CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-03961.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-03961.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-03961.h1

deniedOct 31, 2017· Hon. Nichole L. Noel· hearing

Summary

A federal contractor, employed since 2014, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $15,000 in unresolved delinquent debt. The Statement of Reasons cited multiple instances of this outstanding debt.

The judge determined that the applicant's financial difficulties originated from a period of unemployment following a violent outburst. However, the applicant failed to provide evidence of good-faith efforts to resolve the debts.

Ultimately, the judge concluded that the financial issues were not beyond the applicant's control, as the job loss directly resulted from his actions. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has approximately $15,000 in unresolved delinquent debt.
Applicant did not provide evidence of good-faith efforts to resolve his debts.
The financial issues were not beyond the applicant's control, as he lost his job due to a violent outburst.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 8, 2017
Answer filedOct 31, 2017Applicant requested a decision without a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing held; decision made based on written submissions.
Decision dateOct 31, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Failure to Demonstrate Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
Impact of Personal Conduct on Financial Stability and Security Clearance Eligibility

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant has approximately $15,000 in unresolved delinquent debt, which raises significant financial concerns. The applicant's request for a security clearance was denied due to an inability to satisfy debts and a lack of evidence demonstrating financial control or repayment efforts.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant owes approximately $15,000 in unresolved delinquent debt. $15,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.b	Applicant owes approximately $15,000 in unresolved delinquent debt. $15,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.c	Applicant owes approximately $15,000 in unresolved delinquent debt. $15,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.d	Applicant owes approximately $15,000 in unresolved delinquent debt. $15,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.e	Applicant owes approximately $15,000 in unresolved delinquent debt. $15,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—

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. 16-03961 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Rhett Petcher, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 10/31/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

NOEL, Nichole L., Administrative Judge:

Applicant contests the Department of Defense’s (DOD) intent to deny his eligibility for a security clearance. Applicant owes approximately $15,000 in unresolved delinquent debt. Clearance is denied.

Statement of the Case

On March 8, 2017, the DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under the financial considerations guideline.1 DOD adjudicators were unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant’s security clearance and recommended his case be submitted to an administrative judge for consideration. Applicant answered the SOR and requested a decision without a hearing.2 The Government submitted its written case on April 24, 2017. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) and the Directive were provided to Applicant. He received the FORM on May 1, 2017, and did not respond. The documents appended to the FORM are admitted as Government’s Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5, without objection.

PROCEDURAL MATTERS

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

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant has worked for his current employer, a federal contractor, since August 2014. He previously worked for federal contracting companies from June 2007 to November 2013. Applicant claims to have been granted a security clearance in the past, but the record does not corroborate this statement. He completed a security clearance application in November 2015, disclosing several delinquent accounts. The ensuing investigation revealed and the SOR alleges that Applicant is indebted to five creditors for $15,000. Applicant blames his financial problems on a period of unemployment from November 2013 to July 2014, after he was fired from his job for having a violent outburst at work.

During his nine months of unemployment, Applicant fell behind on his financial obligations. When he finally found employment, Applicant had to move his family, at significant cost, to another state with a higher cost of living. Applicant admits owing the debts alleged in the SOR, but says that he cannot afford to pay them right now as he is playing catch up from his months of unemployment and the interstate move.

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, administrative judges apply the guidelines in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision. The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence.

Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision.

Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that adverse decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).

ANALYSIS

Financial Considerations

Failure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgement, or willingness 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. . . . An individual who is financially overextended is at a greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds.3

Applicant’s admissions and the credit reports in the record establish the Government’s prima facie case, that Applicant has an inability to pay his bills.4 Applicant failed to present sufficient evidence to mitigate the alleged concerns. The events causing Applicant’s financial problems were not beyond his control. He lost his job because he lost his temper and acted out violently. Furthermore, he did not provide evidence of any good-faith efforts to resolve his delinquent accounts. All the alleged debts remain unresolved and his financial problems are ongoing. Accordingly, the security concerns remain and none of the financial considerations mitigating conditions apply.

Based on the record, doubts remain about Applicant’s suitability for access to classified information. In reaching this conclusion, I have also considered the whole- person factors at AG ¶ 2(d). Applicant failed to meet his burdens of production and persuasion to refute or mitigate the SOR allegations. He did not provide any evidence of debt repayment or that his finances are under control. Accordingly, his request for access to classified information is denied.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1, Financial Considerations: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.e: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

Based on the record, 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.

________________________ Nichole L. Noel Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, signed by President Eisenhower on February 20, 1960, as amended; as well as DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program, dated January 2, 1992, as amended (Directive), and the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, implemented on September 1, 2006. 2 GE 1. 3 AG ¶ 18.

4 AG ¶ 19(a) inability to satisfy debts.