ISCR Case No. 14-03096.h1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03096 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Tovah A. Minster, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

July 6, 2015

______________

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on April 10, 2013. On September 2, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for Applicant. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), effective within the Department of Defense after September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR in writing (Answer) on October 14, 2014, and requested an Administrative Determination by an administrative judge. Department Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on January 9, 2015. Applicant did not respond to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on June 10, 2015. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in Paragraphs 1.a.,~1.d., and 1.l. of the SOR, with explanations. He denied the factual allegations in Paragraphs 1.e.~1.k., and 1.m.~1.q. of the SOR.

Applicant is a 37 year old “Federal Contractor.” (Item 4 at pages 5 and 10.) In his Answer, he alludes to “a time of financial hardship” apparently linked to an unspecified period of unemployment.

1.a. and 1.d. Applicant admits he is indebted to Creditor A for past-due student loans totaling about $20,995. He avers, “I will be able to make monthly arrangements upon return to work.” (Answer at page 1.) As Applicant has submitted nothing further in this regard, for example what “arrangements” he has made, this allegation is found against Applicant.

1.b. Applicant admits he is indebted to Creditor B for a past-due “car loan” of about $14,165. He avers he “was under the impression this was included” in a prior “bankruptcy . . . .” (Answer at page 1.) As Applicant has submitted nothing further in this regard, for example the bankruptcy documentation, this allegation is found against Applicant.

1.c. Applicant admits he is indebted to Creditor C for a past-due debt of about $8,822. As he has submitted nothing further in this regard, this allegation is found against Applicant.

1.e. Applicant admits he is indebted to Creditor E for a past-due debt of about $3,614. He avers “I can make monthly arrangements upon my return to work.” (Answer at page 1.) As Applicant has submitted nothing further in this regard, for example what arrangements he has made, this allegation is found against Applicant.

1.f. Applicant disputes the alleged past-due debt to Creditor F in the amount of about $450. As it appears on the Government’s most recent May 2014 credit report (CR), this allegation is found against Applicant. (Item 5 at page 2.)

1.g. Applicant also disputes the alleged past-due debt to Creditor G in the amount of about $435. As it appears on the Government’s most recent May 2014 credit report (CR), this allegation is found against Applicant. (Item 5 at page 2.)

1.h. Applicant avers that he neither admits nor denies the alleged past-due debt to Creditor H, which I take as a denial, in the amount of about $430. As it appears on the Government’s most recent May 2014 credit report (CR), this allegation is found against Applicant. (Item 5 at page 2.)

1.i.~1.k. and 1.p. Applicant again avers that he neither admits nor denies the alleged past-due debts to Creditor I, which I take as a denial, in an amount totaling about $265. As they appear on the Government’s most recent May 2014 credit report (CR), these allegations are found against Applicant. (Item 5 at page 2.) 1.l. Applicant admits he is indebted to Creditor L for a past-due debt of about $250. He avers “I will resolve upon return to work.” (Answer at page 2.) As Applicant has submitted nothing further in this regard, for example what arrangements he has made, this allegation is found against Applicant.

1.m.~1.o. Applicant “disputes” the alleged past-due debts to Creditor M, which I take as a denial, in an amount totaling about $335. As they appear on the Government’s May 2013 credit report (CR); and he has submitted nothing further in this regard, these allegations are found against Applicant. (Item 6 at page 13.)

1.q. Applicant denies the alleged past-due debt to Creditor Q in the amount of about $49, averring it “has been paid.” As it appears on the Government’s May 2013 credit report (CR); and he has submitted nothing further in this regard, this allegation is found against Applicant. (Item 6 at page 13.)

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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. (AG Paragraph 2.) The administrative judge’s over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. According to AG Paragraph 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 Paragraph 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.

Under Directive Paragraph E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive Paragraph 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 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 the Applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.

Section 7 of Executive Order 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

The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set out in AG Paragraph 18:

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. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.

The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise security concerns. Applicant has significant past-due debts, which he has not yet resolved. I can find no countervailing Mitigating Condition that is applicable here.

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. Under AG Paragraph 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 guidelines and the whole-person concept.

The Administrative Judge should also consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG Paragraph 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.

I considered all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions surrounding this case. The record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to his eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. Applicant has failed to respond to the Government’s FORM; and as such, has failed to fully address the alleged past-due debts. For this reason, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the whole-person concept arising from his 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

Subparagraph 1.a. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.e. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.f. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.g. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.h. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.i. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.j. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.k. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.l. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.m. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.n. Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.o. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.p. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.q. 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.

Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge