOR alleges five delinquent debts totaling about $15,368. They consist of a deficiency after an automobile repossession (SOR ¶ 1.a) and four delinquent consumer- credit accounts (SOR ¶¶ 1.b-1.e). The debts are reflected in a credit report from February 2016 (FORM Item 3).

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. Financial distress can also be caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling, mental health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. 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, corroborated by the February 2016 credit report, establish the three disqualifying conditions under this guideline: 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”). The following mitigating conditions are potentially 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; and

AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and

None of the above mitigating conditions are established. Applicant’s delinquent debts are numerous, ongoing, and were not incurred under circumstances making them unlikely to recur. Except for his unemployment from April to June 2015, which was due to being fired for cause, his periods of unemployment and underemployment were conditions beyond his control, but he has not presented documentary evidence of responsible conduct. There is no evidence that he has received financial counseling. He claimed that he was paying his debts through payment agreements, but he submitted no documentary evidence of payments, payment agreements, or other efforts to resolve his debts.

Guideline E, Personal Conduct

The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 15:

Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. . . .

The relevant disqualifying condition is AG ¶ 16(a): “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire . . . .” When a falsification allegation is controverted, as in this case, the Government has the burden of proving it. An omission, standing alone, does not prove falsification. An administrative judge must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine an applicant’s state of mind at the time of the omission. See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2004). An applicant’s level of education and experience are relevant to determining whether a failure to disclose relevant information on a security clearance application was deliberate. ISCR Case No. 08-05637 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2010).

Applicant has held a security clearance for many years. Although he may not have been familiar with the electronic format when he submitted his most recent SCA, he knew that delinquent debts were a security concern, and he has not convincingly explained why he did not seek assistance with his application, use the “remarks” section at the end of the SCA to indicate that he had financial problems, or attempt to correct his SCA after he submitted it. I conclude that AG ¶ 16(a) is established.

The following mitigating conditions are potentially relevant:

AG ¶ 17(a): the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; and

AG ¶ 17(c): the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.

AG ¶ 17(a) is not established. There is no evidence that Applicant tried to correct his omission of the derogatory financial information from his SCA.

AG ¶ 17(b) is not established. Falsification of an SCA is not “minor,” because it undermines the integrity of the security clearance process. Applicant’s falsification is arguably infrequent, because there is no evidence of other falsifications. However, it did not happen under unique circumstances, and it casts doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.

WHOLE PERSON ANALYSIS

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(c).2 I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines F and E in my whole-person analysis and applied the adjudicative factors in AG ¶ 2(c). I have considered Applicant’s military service and his periods of unemployment and underemployment. He has held a security clearance for many years, apparently without incident. 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). Based on the evidence in the record, including the evidence submitted by Applicant, I conclude that he has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his financial problems and his falsification of his SCA.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a-1.e: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline E (Personal Conduct): AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

LeRoy F. Foreman Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4), was issued on December 10, 2016, revising the 2006 adjudicative guidelines. The SEAD 4 guidelines apply to all adjudicative decisions issued on or after June 8, 2017. The changes resulting from issuance of SEAD 4 did not affect my decision in this case. 2 The factors are: (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.