CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-17793.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-17793.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-17793.h1

deniedJul 18, 2007· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old married man with two children was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct). The primary issue was $15,000 in delinquent debts accrued between 1998 and 2004, with nearly all remaining outstanding. The applicant made minimal effort to resolve these debts, attributing his inaction to ongoing problems with his ex-wife.

Further concerns arose because the applicant failed to list any of his debts in response to specific questions on his security clearance application (SF 86), although he did disclose a wage garnishment, a repossession, and two unpaid judgments in other sections. Many of these debts had been delinquent for over six years, with several being small bills under $150.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate a serious, concerted effort to satisfy his debts, despite being aware of the security concerns since June 2005. His contention of lacking income to satisfy the delinquencies was given limited probative value, and he had not made plans or shown an inclination to pay the remaining debts. The decision concluded that granting clearance was not consistent with national interest.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant accrued $15,000 in delinquent bills between 1998 and 2004, with nearly all remaining unpaid.
He has not made a serious, concerted effort to begin satisfying his debts, despite being aware of the security concerns since June 2005.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

FC DC 19 (a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
FC DC 19 (c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
FC DC 19 (e)raisedConsistent Spending Beyond One’s Means

Key Rule Quoted

“The issuance of the clearance is 'clearly consistent with the national interest.'”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 27, 2007Erroneously dated; corrected by Department Counsel.
Answer filedFeb 27, 2007
Hearing heldApr 26, 2007
Decision dateJul 18, 2007

Cite For

Denial of Clearance Due to Significant Financial Delinquencies Under Guideline F
Lack of Mitigating Circumstances for Financial Issues
Consideration of the Whole Person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions

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 that the applicant did not intentionally omit financial information from his security clearance application. As a result, there were no personal conduct security concerns, leading to a favorable ruling for the applicant under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a–2.b	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant		—		—	—	—

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 applicant accrued $15,000 in delinquent bills between 1998 and 2004, with nearly all remaining outstanding. The judge found that the applicant had not made a serious effort to resolve these debts, leading to a denial of the security clearance under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant accrued $15,000 of delinquent bills between approximately 1998 and 2004. $15,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.b	Nearly all remain outstanding, and he has yet to make a serious, concerted effort to begin satisfying them.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.c	Applicant has made minimal effort to satisfy his delinquencies.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.d	Applicant attributed his failure to make an organized effort to resolve his debts to ongoing problems with his ex-wife.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	Claimed Other
1.e	Applicant did not list any of his debts in response to Question 38 and Question 39 of his security clearance application (SF 86).	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant disclosed a wage garnishment, a repossession, and two unpaid judgments, as required in response to other SF 86 questions.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Applicant's contention that he lacks the income to satisfy the delinquencies has limited probative value.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Other
1.h	Many of these debts have been delinquent for more than six years.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Many are small bills less than $150.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	Applicant has failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concern.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	Applicant's ongoing problems with his ex-wife contributed to his financial difficulties.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Other
1.l	Applicant has not made plans to pay the remaining debts, nor demonstrated the inclination to begin paying them.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.m–1.y	13 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (12 against, 1 for the applicant). (low confidence)	Mixed			—	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant's responses to questions regarding financial delinquencies did not constitute falsifications under criminal conduct laws. The ruling was in favor of the applicant for the criminal conduct allegation, indicating that there were no disqualifying criminal issues. However, the overall security clearance was denied based on financial considerations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
3.a	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Criminal Conduct	—	Unknown	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). 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; Criminal Conduct DIGEST: Between approximately 1998 and 2004, Applicant accrued $15,000 of delinquent bills. Nearly all remain outstanding, and he has yet to make a serious, concerted effort to begin satisfying them. Clearance is denied. CASENO: 06-17793.h1 DATE: 07/18/2007 DATE: July 18, 2007 In re: ------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 06-17793 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE MARC E. CURRY

APPEARANCES

FOR GOVERNMENT Richard A. Stevens, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se SYNOPSIS Between approximately 1998 and 2004, Applicant accrued $15,000 of delinquent bills. Nearly all remain outstanding, and he has yet to make a serious, concerted effort to begin satisfying them. Clearance is denied. The SOR is erroneously dated January 27, 2006. Department Counsel disclosed the mistake to Applicant. Also, Applicant confirmed that he received the revised guidelines (Tr. 4). Exhibit 3, Memo from Site Commander to Commanding General, Regarding Applicant’s Discharge, dated October 18, 1993. Exhibit A, Reference Letter, dated April 20, 2007.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On January 27, 2007, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) stating it was unable to find it clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance. This action was taken under Executive Order 10865, dated February 20, 1960, as amended, and DoD Directive 5220.6, dated January 2,1992, as amended and modified (Directive). Applicant answered it on February 27, 2007, and requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me on April 2, 2007. DOHA issued a Notice of Hearing on April 6, 2007 for April 26, 2007. The hearing was held as scheduled, and I received six government exhibits, one Applicant exhibits, and Applicant’s testimony. At the hearing’s conclusion, I left the record open through May 7, 2007 for Applicant to submit additional exhibits. That day, he submitted two additional exhibits. Department Counsel did not object to their admissibility. I admitted them as Applicant’s Exhibits B and C. DOHA received the transcript on May 14, 2007.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted all of the allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the SOR. They are incorporated as findings of fact. Applicant is a 38-year-old married man with two children, ages 16 and 14 from a prior marriage. He has a high school diploma, and has earned one year of college credits. He served in the U.S. Marines from 1988 to 1993. Because his performance in the Marines was unsatisfactory, he received a general discharge under honorable conditions.2 Since 1998, Applicant has worked in the contract mapping field. He has worked for the same employer since 1998. According to his employer’s facility security officer, he is “a trustworthy employee who can be counted on to uphold the rules and guidelines that come with holding a security clearance.”3 In the late 1990's, Applicant’s first marriage began deteriorating, resulting in a divorce in 2000. He has remained in protracted litigation with his ex-wife since thenover visitation and custody issues. Over the years, Applicant has spent more than $4,000 in attorney fees. Currently, he has physical custody of one of his children. Tr. 24. Tr. 25. Exhibit 2, Interrogatories, dated November 16, 2006. Tr. 26. Tr. 23. Answer at 2. Applicant remarried in 2001. In the fall of 2003, his wife injured herself, and was unable to work for seven months. Approximately five months later, Applicant was laid off for two months. They were dependent on both incomes to make ends meet. By June 2005, Applicant had accrued $15,000 in delinquent debt. He met with a Defense Security Service (DSS) agent in February 2006 to discuss, among other things, his financial delinquencies. Approximately nine months later, the government propounded interrogatories specifically listing each delinquency, and requesting him to provide proof of any efforts toward resolving them. At that time, his progress toward resolving them was minimal. Currently, the amount of Applicant’s delinquent debt remains unchanged. Of the 25 bills that he owes, 14 are for less than $150. With the exception of the delinquency listed in subparagraph 1.m, he has neither satisfied nor made plans to satisfy any of them. At the hearing, Applicant attributed his failure to make “an organized effort” to resolve his debts to ongoing problems with his ex-wife. He pays the creditors to whom he owes delinquent debts “when they get a hold of [him].”8 Applicant did not list any of his debts in response to Question 38 (Your Financial Delinquencies - 180 Days - In the last 7 years, have you been over 180 days delinquent on any debt?), and Question 39 (Your Financial Delinquencies - 90 days - Are you currently over 90 days past due on any debt(s)) of his security clearance application (SF 86). He thought he was only supposed to list any recurrent monthly bills that were delinquent. He disclosed a wage garnishment, a repossession, and two unpaid judgments, as required in response to other SF 86 questions. Also, in response to Question 43 (General Remarks Do you have any additional remarks to enter in your application?), he discussed his financial problems at length.

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive, sets forth adjudicative guidelines which must be considered in the evaluation of security suitability. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines are divided into those that may be considered in deciding whether to deny or revoke an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information (disqualifying conditions) and those that may be considered in deciding whether to grant an individual’s eligibility for access to classified information (mitigating conditions). These guidelines were revised on December 29, See generally, Directive, Sec. 2.3, Sec. 2.5.3, Sec. 3.2, and Sec. 4.2. 2005, and the revisions were implemented for all statement of reasons issued after September 1, 2006. Because the entire process is a scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept,” all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in making a meaningful decision. Specifically these are: (1) the nature and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances; (2) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (3) the age of the applicant; (4) the motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the consequences; (5) the absence or presence of rehabilitation; and (6) the probability that the circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future. The following adjudicative guidelines are raised: Guideline F - Financial Considerations: Failure or inability 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 information. Guideline E - Personal Conduct: Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. Guideline J - Criminal Conduct: Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules and regulations. Conditions pertaining to these adjudicative guidelines that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying, as well as those which could mitigate security concerns, are set forth and discussed in the conclusions below. Since the protection of national security is the paramount consideration, the final decision in each case must be reached by applying the standard that the issuance of the clearance is “clearly consistent with the national interest.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are based on the evidence contained in the record. The government is responsible for presenting evidence to establish facts in the SOR that have been controverted. The applicant is responsible for presenting evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by the government, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.

CONCLUSION

Financial Considerations Applicant’s longstanding financial difficulties trigger the application of Financial Considerations Disqualifying Condition (FC DC) 19 (a): inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts, FC DC c (a history of not meeting financial obligations), and FC DC 19 (e): consistent spending beyond one’s means, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-income ratio and other financial analysis. I have considered all of the mitigating conditions and conclude none apply. Applicant has been aware his delinquencies posed a security concern since meeting with a DSS agent in June 2005; however, he has made no plans to satisfy them. Applicant’s contention that he lacks the income to satisfy the delinquencies has limited probative value. Many of these debts have been delinquent for more than six years. Moreover, many are small bills less than $150. Applicant’s contention that circumstances beyond his control are responsible for his continued financial indebtedness has similarly limited probative value. The 2000 divorce, his current wife’s 2003 disability, and his 2004 unemployment substantially contributed to the accrual of his financial delinquencies. However, he has neither made plans to pay the remaining debts, nor demonstrated the inclination to begin paying them. Applicant has failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concern. Personal Conduct Applicant’s responses to Questions 38, and 39 of his 2005 SF 86 raise the issue of whether Personal Conduct Disqualifying Condition 16 (a): deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant 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. Applicant was fully forthcoming about his financial problems in response to other financial questions on the SF 86. He elaborated further about his troubled finances in the “general remarks” section of the SF 86. Under these circumstances, his contention that he did not intentionally omit financial information from Questions 38 and 39 was credible. PC DC 16 (a) does not apply, and there are no personal conduct security concerns. Criminal Conduct For the reasons set forth above, Applicant’s responses to Questions 38 and 39 do not constitute falsifications under 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Applicant has made minimal effort to satisfy his delinquencies. Under these circumstances the likelihood that his financial problems will continue remains unacceptably high. Evaluating these facts in the context of the whole person concept, I conclude he has not mitigated the security concern.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Paragraph 1 – Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.l: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.m: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.n -1.y: Against Applicant Paragraph 2 - Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraph2.a.: For Applicant Subparagraph 2.b: For Applicant Paragraph 3 - Guideline J: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraph 3.a: For 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 a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is denied. Marc E. Curry Administrative Judge