CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-14343.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-14343.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-14343.h1

deniedApr 17, 2007· Hon. Juan J. Rivera· hearing

Summary

A 26-year-old employee of a Department of Defense contractor was denied a public trust position due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had a history of financial irresponsibility dating back to the late 1990s, with 10 delinquent accounts totaling approximately $20,676 at the time she responded to the Statement of Reasons (SOR).

The judge found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial control or responsibility, or efforts to resolve her outstanding debts. Furthermore, the applicant deliberately falsified her application by failing to disclose several debts in response to question 22b of the SF 85P.

Specifically, disqualifying conditions were raised under E2.A5.1.2.2, E2.A6.1.2.1, and E2.A6.1.2.3. Given the long history of unmet financial obligations and the deliberate falsification of her application, the applicant was denied eligibility for a public trust position.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a long history of failing to meet financial obligations dating back to the late 1990s.
As of the date she answered the SOR, she had 10 delinquent accounts totaling approximately $20,676.
Applicant failed to provide evidence of financial responsibility or efforts to resolve her debts.
She deliberately falsified her application for a public trust position.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A5.1.2.2appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant and Material Facts
E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“An individual who is financially overextended is at risk to engage in illegal or unethical acts to generate funds to meet financial obligations.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 31, 2006
Answer filedSep 8, 2006Applicant requested a decision without a hearing.
Decision dateApr 17, 2007

Cite For

Denial Based on a History of Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Deliberate Falsification of Application Under Guideline E
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Control and Responsibility

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct allegation, determining that she deliberately failed to disclose delinquent debts on her security questionnaire. This lack of candor raised significant security concerns regarding her trustworthiness. The applicant did not mitigate these concerns, leading to a denial of her eligibility for a public trust position.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant failed to disclose the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶1.a - 1.i in her response to SF 85P question 22b.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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 a significant history of financial irresponsibility, with ten delinquent accounts totaling approximately $20,676. The applicant admitted to most of the financial allegations but failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns, leading to a decision against her under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a–1.j	10 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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct

DIGEST: Applicant has a history of failing to meet her financial obligations dating back to the late 1990s. As of the date she answered the SOR, she had 10 accounts, totaling approximately $20,676 that have been delinquent for many years. Applicant’s evidence is insufficient to show she is in control of her finances, is not overextended, and that she has a track record of financial responsibility. Furthermore, she deliberately falsified her application for a public trust position. Eligibility for assignment to public-trust position is denied.

CASENO: 06-14343.h1

DATE: 04/17/2007

DATE: April 17, 2007

) ) In re: ) ) ADP Case No. 06-14343 --------------------------- ) SSN: ----------- ) ) Applicant for ADP I/II/III )

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JUAN J. RIVERA

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS Applicant has a history of failing to meet her financial obligations dating back to the late 1990s. As of the date she answered the SOR, she had 10 accounts, totaling approximately $20,676 that have been delinquent for many years. Applicant’s evidence is insufficient to show she is in control of her finances, is not overextended, and that she has a track record of financial responsibility. Furthermore, she deliberately falsified her application for a public trust position. Eligibility for assignment to public-trust position is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On July 31, 2006, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts which raise security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). The SOR informed Applicant of the reasons why DOHA recommends Applicant’s case be submitted to an administrative judge for a determination that she is not eligible to occupy an ADP I/II/III position.2

On September 8, 2006, Applicant answered the SOR (Answer). She admitted the SOR allegations under ¶¶1.a - 1.f, 1.h, and 1.i. She denied the allegations under ¶¶1.g, 1.j, and 2.a, provided explanations, and requested a decision without a hearing. On January 10, 2007, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) which was mailed to Applicant on January 12, 2007. She acknowledged receipt of the FORM on January 23, 2007, and did not object to anything contained in the FORM or submit additional information for consideration within the 30- day period provided to her. The case was assigned to me on March 22, 2007.

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

The government moved to amend the SOR by deleting from its first paragraph the words “paragraph 3-614, Department of Defense Regulation 5200.2-R and.” The motion is granted without objection.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant’s admissions to the SOR allegations are incorporated herein as findings of facts. After a thorough review of the pleadings and the evidence, I make the following additional findings of facts:

Applicant is a 26-year-old employee of a Department of Defense (DoD) contractor. She has worked for her current employer since December 2004. She is single, and has a three-year-old daughter. There is no evidence Applicant has mishandled or compromised classified information while at her current job. In March 2004, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions, Standard Form (SF) 85P. She answered “No” to question 22b, and failed to list any debts that were more than 180 days delinquent. The subsequent background investigation addressed Applicant’s financial situation and included the review of her December 2004 (GE 5), June 2006 (GE 6), and January 2007 (GE 7) credit bureau reports (CBR).

In her September 2006 answers to the SOR (GE 2), Applicant admitted all the financial allegations with the exception of SOR ¶¶1.gand 1.j. Concerning ¶ 1.g, she stated that if the debt concerned a Master card or Visa credit card account she would admit it. Regarding ¶1.j, she claimed to have no knowledge of the account and stated she would have to find information about it. Concerning ¶2.a, she explained “she did not know the Federal government had anything to do with credit cards.” (GE 2)

The delinquent/charged off debts alleged in the SOR have the following collection assignment and/or charged off dates: ¶1.a - the collection assignment date was June 1999; ¶1.b - the collection assignment date was November 1999; ¶1.c - the date of last action was June 2001 and the charged off date was February 2002; ¶1.d - the date of last action was August 2001, with a charged off date of January 2002; ¶1.e - the date of last action was June 2001; ¶1.f - the date of last action was September 2002; ¶1.g - the date of last action was November 2001; ¶1.h - the date of last action was June 2002; ¶1.i - the date of last action was November 2003; and ¶1.j - the collection date was June 2005.

According to her SF 85P, she was employed from August 1996 to November 2003, unemployed from November 2003 to December 2004, and employed from December 2004 to the date of the hearing. She presented no evidence to show that she was taking care of/resolving her debts in the form of canceled checks, receipts of payments, and settlement agreements with creditors. Nor did she present evidence to explain how she acquired her debts; why they became delinquent; what circumstances beyond her control, if any, prevented her from paying her delinquent debts; what efforts, if any, she has taken to pay, settle, or resolve the debts; the status of her current financial situation; or whether she has participated in financial counseling; or whether she has taken any measures to avoid future financial problems.

POLICIES

The Directive sets forth adjudicative guidelines which must be considered in evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a public trust position. The administrative judge must take into account both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each adjudicative guideline applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The guidelines are not viewed as inflexible ironclad rules of law. The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative of a conclusion for or against an Applicant. Each decision must reflect a fair and impartial common sense consideration of the factors listed in Section 6.3 of the Directive, and the whole person concept. Having considered the record evidence as a whole, I conclude Guideline F (Financial Considerations)6 and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) are the applicable relevant adjudicative guidelines.

BURDEN OF PROOF

The purpose of a security clearance decision is to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to consider an applicant suitable for a public trust position. A person who holds a public trust position enters into a fiduciary relationship with the government based on trust and confidence. The government, therefore, has a compelling interest to ensure each applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability and trustworthiness of one who will protect the national interests as his or her own.

The government has the initial burden of proving controverted facts alleged in the SOR. To meet its burden, the government must establish by substantial evidence a prima facie case that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest for the applicant to have access to classified information. The responsibility then shifts to the applicant to refute, extenuate or mitigate the government's case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant carries a heavy burden of persuasion. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant's suitability for access to classified information in favor of protecting national security. The same rules apply in trustworthiness determinations.

CONCLUSION

Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), a security concern exists when a person has significant unpaid debts. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk to engage in illegal or unethical acts to generate funds to meet financial obligations. Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his/her obligation to protect classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life can often indicate how a person may behave in other aspects of life. It was Applicant’s responsibility to refute, extenuate or mitigate the government's allegations against her. She failed to provide sufficient evidence to do so. Based on the limited evidence provided, I conclude that as of January 2007 (the day she acknowledged receipt of the FORM) Applicant had 10 delinquent/charged off accounts that are still outstanding, owing approximately $20,676. Applicant’s financial problems are recent, not isolated, and ongoing. Applicant’s unwillingness or inability to honor her financial obligations is evidenced by the delinquent debts she has been carrying for years, and her failure to show meaningful efforts to repay creditors or otherwise resolve her financial situation. Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) E2.A6.1.2.1: A history of not meeting financial obligations; and FC DC E2.A6.1.2.3: Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts, apply in this case.

In January 2007, Applicant was provided with a copy of the FORM in which the government strongly argued that Applicant had failed to demonstrate she had resolved the debts alleged in the SOR, that she was financially solvent, that she had a track record of financial responsibility, and/or that circumstances beyond her control mitigated her financial condition. Notwithstanding the government’s concerns, Applicant did not answer the FORM and failed to provide documents to mitigate the concerns.

Applicant raised facts that may be considered as circumstances beyond her control, i.e., her 13 months period of unemployment. Notwithstanding, under the totality of the circumstances of her case, Applicant failed to provide sufficient information to support the applicability of Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC) 3: the conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business turndown). Applicant failed to provide sufficient information to support the applicability of any of the Financial Considerations Mitigating Conditions (FC MC).

Applicant’s evidence is not sufficient to show she has dealt responsibly with her financial obligations. She presented no evidence of meaningful efforts taken to resolve her debts before receipt of the SOR (i.e., paid debts, settlements, negotiations, payment plans, budgets, financial assistance/counseling). She failed to present sufficient evidence to show she is not overextended or that her financial problems will not be a concern in the future. Applicant’s financial history and lack of favorable evidence preclude a finding that she has established a track record of financial responsibility. Applicant’s available evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate she has taken control of her financial situation and is capable of overcoming her financial difficulties.

Under Guideline E, personal conduct is always a security concern because it asks the ultimate question – whether a person’s past conduct instills confidence the person can be trusted to properly safeguard classified information. An applicant's conduct is a security concern if it involves questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. Such behavior could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information.14 The government established that Applicant failed to disclose the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶1.a - 1.i in her response to SF 85P question 22b. Applicant’s explanation in her answer to SOR ¶2.a (that she did not know that the Federal government had anything to do with credit cards), in addition to her age, level of education, employment, the number and value of her debts, and the fact that she acquired the debts, convinces me she deliberately failed to disclose the delinquent debts. It is not likely that she could have forgotten all of her delinquent debts. Furthermore, Applicant clearly demonstrated a lack of interest in establishing her financial responsibility. Considering all the available evidence in this case, I find Applicant did intend to falsify her SF 86 and to mislead the government. Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition (PC DC) E2.A5.1.2.2: the deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities, applies.

I carefully considered the applicability of all the Personal Conduct Mitigating Conditions and conclude that none apply. The evidence available in this case is not sufficient to support the applicability of any of the mitigating conditions.

I have carefully weighed all evidence, and I applied the disqualifying and mitigating conditions as listed under the applicable adjudicative guidelines. I specifically considered Applicant’s answer to the SOR, and the fact that there is no evidence that she ever mishandled or caused the compromise of classified information. Considering all available information, and the whole person concept, I find Applicant has not mitigated the Financial Considerations and Personal Conduct security concerns.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings regarding each SOR allegation as required by Directive Section E3.1.25 are as follows:

Paragraph 1, Financial Considerations (Guideline F) AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.j Against Applicant

Paragraph 2, Personal Conduct (Guideline E) AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 2.a Against Applicant

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for assignment to a public-trust position. Eligibility is denied.

Juan J. Rivera Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se Government Exhibit (GE) 1. See Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (Feb. 20, 1960, as amended, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Jan. 2, 1992) (Directive), as amended. A memorandum from the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Counterintelligence and Security) to Director, Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), dated November 19, 2004 states DOHA shall utilize provisions of the Directive to resolve contractor cases involving trustworthiness determinations. Government Exhibit (GE) 2 (Applicant’s answer to the SOR). GE 4 (Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions (SF85P), dated December 8, 2004), unless indicated otherwise, is the source for the facts in this paragraph. The information in this paragraph was gathered from the credit bureau reports GE 5-7. Directive, ¶ E2.A6.1.1. Directive, ¶ E2.A5.1.1. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988). ISCR Case No. 98-0761, at p. 2 (December 27, 1999)(Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a preponderance of the evidence.); ISCR Case No. 02-12199, at p. 3 (April 3, 2006)(Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion in light of all the contrary evidence in the record.); Directive, ¶ E3.1.32.1. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, at 528, 531. See Egan; Directive, ¶ E2.2.2. Directive, ¶ E2.A6.1.1. Directive, ¶ E2.A6.1.3.3. Directive, ¶ E2.A5.1.1.