CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-02196.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-02196.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-02196.h1

deniedAug 31, 2017· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 59-year-old male applicant with a Master's degree and prior military service was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from significant financial difficulties, including over $50,000 in overdue debts. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailed numerous delinquent accounts and judgments, including a judgment for $396 filed in January 2014, another for $5,971 in May 2012, and a third for $984 in February 2010.

Additional allegations included a delinquent account with an outstanding balance of $40,150, and other delinquent accounts ranging from $42 to $9,217. The SOR also noted that the applicant's security clearance was previously revoked in approximately November 2012 due to financial issues.

Despite the applicant's claims of efforts to resolve these debts and attributing his financial issues to external circumstances, the judge found insufficient evidence of responsible debt management or resolution. The applicant failed to demonstrate a stable current financial status, leading to the conclusion that the security concerns were not mitigated, and the clearance was DENIED.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had over $50,000 in overdue debts, with no independent evidence of resolution or reduction.
The applicant failed to demonstrate responsible financial management or a stable current financial status.
The applicant's claims of external circumstances did not sufficiently mitigate the financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 16, 2016
Answer filedOct 11, 2016Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateAug 31, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility
Impact of Financial Difficulties 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 against the applicant on all financial allegations under Guideline F, citing a history of overdue debts totaling over $50,000. The applicant's claims of financial difficulties and attempts to resolve debts were not substantiated with independent evidence, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a judgment filed against Applicant in January 2014, in the amount of $396. $396	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a judgment filed against Applicant in May 2012, in the amount of $5,971. $5,971	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a judgment filed against Applicant in February 2010, in the amount of $984. $984	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $1,750, with an outstanding balance of $40,150. $1,750	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $9,217. $9,217	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $4,293. $4,293	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $1,740. $1,740	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $550. $550	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $522. $522	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $8,249. $8,249	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $7,449. $7,449	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $2,017. $2,017	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.m	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $1,692. $1,692	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.n	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $1,339. $1,339	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.o	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $1,131. $1,131	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.p	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $1,072. $1,072	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.q	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $989. $989	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.r	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $762. $762	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.s	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $523. $523	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.t	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $436. $436	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.u	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $317. $317	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.v	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $300. $300	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.w	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $262. $262	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.x	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $231. $231	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.y	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $210. $210	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.z	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent medical account in the amount of $158. $158	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.aa	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $55. $55	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.bb	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $42. $42	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.cc	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $547. $547	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.dd	It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant's security clearance was previously revoked in approximately November 2012 due to financial issues.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (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: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 16-02196 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Nicole A. Smith, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

August 31, 2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:

Statement of the Case

On September 16, 2016, in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, as amended (Directive), the DoD issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts that raise security concerns under Guideline F.1 (Item 1.) The SOR further informed Applicant that, based on information available to the government, DoD adjudicators could not make the preliminary affirmative finding it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security clearance.

On October 11, 2016, Applicant submitted a written reply to the SOR with six attachments (RSOR 1-6), and he requested that his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. (Item 2.) On November 9, 2016, Department Counsel issued the Department's written case. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant. In the FORM, Department Counsel offered seven documentary exhibits. (Items 1-7.) Applicant was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. A response was due on December 18, 2016. Applicant submitted additional documents that have been identified and entered into evidence without objection as Items A through D. The case was assigned to this Administrative Judge on August 9, 2017. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings, and exhibits, I make the following findings of fact.

Applicant is 59 years old. He has been married to his current spouse since 2011, and he was previously divorced from his first spouse in 1995. Applicant has three adult children. Applicant received a Master’s degree in 1990. Applicant served in the Army National Guard on Active Reserve from October 1993 to October 2001, when he received an Honorable Discharge. Applicant seeks a DoD security clearance in connection with employment in the defense sector. (Item 3.)

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

The SOR lists 30 allegations (1.a. through 1.dd.) regarding financial difficulties, specifically overdue debts, under Adjudicative Guideline F. The delinquent debts total more than $50,000. All of the SOR allegations were established by Items 5 and 6, and they will be discussed below in the order they were listed on the SOR:

1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a judgment filed against Applicant in January 2014, in the amount of $396. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR, and he wrote that he has retained the services of a law firm because his credit reports contain numerous errors, which date back to 2009. He claimed that to date he has had 47 errors removed from his credit reports. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a judgment filed against Applicant in May 2012, in the amount of $5,971. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR, and he wrote that he was attempting to locate the creditor to resolve this debt. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a judgment filed against Applicant in February 2010, in the amount of $984. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $1,750, with an outstanding balance of $40,150. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR, and he wrote that this matter has been resolved. He added that he pays $923 a month and the current balance is $35,515. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $9,217. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR, and he wrote that this student loan has been settled in full in June 2013. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $4,293. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $1,740. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $550. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.i. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $522. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.j. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $8,249. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.k. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $7,449. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.l. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $2,017. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.m. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $1,692. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.n. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $1,339. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 1.o. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $1,131. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR, and he wrote that he currently has cellular service with this same creditor and his bill is current. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.p. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $1,072. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.q. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $989. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.r. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $762. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.s. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $523. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.t. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $436. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.u. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $317. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.v. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $300. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.w. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $262. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.x. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $231. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.y. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $210. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced. 1.z. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent medical account in the amount of $158. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.aa. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $55. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.bb. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $42. Applicant denied this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.cc. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for a delinquent account in the amount of $547. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR, and he wrote he has paid $50 on this account and has a balance of $497. He contended that made arrangements to pay the account in full on November 1, 2016. (Item 2.) No independent evidence has been introduced to establish that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.dd. It is alleged in the SOR that Applicant's security clearance was previously revoked in approximately November 2012 due to financial issues. Applicant admitted this debt in his RSOR. (Item 2.)

Among the documents Applicant submitted with his RSOR was a letter from an attorney for the law firm Applicant retained to resolve his debts. He wrote that according to their client (Applicant) there is reason to believe that various accounts appearing on the credit reports are inaccurate, invalid and/or unverifiable. He also wrote that according to his client, there were 18 items removed from Equifax, eight items removed from Experian, and 21 items removed from TransUnion. (RSOR-1.)

Applicant explained that his financial difficulties occurred because of three reasons: significant loss of property due to Hurricane Katrina; relocation to a different city because his command was on the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) list; and travel and funeral costs due to the death of his father in 2009. Applicant further wrote that he has always lived within his budget, but he had issues with his credit reports that in the past he did not know how to address. He reiterated that he hired a law firm to try to help him resolve what he believed to be inaccuracies on his credit reports. He also wrote that he is in the second year of a 60 month loan in which he is paying $464 each month, and he has not missed a payment. Finally, he wrote that he is currently developing a plan to eliminate all of his remaining debt within three years. (RSOR-2.)

As noted above, Applicant did submit additional documents in response to the FORM, but none of the documents established that any of the SOR delinquent debts had been resolved or reduced. Finally, Applicant did not submit a Personal Financial Statement or provide any other independent information or evidence to establish that his current financial status is stable.

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). 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 AG ¶ 2 describing 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 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, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”

A person who applies for access to classified information seeks to enter 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 protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.

Section 7 of Executive Order (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

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations 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. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern insofar as it may result from criminal activity, including espionage.

Applicant had many delinquent debts for several years. No independent evidence was introduced to establish that any of his significant SOR overdue debts have been reduced or resolved, and there has been no evidence introduced to establish that Applicant will be able to be more responsible in resolving his debts in the future.

The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 19. The evidence is sufficient to raise disqualifying conditions (a) and (c) as potentially applicable in this case:

(a) inability to satisfy debts;

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so;

(d) deceptive or illegal financial practices such as embezzlement, employee theft, check fraud, expense account fraud, mortgage fraud, filing deceptive loan statements and other intentional financial breaches of trust;

(e) consistent spending beyond one's means or frivolous or irresponsible spending, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, a history of late payments or of non-payment, or other negative financial indicators; (f) failure to file or fraudulently filing annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns or failure to pay annual Federal, state, or local income tax as required;

(g) unexplained affluence, as shown by a lifestyle or standard of living, increase in net worth, or money transfers that are inconsistent with known legal sources of income;

(h) borrowing money or engaging in significant financial transactions to fund gambling or pay gambling debts; and

(i) concealing gambling losses, family conflict, or other problems caused by gambling.

AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. I considered all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 including:

(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;

(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;

(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;

(f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income; 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 financial loss through Hurricane Katrina, his relocation, and his father’s death were certainly beyond Applicant's control. Also, Applicant has begun the process of resolving his delinquent debts by engaging the services of a law firm. However, no evidence has been introduced to establish that Applicant has acted responsibly by resolving or reducing any of his delinquent SOR debts, is current with all his recent debt, or will be able to live within his means in the future. I do not find that mitigation under AG ¶ 20 has been established.

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 relevant 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), 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.

I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with significant questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the Financial Considerations security concerns.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a.-1.dd: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, 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.

Martin H. Mogul Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 I considered the previous Adjudicative Guidelines, effective September 1, 2006, as well as the new Adjudicative Guidelines, effective June 8, 2017. My decision would be the same if the case was considered under the previous Adjudicative Guidelines, effective September 1, 2006.