CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-01915.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-01915.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-01915.h1

deniedSep 19, 2016· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old marine technician was denied a security clearance under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct) and F (Financial Considerations) due to significant financial delinquencies and a pattern of personal conduct issues. The applicant was found to have willfully falsified information on his security questionnaire regarding judgments in favor of two creditors and other outstanding debts.

Further personal conduct concerns included his termination from a job in November 2011 for safety violations, non-judicial punishment for fighting in June 2008, and a pattern of 11 motor vehicle code convictions between May 2005 and March 2014. Regarding financial matters, the applicant admitted to a past-due debt of about $271 to one creditor, while denying debts of approximately $1,557 and $300 to two other creditors.

The judge determined that the applicant failed to demonstrate a good-faith effort to resolve his debts and exhibited a lack of candor in his security questionnaire responses, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has significant past-due debts that he has yet to address.
The applicant was found to have willfully falsified information on his security questionnaire.
The applicant has a pattern of dishonesty and rule violations, including multiple motor vehicle convictions.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.19.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.19.craisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E.16.aappliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
E.16.d(3)appliedA Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 15, 2014
Answer filedFeb 28, 2015
Hearing held—Applicant represented himself (pro se) and did not respond to the FORM.
Decision dateSep 19, 2016

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Denial Due to Willful Falsification of Information Under Guideline E
Consideration of a Pattern of Dishonesty and Rule Violations 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 against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, citing willful falsification and a pattern of dishonesty. The applicant's personal conduct raised significant concerns regarding reliability and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant admits that in answer to “Section 26 - Financial Record Delinquency Involving Enforcement,” he was less than candid with the Government as to judgments in favor of Creditors A and B. I find this to be a wilful falsification.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.b	Applicant admits that in answer to “Section 26 - Financial Record Delinquency Involving Routine Accounts,” he was less than candid with the Government as to any outstanding debts. I also find this to be a wilful falsification.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—
2.c	Applicant admits that in November of 2011, he was fired from his job for safety violations.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.d	Applicant admits that in June of 2008, he received non-judicial punishment for “fighting.”	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Admitted	—	—	—
2.e	Applicant admits to a pattern of law and rule violations from about May of 2005 to about March of 2014, as evidenced by 11 motor vehicle code related convictions.	Against Applicant	Pattern of Dishonesty or Rule Violations	—	Admitted	(d) pattern of dishonesty, rule violations, or other untrustworthy behavior	—	—

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 multiple financial concerns against the applicant, including significant past-due debts and a lack of documented efforts to resolve them. However, two specific debts were found for the applicant due to their absence on the most recent credit report, leading to a mixed outcome on the financial allegations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.e	Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor E for a past-due debt of about $1,557. $1,557	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.j	Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor J for a past-due debt of about $300. $300	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.k	Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor K for a past-due debt of about $271. $271	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

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. 14-01915 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

September 19, 2016

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on October 31, 2013. On October 15, 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guidelines F and E 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 acknowledged receipt of the SOR on October 24, 2014. He answered the SOR in writing on February 28, 2015, and requested an Administrative Determination by an administrative judge. Department Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on April 28, 2015. Applicant did not respond to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on April 26, 2016. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in Paragraphs 1.a.~1.d., 1.f.~1.i., 1.k., 1.l., and 2.a.~2.e. of the SOR, with explanations. He denied the factual allegations in Paragraphs 1.e. and 1.j. of the SOR.

Applicant is a 32-year-old “Marine technician,” who works for a “sailing center.” (Item 5 at pages 5 and 11.)

Guideline F - Financial Considerations

1.a. and 1.c. Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor A for two past-due debts totaling about $15,347. He avers that he is “in the process of settling these debts,” but has offered nothing further in this regard. These allegations are found against Applicant.

1.b. and 1.f. Applicant avers that these are one and the same debt, and admits that he is indebted to Creditor B for a past-due debt totaling from about $765 to about $2,184. He further avers that he “called and set up a payment plan,” but has offered nothing further in this regard. These allegations are found against Applicant.

1.d. Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor D for a past-due debt of about $2,504. He avers that he is “in the process of settling this debt,” but has offered nothing further in this regard. This allegation is found against Applicant.

1.e. Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor E for a past-due debt of about $1,557. He avers that he “had an allotment setup . . . [and it] should have been paid off.” As this alleged debt does not appear on the Government’s most recent, April 2015, credit report, this allegation is found for Applicant.

1.g. Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor G for a past-due debt of about $722. He avers that he “lost” his employment, “called them and had set something back up with them,” but has offered nothing further in this regard. This allegation is found against Applicant.

1.h. and 1.i. Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor H for two past-due debts totaling about $871. He avers that he “called and reset up payments,” but has offered nothing further in this regard. These allegations are found against Applicant.

1.j. Applicant denies that he is indebted to Creditor J for a past-due debt of about $300. He denies any knowledge of this debt. As this alleged debt does not appear on the Government’s most recent, April 2015, credit report, this allegation is found for Applicant.

1.k. Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor K for a past-due debt of about $271. He avers that he “set something up through the Collection Agency,” but has offered nothing further in this regard. This allegation is found against Applicant. 1.l. Applicant admits that he is indebted on delinquent fines and court costs as the result of convictions in about August of 2012, and in about July of 2013. This allegation is found against Applicant.

Guideline E - Personal Conduct

2.a. Applicant admits that in answer to “Section 26 - Financial Record Delinquency Involving Enforcement,” he was less than candid with the Government as to judgments in favor of Creditors A and B. I find this to be a wilful falsification.

2.b. Applicant admits that in answer to “Section 26 - Financial Record Delinquency Involving Routine Accounts,” he was less than candid with the Government as to any outstanding debts. I also find this to be a wilful falsification.

2.c. Applicant admits that in November of 2011, he was fired from his job for safety violations.

2.d. Applicant admits that in June of 2008, he received non-judicial punishment for “fighting.”

2.e. Applicant admits to a pattern of law and rule violations from about May of 2005 to about March of 2014, as evidenced by 11 motor vehicle code related convictions.

POLICIES

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. 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. 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. 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 that he has yet to address. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions, requiring a closer examination.

The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties. Subparagraph 20(d) applies where the evidence shows “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.@ Applicant has failed to submit any documentation showing that he has made a good-faith effort to address the vast majority of his significant past- due debts. I can find no countervailing Mitigating Condition that is applicable here. Financial Considerations are found against the Applicant.

Guideline E - Personal Conduct

The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in Paragraph 15: “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.”

The following Disqualifying Condition under Subparagraph 16(a) applies. It provides that the “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire . . . or similar form used to conduct investigations . . .” may be disqualifying. I can find no countervailing Mitigating Condition here, as the Applicant could have easily answered his e-QIP honestly, which he certified as “true, complete, and correct.” Under Subparagraph 16(d)(3) there is also “a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations,” as evidenced by 11 motor vehicle code related convictions, his being fired from his job, and by non-judicial punishment. Personal Conduct is found against the Applicant.

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 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 Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his Financial Considerations, and Personal Conduct.

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: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a.~1.d. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.e. For Applicant

Subparagraphs 1.f.~1.i. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.j. For Applicant

Subparagraphs 1.k. and 1.l. Against Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 2.a.~2.e. Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

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