CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-02081.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 17-02081.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-02081.h1

deniedApr 25, 2018· Hon. Caroline E. Heintzelman· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old U.S. Army veteran and customer service representative was denied a security clearance due to unresolved financial issues under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons alleged the applicant failed to pay fourteen debts, totaling $19,505, raising disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c).

While the applicant claimed to be addressing her debts through credit counseling, she did not provide sufficient documentation or evidence of payments or resolution. The decision noted that the applicant failed to demonstrate responsible actions to mitigate the financial concerns.

Ultimately, the applicant's eligibility for access to sensitive information was denied because of these persistent, unmitigated financial problems. Mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(d), and AG ¶ 20(e) were considered but deemed insufficient to overcome the security concerns.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has unresolved financial problems, including failure to pay fourteen debts totaling $19,505.
The applicant did not provide proof of payments or resolution toward her delinquent debt.
The applicant failed to demonstrate responsible actions to address her financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors
AG ¶ 20(e)rejectedReasonable Basis to Dispute the Legitimacy of the Debt

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to sensitive information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 11, 2017
Answer filedAug 3, 2017Requested decision on the record without a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing held.
Decision dateApr 25, 2018

Cite For

Failure to Provide Documentation of Debt Resolution Efforts Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Responsible Actions to Mitigate Financial Issues
Criteria for Evaluating Trustworthiness in Financial Considerations

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 had unresolved financial issues, including multiple debts totaling $19,505. While some debts were found to be mitigated, the majority were ruled against the applicant, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to sensitive information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	failure to pay fourteen debts, totaling $19,505	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b–1.n	13 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (11 against, 2 for the applicant).	Mixed			—	—	—

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: ) ) ) ADP Case No. 17-02081 ) Applicant for Public Trust Position )

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

04/25/2018 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

HEINTZELMAN, Caroline E., Administrative Judge:

This case involves trustworthiness concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Applicant has unresolved financial problems. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied.

History of the Case

Applicant submitted an electronic questionnaire for investigations processing (e- QIP) on January 21, 2016. On July 11, 2017, the Department of Defense (DOD) sent her a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F. The action was taken under DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and DOD Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program, dated Jan. 1987, as amended (Regulation); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated in Security Executive Agent Directive 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), for all decisions on or after June 8, 2017.

Applicant answered the SOR on August 3, 2017, and requested a decision on the record without a hearing. On October 12, 2017, a complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), containing six Items, was mailed to Applicant and received by her on October 16, 2017. The FORM notified Applicant that she had an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of her receipt of the FORM. Applicant did not object to the Government’s Items. Hence, Items 1 through 6 are admitted into evidence without objection. Applicant did not submit a response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on March 1, 2018.

Findings of Fact1

The SOR alleges failure to pay fourteen debts, totaling $19,505 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a. through 1.n.). In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, she admitted to all but two of the allegations. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings and exhibits, I make the following findings of fact:

Applicant is 39 years old, and since May 2016, has worked for her current employer as a customer service representative. She requires a position of trust for this employment. Applicant has been married to her husband since 2004, and they have two children. Applicant has attended some college. She served on active duty in the U.S. Army from January 2002 and April 2003, and received an honorable discharge. She was a stay-at- home mom between July 2005 and February 2008 and July 2010 and September 2015. During these periods she was financially supported by her husband, who served on active duty in the U.S. military. She attributes her financial issues to her family’s status as a single-income household (Item 4).

In her answer to the SOR, Applicant claimed she was in the process of resolving SOR ¶¶ 1.a., 1.d. through 1.i., and 1.l. through 1.n. through a debt management and credit counseling service (Item 2). She did not provide documentation regarding this credit counseling, but asserted these debts would all be resolved by April 2019. Applicant denied SOR ¶¶ 1.b. and 1.c. because she disputed the services and her responsibility for the outstanding debts. Applicant claimed she was going to resolve SOR ¶¶ 1.j. and 1.k. with her September 2017 paychecks.

POLICIES

Positions designated as ADP I/II/III are classified as “sensitive positions.” (See Regulation ¶¶ C3.1.2.1.1.7 and C3.1.2.1.2.3.) “The standard that must be met for . . . assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, the person’s loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that . . . assigning the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.” (See Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1.) The Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Counterintelligence and Security) Memorandum, dated November 19, 2004, indicates trustworthiness adjudications will apply to cases forwarded to DOHA by the Defense Security Service and Office of Personnel Management. Department of Defense contractor personnel are afforded the right to the procedures contained in the Directive before any final unfavorable access determination may be made. (See Regulation ¶ C8.2.1.)

When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a public trust position, the administrative judge must consider the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the Administrative Guidelines (AG) ¶ 2 (a). 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(c), 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 access to [sensitive] information 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.

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 applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable trustworthiness decision.

A person who seeks access to sensitive 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 sensitive information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard sensitive information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of sensitive information.

ANALYSIS

Guideline F (Financial Considerations)

The concern under Guideline F (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 . . . .

Applicant’s admissions and her credit reports establish two disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability to satisfy debts”) and AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”).

The trustworthiness concerns raised in the SOR may be mitigated by any of the following potentially applicable factors:

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

AG ¶ 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;

I considered that Applicant is not required to be debt-free in order to qualify for a public trust position.2 However, she has not provided proof of payments or resolution toward her delinquent debt. Moreover, she failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish that she acted responsibly to address her debt. Thus, I cannot conclude that Applicant has mitigated the Guideline F concerns at this time.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an Applicant’s eligibility for a public trust position 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(a):

(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 public trust position 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 the facts and circumstances surrounding this case.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a public trust position. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant did not mitigate the trustworthiness concerns arising from her financial considerations.

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.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.b.-1.c.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.d. – 1.n.: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a public trust position. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied.

Caroline E. Heintzelman Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Applicant’s personal information is extracted from her security application (Item 3) unless otherwise indicated by a parenthetical citation to the record. 2 ISCR Case No. 15-02903 at 3 (App. Bd. Mar. 9, 2017) (An applicant does not have to be debt-free in order to qualify for a public trust position. Rather, all that is required is that an applicant act responsibly given his circumstances and develop a reasonable plan for repayment, accompanied by “concomitant conduct” that is, actions which evidence a serious intent to effectuate the plan).