CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01758.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01758.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01758.h1

deniedNov 28, 2017· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old mechanic employed by a U.S. defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from ongoing financial difficulties, specifically 20 delinquent debts totaling approximately $20,000.

The Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailed these 20 delinquent debts across multiple allegations. While one debt (1.p) was noted as current, and several others were identified as duplicates of other listed debts, the core issue remained the substantial number and amount of outstanding obligations.

The applicant acknowledged his financial issues, attributing them to personal circumstances. However, he failed to provide evidence of any payments or resolutions for the delinquent debts. Consequently, the decision concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated responsible measures to address his financial issues, leading to the determination that granting a security clearance was not consistent with national interest.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a history of financial difficulties that are ongoing.
He has not documented any payments or resolutions of the delinquent debts.
Applicant failed to demonstrate responsible measures to address his financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 31, 2016
Answer filedNot specifiedApplicant requested a decision without hearing.
Hearing heldNot applicableDecision made without hearing.
Decision dateNov 28, 2017

Cite For

Ongoing Financial Difficulties Under Guideline F
Failure to Document Efforts to Resolve Debts
Disqualification Due to Inability to Satisfy Debts

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, with the applicant having 20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000. The applicant's claims of addressing these debts were not substantiated, leading to a decision against the applicant on most allegations, while a few were found in favor of the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000 $20,000	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.b	20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000 $20,000	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	20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000 $20,000	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	20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000 $20,000	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	20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000 $20,000	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.f	20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000 $20,000	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.g	20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000 $20,000	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.h	20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000 $20,000	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.i	20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000 $20,000	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.j	20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000 $20,000	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.k	20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000 $20,000	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.l	20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000 $20,000	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.m	20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000 $20,000	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.n	20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000 $20,000	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.o	20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000 $20,000	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.p	SOR debt 1.p is now current	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.q	SOR debt 1.q appears to be the same as SOR debt 1.t	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.r	SOR debt 1.q appears to be the same as SOR debt 1.t	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.s	SOR debt 1.s appears to be the same as SOR debt 1.a	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.t	SOR debt 1.s appears to be the same as SOR debt 1.a	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

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: ) ) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ISCR Case No. 16-01758 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Alison P. O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

11/28/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:

Based on the record in this case, I deny Applicant’s clearance.

On 31 October 2016, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) raising security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a decision without hearing by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The record in this case closed 6 April 2017, when Applicant’s response to the FORM was due. Applicant provided no additional information. DOHA assigned the case to me 1 October 2017.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations. He is a 41-year-old mechanic employed by a U.S. defense contractor since May 2014. Except for a brief period October-November 2010, he has been continuously employed since September 2001, when he enlisted in the United States military, from which he was honorably discharged in October 2010 in paygrade E-6. He was married from December 2007 to October 2012, and has a child born in July 2009. He seeks to retain the security clearance he has held since at least May 2011 (Item 5).

The SOR alleges, Government exhibits (Items 5-9) substantiate, and Applicant admits, 20 delinquent debts totaling about $20,000. SOR debt 1.a appears to be the same as SOR debt 1.s, and SOR debt 1.qappears to be the same as SOR debt 1.t. Applicant’s April 2015 credit report (Item 6) shows that SOR debt 1.pis now current. Applicant claimed, without corroboration, to have paid some debts, to be paying on other debts, to have submitted one debt to insurance, to have challenged one debt as fraudulent and disputing another, and committed to contacting one creditor. He intended to pay seven of the debts when he got his 2016 income tax refunds.

Applicant disclosed four of the SOR debts on his February 2015 clearance application (Item 5), stated that he was fully aware of his debt problems, and stated he would pay his debts when he received his 2016 income tax returns. He discussed the delinquent debts on his April 2015 clearance application (Item 7) during an October 2015 interview with a Government investigator (Item 9). Applicant’s December 2010 credit report (Item 8) and his January and February 2013 subject interviews (Item 9) show that Applicant had financial problems during his last background investigation that were apparently resolved in his favor. However his credit reports (Items 6-7) and subject interviews reflect a history of bringing delinquent debts current only to have them replaced by new delinquent debts.

Applicant attributes his financial problems to the birth of his son in 2009, his separation from his wife in 2010-2011, his divorce in 2012, and being double-charged for child support from November 2014 to May 2015. However, he also acknowledges that they were caused by poor self-control, lack of judgment, and living beyond his means.

Applicant provided no current budget or financial statement. He has not documented any credit or financial counseling. He provided no work or character references, or any evidence of community involvement.

POLICIES

The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the factors listed in AG ¶ 2(d). Any one disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.

Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.3

ANALYSIS

The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has a history of financial difficulties, which are ongoing. He has had financial problems since before he left the military in 2010, and although he weathered the problems during his last clearance review, he continues to resolve old delinquent debt only to replace it with new delinquent debt. Applicant has not documented any of the claimed payments, or claimed resolutions of the SOR debts.

Applicant meets none of the mitigating conditions for financial considerations. His financial difficulties are both recent and multiple, and his financial situation cannot be considered unlikely to recur. Applicant’s financial problems are not due largely to circumstances beyond his control, and he has not demonstrated that he has taken responsible measures to deal with his delinquent debts.6 Applicant submitted no evidence to show that he received credit or financial counseling, and he has not established that these debts are being resolved. He has not established that he has made a good-faith effort to address his debts. Accordingly, I resolve Guideline F against Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs a-o: Against Applicant Subparagraph p: For Applicant Subparagraphs q-r: Against Applicant Subparagraphs s-t: For Applicant (duplicates).

CONCLUSION

Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance denied.

JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-9.

DoD acted under Executive Order 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) effective within the DoD on 1 September 2006. On 10 December 2016, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) signed Security Executive Agent Directive 4, implementing new AG, effective with any decision issued on or after 8 June 2017. See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).

¶19(a) inability to satisfy debts; (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;

¶20(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur . . .

¶20(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; ¶20(c) the individual has received or is receiving counseling for the problem . . . and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;

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