CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-10172.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-10172.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-10172.h1

deniedAug 29, 2016· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 27-year-old systems administrator, employed as a defense contractor, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant unresolved financial issues. The applicant faced allegations concerning 13 delinquent debts totaling over $10,000, which he admitted.

The denial was based on several factors. The applicant had 13 delinquent debts exceeding $10,000, with no evidence of resolution or repayment efforts. Furthermore, he had not contacted his creditors for several years and failed to provide corroboration for his claims of disputing these debts.

The judge concluded that the applicant demonstrated a lack of responsibility in managing his financial issues, noting he had not received financial counseling or provided a budget. These factors led to the determination that granting a clearance was not consistent with national interest.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has 13 delinquent debts totaling over $10,000, with no evidence of resolution or repayment efforts.
He has not had any contact with creditors for several years and provided no corroboration for claims of disputing debts.
The applicant has not received financial counseling or provided a budget, indicating a lack of responsibility in managing his financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19 (a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19 (c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the required judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 26, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing heldSep 30, 2015
Decision dateAug 29, 2016

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Lack of Evidence for Disputing Debts
Insufficient Demonstration of Financial 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 F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had multiple delinquent debts totaling over $10,000, which he failed to address adequately. Despite admitting to some debts, the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of efforts to resolve these financial issues, leading to a denial of his security clearance under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admitted SOR allegations 1.a, 1.b, and 1.i.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant admitted SOR allegations 1.a, 1.b, and 1.i.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c–1.h	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—
1.i	Applicant admitted SOR allegations 1.a, 1.b, and 1.i.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j–1.m	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	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

APPEARANCES

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ) ISCR Case No. 12-10172 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Rhett E. Petcher, Esquire, Department Counsel David F. Hayes, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro Se

08/29/2016 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:

Based on the record in this case, I deny Applicant’s clearance.

On 26 January 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a hearing before the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). DOHA assigned the case to me 18 August 2015, and I convened a hearing 30 September 2015. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 8 October 2015.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted SOR allegations 1.a, 1.b, and 1.i. He denied the remaining allegations. He is a 27-year-old systems administrator employed as a defense contractor since May 2012. He has not previously held a clearance. Since leaving college full time in August 2007, Applicant has been employed in a series of low-paying jobs interspersed with three brief periods of unemployment, most recently July-August 2011. He has never married and has no children.

The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits (GE 2-4) establish, 13 delinquent debts totaling over $10,000. Applicant admits three debts totaling $6,000. He claimed, without corroboration, to have settled SOR debt 1.i. He reported SOR debt 1.a on his May 2012 clearance application (GE 1). He claimed then to be working on a lump-sum settlement, but the account remains unresolved.

Applicant traces his financial problems to his college days between August 2005 and December 2008, when he took advantage of several credit card offers targeted at college students. When he stopped attending college full time, the jobs he held did not provide enough income to remain current on his consumer debt.

Applicant asserts that he has bases to dispute most of the debts which he denied. However, he did not document those disputes in writing; nor did he formally dispute the accounts with the credit bureaus. He claimed, without corroboration, to have received a settlement offer on SOR debt 1.d, but had not taken advantage of the offer. He has not had any recent discussions with the creditors at SOR debts 1.a and 1.babout repayment plans or settlements.

Applicant has not had any credit or financial counseling. He provided no current budget. Applicant has not been in contact with any of his creditors recently. He provided no work or character references, and provided no evidence of community involvement.

POLICIES

The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors to evaluate a person’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented. Each decision must also show a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). The applicability of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific guidelines should be followed when a case can be measured against them, as they are policy guidance governing the grant or denial of a clearance. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government must prove, by substantial evidence, disputed facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.

Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the required judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels deciding any reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.3

ANALYSIS

The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has delinquent debt dating back several years that he has not addressed.4

The mitigating factors for financial considerations provide little help to Applicant. His financial difficulties are recent and not infrequent, and the stated cause cannot be considered unlikely to recur because much of the debt dates back to August 2007, when Applicant left college. Applicant’s unemployment and underemployment between 2007 and May 2012 may be considered circumstances beyond his control, but even if they could be so considered, Applicant has not been responsible in dealing with his debts. He has had no contact with any of his creditors for several years. He provided no corroboration of any claimed payments or bases for disputing his debts. He has taken no action to address the debts that he admits are his.7

In addition, Applicant has received no credit or financial counseling. He has no budget. Consequently, it is clear that the problem is not being resolved. Moreover, Applicant has not even credibly stated his intent to resolve his delinquent debt and avoid financial problems in the future. Further, Applicant provided insufficient evidence to reasonably support a “whole person” analysis in favor of granting his clearance. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs a-m: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

Under 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 denied.

JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

The record consists of the transcript (Tr.) and Government exhibits (GE) 1-4. DoD acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DoD on 1 September 2006. See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). ¶19 (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; ¶ 20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur . . . ; ¶ 20 (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; ¶ 20 (d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; ¶ 20 (c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;