CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03630.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03630.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03630.h1

deniedJun 21, 2017· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old systems engineering technician was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial issues. The applicant had numerous delinquent debts totaling approximately $98,000, including a student loan for $25,389, a delinquent mortgage loan past due for $26,807, and various charged-off credit card and collection accounts. Additionally, the applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for 2014 and had a judgment for $881 in unpaid rent filed in May 2015.

While some financial difficulties were attributed to a marital separation, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of financial counseling or a clear plan to address the debts. The judge also noted the absence of medical evidence to support claims that depression affected his financial management.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the applicant had not mitigated the security concerns raised by his financial history, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant had numerous delinquent debts totaling about $98,000.
The applicant failed to file federal and state income tax returns for 2014.
The applicant did not provide medical evidence of depression affecting his financial management.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(f)appliedFailure 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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe marital breakup was largely beyond the applicant's control.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve DebtsThe applicant made nominal payments on several debts.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedReasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Past-due DebtThe applicant disputed one debt as fraudulent.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 31, 2016
Answer filedJan 12, 2017
Hearing heldMar 23, 2017
Decision dateJun 21, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Marital Separation on Financial Stability
Lack of Evidence for Mitigating Financial Conditions

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 multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including numerous delinquent debts and failures to file tax returns. While some debts were mitigated due to ongoing payments or disputes, the overall financial situation was deemed insufficient to warrant a security clearance, leading to a denial of eligibility.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	student loan placed for collection of $25,389 $25,389	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Denied	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.b	credit-card accounts charged off for $4,648 $4,648	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	credit-card accounts charged off for $4,633 $4,633	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	credit-card accounts charged off for $3,912 $3,912	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	credit-card accounts charged off for $2,950 $2,950	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	membership store debt referred for collection of $2,272 $2,272	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.g	credit-card account charged off for $1,998 $1,998	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	charged-off account for $1,712 $1,712	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.i	credit-card account referred for collection of $1,557 $1,557	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	credit-card account referred for collection of $1,363 $1,363	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	department store charge account referred for collection of $1,203 $1,203	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.l	credit-card account referred for collection of $895 $895	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.m	department store charge account charged off for $877 $877	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.n	membership store debt referred for collection of $866 $866	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.o	sporting-goods store debt referred for collection of $861 $861	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.p	collection account for $840 $840	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.q	collection account for $633 $633	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	(e) reasonable, documented basis to dispute the debt	Documented Debt Disputed with Creditor
1.r	judgment for $881 in unpaid rent filed in May 2015 $881	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Unknown	—	—	—
1.s	delinquent mortgage loan past due for $26,807, in foreclosure with a loan balance of $164,991 $26,807	For Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Unknown	—	—	—
1.t	telephone bill placed for collection of $2,562 $2,562	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.u	credit-card account placed for collection of $9,724 $9,724	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.v	charged-off account for $860 $860	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.w	parking tickets referred for collection of $141 $141	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.x	medical bill placed for collection of $101 $101	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.y–1.cc	57 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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. 16-03630 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

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

06/21/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge:

This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on October 16, 2015. On December 31, 2016, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) sent him a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guideline F. The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 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 (AG) implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006.1 Applicant answered the SOR on January 12, 2017, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on February 2, 2017, and the case was assigned to me on March 2, 2017. On March 3, 2017, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) notified Applicant that the hearing was scheduled for March 23, 2017. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Government Exhibits (GX) 1 through 4 were admitted in evidence without objection. Department Counsel’s letter to Applicant, dated February 2, 2017, complying with the discovery requirement in Directive ¶ E3.1.13, is attached to the record as Hearing Exhibit (HX) I. Applicant testified and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AX) A through V, which were admitted without objection. I kept the record open until March 30, 2017, to enable him to substitute copies for several original documents and to submit additional documentary evidence. He substituted copies for the original documents, but he did not submit any additional evidence. (HX II). DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on April 5, 2017.

Findings of Fact2

In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶1.b-1.e, 1.g, 1.i, 1.j, 1.m, 1.o-1.q, and 1.t-1.cc. He denied SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.f, 1.h, 1.k, 1.l, 1.n, 1.r, and 1.s. His admissions in his answer and at the hearing are incorporated in my findings of fact.

Applicant is a 36-year-old systems engineering field technician employed by a defense contractor since February 2005. He received a bachelor’s degree in May 2004. He attended college from August 2005 to June 2009 but did not receive an additional degree. (GX 2 at 2.) He has held a security clearance since June 2005.

When Applicant submitted his SCA, he disclosed numerous debts and his failure to file federal and state income tax returns for tax year 2014. The SOR alleges 25 delinquent debts totaling about $98,000 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.y), failures to file federal and state income tax returns for tax year 2014 (SOR ¶¶ 1.z-1.bb), and federal and state tax debts totaling about $1,600 (SOR ¶ 1.cc). His delinquent debts are reflected in his credit bureau reports (CBRs) from November 2015 and October 2016 (GX 3 and GX 4).

Applicant married in August 2004 and separated in March 2014. (Tr. 47.) He has no children. He and his wife were together for nine years before they married in 2004. Applicant testified that his wife had been unfaithful on multiple occasions, starting before they were married. Her infidelity continued after they were married. When it happened again in March 2014, he could not deal with it any longer. (Tr. 52.) The marital breakup was emotionally and financially devastating for Applicant, and for a while he “had given up on life.” (Tr. 44-46.) He testified that his delinquencies were caused by his marital separation and the transition from a single household with two incomes to separate households. He testified that he suffered a period of severe depression, but he was unable to seek financial or medical assistance because he could not afford it. (Tr. 37-38, 62) He did not provide any medical evidence of his depression or its effect on his ability to manage his finances.

Before the separation, Applicant and his wife were heavily indebted, but they were able to make minimum payments on their debts. After the separation, they were unable to support two households and pay their bills. (Tr. 47-48, 51.) The evidence concerning the debts alleged in the SOR is summarized below.

SOR ¶ 1.a: student loan placed for collection of $25,389. Applicant entered a rehabilitation program in October 2016, requiring monthly $22 payments. He completed the rehabilitation program in March 2017 and is now paying $127 per month. (AX A; Tr. 37-38.)

SOR ¶¶ 1.b-1.e: credit-card accounts charged off for $4,648; $4,633; $3,912; and $2,950. Applicant testified that he is not yet able to make payments on these debts. (Tr. 39.)

SOR ¶ 1.f: membership store debt referred for collection of $2,272. Applicant is making monthly payments of around $20 on this debt. (Tr. 39) His documentary evidence reflects an electronic debit of $25 and a balance of $1,102 as of February 2017. (AX D.)

SOR ¶ 1.g: credit-card account charged off for $1,998. This debt is being collected by garnishment that began in May 2016. (AX E.)

SOR ¶ 1.h: charged-off account for $1,712. Applicant is paying $20 per month payment by direct debit. (AX F.)

SOR ¶ 1.i: credit-card account referred for collection of $1,557. This debt is being collected by garnishment that began in February 2017. $680 was deducted from Applicant’s pay in March 2017. (AX G.)

SOR ¶ 1.j: credit-card account referred for collection of $1,363. This debt is being collected by garnishment. $50 was deducted from Applicant’s pay in March 2017. (AX H.)

SOR ¶ 1.k: department store charge account referred for collection of $1,203. Applicant is paying $30 per month by direct debit. (AX I.)

SOR ¶ 1.l: credit-card account referred for collection of $895. Applicant is paying $25 per month by direct debit. (AX J.)

SOR ¶ 1.m: department store charge account charged off for $877. Applicant is paying $25 per month by check. (AX K.) SOR ¶ 1.n: membership store debt referred for collection of $866. Applicant is paying $30 per month by direct debit. (AX L.)

SOR ¶ 1.o: sporting-goods store debt referred for collection of $861. In March 2017, Applicant received an offer to settle this debt for $486 or make monthly payments of $108 or $50. (AX M.) He testified that he is making monthly $50 payments, but he submitted no documentation to support his testimony. (Tr. 40-41.)

SOR ¶ 1.p: collection account for $840. Applicant made a $211 payment by post-dated check in January 2017. (AX N.) Applicant testified that the account has been settled, but his documentation does not reflect it. (Tr. 41.)

SOR ¶ 1.q: collection account for $633. Applicant testified that this is a fraudulent account. The demand for payment from the collection agency lists a debtor other than Applicant, and Applicant does not recognize the listed debtor. (AX O; Tr. 41.) He told the collection agency that the debt was not his, but he has not filed a dispute with the credit bureau. He testified that he was not aware of his right to file a dispute with the credit bureau, and he believed that the collection agency would take care of correcting the credit report. (Tr. 61.)

SOR ¶ 1.r: judgment for $881 in unpaid rent filed in May 2015. Applicant testified that this judgment was filed after he paid his rent. He submitted a current bill showing that his rent payments are current. (AX P; Tr. 42.)

SOR ¶ 1.s: delinquent mortgage loan past due for $26,807, in foreclosure with a loan balance of $164,991. Applicant testified that this debt was for the marital home. Foreclosure was initiated, but he was able to settle the debt through a short sale. (AX Q; Tr. 42.)

SOR ¶¶ 1.tand 1.u: telephone bill placed for collection of $2,562 and credit- card account placed for collection of $9,724. Applicant testified that he has been financially unable to make any payments on these accounts. (Tr. 42-43.)

SOR ¶ 1.v: charged-off account for $860. This debt is a duplicate of the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.o.

SOR ¶¶ 1.wand 1.y: parking tickets referred for collection of $141 and 101. Applicant testified that he was unaware of these debts and had not investigated them, but that he intends to pay them. (Tr. 43.)

SOR ¶ 1.x: medical bill placed for collection of $101. Applicant testified that he did not recognize this debt. The contact information for the collection agency is reflected in the November 2015 CBR, but Applicant had not contacted it. (Tr. 43.)

SOR ¶¶ 1.z-1.cc: past-due federal and state tax returns and tax debt. Applicant filed his federal and state income tax return for 2014 in March 2017. His returns reflect that he owes $1,891 in federal taxes and is entitled to refunds of $935 and $408 from the two states in which he resided during tax year 2014. (AX S; AX T; AX U; Tr. 43-44.) Applicant requested an installment agreement for his federal tax debt, but the IRS had not approved his request as of the date of the hearing. He also owes about $600 for tax year 2015, and he has submitted a request for an installment agreement for this debt as well. (Tr. 58.)

The garnishments for the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.g, 1.k, and 1.jtake 25 percent of Applicant’s gross income. He testified that he expects the garnishments to end in June 2017, at which time he will be able to start making payments on the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.c-1.e. (Tr. 53.) He articulated no specific plan to address the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.t, 1.u, 1.w, and 1.y.

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 § 2.

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, 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.” 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. 92-1106 at 3, 1993 WL 545051 at *3 (App. Bd. Oct. 7, 1993).

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 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 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. . . .

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, his testimony at the hearing, and the documentary evidence submitted at the hearing are sufficient to establish the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability to satisfy debts”); AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”); and AG ¶ 19(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”). 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;

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

AGA ¶ 20(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

AG ¶ 20(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.

AG ¶ 20(a) is not established. Applicant’s delinquent debts are recent, numerous, and were not incurred under circumstances making them unlikely to recur.

AG ¶ 20(b) is partially established. Applicant’s marital breakup was a condition largely beyond his control, but his financial situation was precarious before he and his wife separated. He attributes his lack of diligence in making his financial affairs to depression, but he offered no medical evidence that he had a psychological condition that prevented him from managing his financial affairs. He has acted responsibly regarding the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.f, 1.h, 1.k-1.n, 1.q-1.s, and 1.v, but not for the other debts alleged in the SOR.

AG ¶ 20(c) is not established. Applicant present no evidence that he sought or received financial counseling, and his financial situation is not under control.

AG ¶ 20(d) is established for the delinquent debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.f, 1.h, 1.k-1.n, 1.q-1.s, and 1.v. It is not established for the debts alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g, 1.i, and 1.j, because payment by involuntary garnishment, “is not the same as, or similar to, a good-faith initiation of repayment by the debtor.” ISCR Case No. 09-5700 (App. Bd. Feb. 24, 2011). It is not established for the other debts alleged in the SOR.

AG ¶ 20(e) is established for the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.q. The documentary evidence establishes that the debtor is someone other than Applicant.

AG ¶ 20(g) is not established. Applicant has requested an installment agreement for his federal tax debt, but the IRS has not granted his request. Applicant has not made any payments on the debt.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under AG ¶¶ 2(a), 2(c), and 2(d), 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. Applicant was candid and sincere at the hearing. He acted reasonably regarding the delinquent mortgage loan in SOR ¶ 1.s. I have credited him with making nominal payments on several large debts, but it will take him years to resolve these debts at his current rate of payment. He was living on the financial brink before his marital breakup, and he allowed his financial situation to spin out of control after it. He has offered no persuasive excuse for failing to file his federal and state tax returns.

After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F, and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns raised by his delinquent debts and failure to timely file his federal and state income tax returns. Accordingly, I conclude he has not carried his burden of showing that it is clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to continue his eligibility for access to classified information.

FORMAL FINDINGS

I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR:

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

Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant

Subparagraphs 1.b-1.e: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.f: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.h: For Applicant

Subparagraphs 1.i-1.j: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.k-1.n: For Applicant

Subparagraphs 1.o-1.p: Against Applicant

Subparagraphs 1.q-1.s: For Applicant

Subparagraphs 1.t-1.u: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.v: For Applicant

Subparagraphs 1.w-1.cc: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national security interests of the United States to continue Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance 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. My decision is based on the guidelines in SEAD 4, referred to in this decision as “AG.” The changes resulting from issuance of SEAD 4 did not affect my decision in this case. 2 Applicant’s personal information is extracted from his security clearance application (GX 1) unless otherwise indicated by a parenthetical citation to the record.