CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-04201.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-04201.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-04201.h1

grantedApr 28, 2010· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a former Navy Seal whose security clearance eligibility was initially questioned under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to alleged financial issues. The Statement of Reasons cited a past due debt of approximately $3,142 and an outstanding judgment of about $25,000.

However, the judge determined that these financial concerns were successfully mitigated. The applicant provided compelling evidence that he was a victim of identity theft during his deployment in Iraq, and that the alleged debts were not his responsibility. He successfully disputed these debts, demonstrating they were not incurred by him.

Further supporting the applicant's case, colleagues provided strong endorsements regarding his reliability and trustworthiness. Applying mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(c), the judge concluded that the security concerns were resolved. Consequently, the applicant was granted eligibility for a security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant was a victim of identity theft, which accounted for the alleged debts.
The applicant successfully disputed the debts, demonstrating they were not his responsibility.
The applicant received strong support from colleagues regarding his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedMitigating Condition 20(a)The applicant was a victim of identity theft, which mitigated the financial concerns.
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedMitigating Condition 20(c)The applicant provided evidence that disputed the debts attributed to him.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 3, 2009
Answer filedSep 20, 2009
Hearing heldMar 31, 2010
Decision dateApr 28, 2010

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Concerns Due to Identity Theft Under Guideline F
Importance of Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Decisions
Consideration of Support From Colleagues in Evaluating Trustworthiness

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: granted

The judge found that the Applicant's financial concerns were mitigated due to identity theft, which resulted in debts that were not the Applicant's. The debts were either removed or in the process of being removed from his credit reports, leading to a decision in favor of the Applicant regarding financial considerations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant allegedly incurred a past due debt in the amount of about $3,142 $3,142	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.b	an outstanding judgment in the amount of about $25,000 $25,000	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—

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: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 09-04201 SSN: ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Jeff A. Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Alan V. Edmunds, Esquire

April 28, 2010

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

The Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), on December 10, 2008. On September 3, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for the 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) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.

The Applicant acknowledged receipt of the SOR soon thereafter. He answered the SOR in writing on September 20, 2009, and again through counsel on December 31, 2009, requesting a hearing before an Administrative Judge. DOHA received the request soon thereafter, and this case was assigned to another Judge on January 22, 2010. I received the case reassignment on March 1, 2010. DOHA issued a notice of hearing that same day, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on March 31, 2010. The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 9, which were received without objection. The Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits (AppXs) A through S, which were received without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on April 6, 2010. I granted the Applicant’s request to keep the record open until April 7, 2010, to submit additional matters. On April 7, 2010, he submitted Exhibits T through DD, which were received without objection. The record closed on April 7, 2010. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his Answer to the SOR, the Applicant denied the factual allegations of both Subparagraphs of the SOR. He also provided additional information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance.

Financial Considerations

1.a. and 1.b. The Applicant is a former Navy Seal. (TR at page 26 line 15 to page 27 line 17.) During a recent deployment to Iraq in 2008, the Applicant allegedly incurred a past due debt in the amount of about $3,142, and an outstanding judgment in the amount of about $25,000. (TR at page 39 line 20 to page 40 line 6.) The Applicant was the victim of an identity theft during his deployment, and has submitted documentation in support of his testimony. (TR at page 30 line 19 to page 32 line 20, at page 43 line 18 to page 35 line 7, at page 36 lines 12–20, and AppXs H, and K~N). He has successfully disputed these as not being his debts; and as such, they have either been removed or are in the process of being removed from his more recent credit reports (CRs), as evidenced by those CRs. (GX 9, and AppXs Q~S.) I find that these are not the Applicant’s debts.

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the revised 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. The administrative judge’s over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and commonsense decision. According to 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. Paragraph 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified 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 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).

ANALYSIS

Guideline F - Financial Considerations

The security concern relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set out in 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. None of them are applicable here, as the Applicant was not past due on any of his debts. Rather, he was the subject of identity theft during a recent deployment to Iraq.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

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 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. Here, he has the unqualified support of colleagues who have worked with the Applicant, both on and off of active duty. (AppXs A~F.)

The Administrative Judge should also 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.

I considered all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions surrounding this case. Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his financial considerations.

FORMAL FINDINGS

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: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge