ISCR Case No. 17-01551.h1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 17-01551 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Chris Morin, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

01/05/2018 ______________

______________

COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

On May 30, 2017, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG).1 Applicant answered the SOR on June 30, 2017, and elected to have her case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on July 24, 2017. The evidence included in the FORM is identified as Items 3-6 (Items 1 and 2 include pleadings and transmittal information). The FORM was mailed to Applicant, who received it on August 7, 2017. Applicant was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant objected to my consideration of Item 4 (Applicant’s summarized subject interview, dated December 9, 2016).2 That objection is sustained and I did not consider the information contained within Item 4, or the 11 page attachment thereto. Applicant also submitted four exhibits (AE) A-D, which are admitted. Items 3, 5-6 are also admitted. The case was assigned to me on December 19, 2017.

Applicant admitted all the allegations in her answer to the SOR. The admissions are adopted as findings of fact. After a careful review of the pleadings and evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact.

Applicant is 34 years old. She has worked for a defense contractor since May 2016. She had periods of unemployment from May 2013 to July 2014, and March 2010 to April 2012. She is single and has two children, ages 14 and 5. She has a master’s degree.3

The SOR alleged 11 delinquent student loans totaling approximately $86,447, past-due home mortgage payments on an outstanding balance of $50,868, and 10 past- due, charged-off, or collection accounts totaling approximately $8,730. The allegations are supported by credit reports from June 2016 and May 2017, Applicant’s May 2016 security clearance application (SCA), and Applicant’s SOR admissions.4

Applicant presented documentary evidence showing that she consolidated all of her student loan payments into a single payment source in October 2016. The consolidated loan balance total is $198,641. She also presented evidence that she signed a credit-card authorization form to make her student loan payments beginning in August 2016. She failed to present evidence that the scheduled payments were actually made.5

Applicant did not present documentation showing payment or the establishment of payment plans for the remainder of the SOR debts. She indicated she would contact a credit reporting service in the future to consolidate the remaining debts. There is no evidence of financial counseling.6

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are 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, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in 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 the 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, an “applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision.”

A person who seeks access to classified information enters 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 that an 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.

Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that 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).

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

AG ¶ 18 expresses the security concern for financial considerations:

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.

The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. I have considered all of them under AG ¶ 19 and the following potentially apply:

(a) inability to satisfy debts;

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

(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.

Applicant has delinquent student loan debt and other past-due, charged-off, and collection debts that remain unpaid. I find all the disqualifying conditions are raised.

The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties. I have considered all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 and the following potentially apply:

(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; and

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

Applicant’s debts are recent and remain unresolved. She did not provide sufficient evidence to show that her financial problems are unlikely to recur. AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply. Applicant’s periods of unemployment may be considered a condition beyond her control, however, she failed to take responsible actions to address her debts. I find AG ¶ 20(b) partially applies. Although Applicant consolidated her student loan debt, she failed to prove that she made any payments under the consolidation plan. She also failed to address the remaining SOR debts. There is no evidence of financial counseling. AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) do not apply.

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 the 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 guideline and the whole-person concept.

I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered Applicant’s periods of unemployment, and the circumstances that led to her financial difficulties. Applicant has not established a track record of financial stability. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline F, financial considerations.

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, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.v: Against Applicant

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.

_____________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge

1 I decided this case using the AG implemented by DOD on June 8, 2017. However, I also considered this case under the previous version of the AG implemented on September 1, 2006, and my conclusions are the same using either set of AG. 2 AE A. 3 Item 2. 4 Items 2-3, 5-6. 5 AE B-D. 6 AE A.