ISCR Case No. 14-03442.h1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXX ) ISCR Case No. 14-03442 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Greg A. Cervi, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

07/31/2015 __________

__________

TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed to mitigate security concerns regarding Guideline F (financial considerations). Clearance is denied.

Statement of the Case

On April 24, 2013, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86). On October 10, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended; and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became effective on September 1, 2006.

The SOR alleged security concerns under Guideline F. The SOR detailed reasons why DOD CAF was unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to continue a security clearance for Applicant, and referred his case to an administrative judge for a determination whether his clearance should be granted or denied.

Applicant answered the SOR on October 31, 2014, and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM), dated April 20, 2015, was provided to him by letter dated March 11, 2015. Applicant received the FORM on June 11, 2015. He was afforded a period of 30 days to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant did not submit any information within the 30-day time period after receipt of the FORM. On July 31, 2015, the case was assigned to me.

In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the SOR allegations with explanations. Applicant’s answer and explanations are incorporated in my findings of fact.

Background Information1

Applicant is a 44-year-old maintenance technician employed by a defense contractor since March 2013. He seeks a security clearance as a requirement of his employment.

Applicant was awarded an associate’s degree in September 2000. He served in the U.S. Army from June 1990 to May 1995, and was honorably discharged. Applicant was previously married from August 1991 to February 1993, and that marriage ended by divorce. He remarried in July 1994 and has two children from this marriage ages 18 and 20. Applicant stated in his SOR answer that he was going through a difficult divorce, but did not provide details regarding the extent to which his divorce was financially impacting him. (Item 2)

Financial Considerations

There is substantial evidence to support the SOR allegations that Applicant has a history of financial problems. In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted to having two delinquent debts totaling $25,931, and having been granted a Chapter 13 bankruptcy discharge in September 2013. He additionally stated that as of April 2014, he owes the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) approximately $19,000 and “sent a payment schedule to the IRS along with forfeiture of returns until the debt is paid.” (Item 2) The debts consist of the following: (1) a $13,953 collection account for a student loan; and (2) a $11,987 collection account for a student loan. Applicant also stated in his SOR answer, “I will also be setting up payments to satisfy my debts with [student loan companies] in a similar manner.” Along with his admissions, the delinquent accounts are established by a May 2013 credit report. (Item 4) The two delinquent accounts alleged in the SOR and the non-alleged IRS debt are unresolved, as Applicant has not provided any documentation showing they are paid, settled, in a payment plan, cancelled, forgiven, or otherwise resolved.

Applicant’s FORM repeated the admonition about the absence of corroborating documentation and other mitigating information and explained that Applicant had 30 days from the receipt of the FORM “in which to submit a documentary response setting forth objections, rebuttal, extenuation, mitigation, or explanation, as appropriate. If you do not file any objections or submit any additional information . . . your case will be assigned to an Administrative Judge for a determination based solely” on the evidence set forth in this FORM. (FORM at 2) Applicant did not respond to the FORM.

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security emphasizing, “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.

Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable.

The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. See also Executive Order 12968 (Aug. 2, 1995), § 3.1. Thus, nothing in this Decision should be construed to suggest that I have based this decision, in whole or in part, on any express or implied determination about applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism. It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996).

Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue her security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b).

Financial Considerations

AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concern for financial problems:

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.

AG ¶ 19 provides two disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;” and “(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.” In ISCR Case No. 08-12184 at 7 (App. Bd. Jan. 7, 2010), the Appeal Board explained:

It is well-settled that adverse information from a credit report can normally meet the substantial evidence standard and the government’s obligations under [Directive] ¶ E3.1.14 for pertinent allegations. At that point, the burden shifts to applicant to establish either that [he or] she is not responsible for the debt or that matters in mitigation apply.

(internal citation omitted). Applicant’s history of delinquent debt is documented in his credit report and SOR response. The Government established the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c), requiring additional inquiry about the possible applicability of mitigating conditions.

Five mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:

(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;

(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;2 and

(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue.

The Appeal Board concisely explained Applicant’s responsibility for proving the applicability of mitigating conditions as follows:

Once a concern arises regarding an Applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or maintenance of a security clearance. See Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F. 2d 1399, 1401 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991). After the Government presents evidence raising security concerns, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut or mitigate those concerns. See Directive ¶ E3.1.15. The standard applicable in security clearance decisions is that articulated in Egan, supra. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the national security.” Directive, Enclosure 2 ¶ 2(b).

ISCR Case No. 10-04641 at 4 (App. Bd. Sept. 24, 2013).

Applicant’s conduct in resolving his delinquent debt does not warrant full application of any mitigating conditions to all of his SOR debts. He did not provide sufficient information about his finances to establish his inability to make greater progress paying his creditors. A divorce is generally an emotionally and financially draining experience; however, he did not provide sufficient detail regarding his divorce or how he acted responsibly under the circumstances.

Applicant did not provide documentation showing his income and expenses, and he did not provide a budget. He did not provide any of the following documentation relating to the SOR creditors: (1) proof of payments, such as checking account statements, photocopies of checks, or a letter from the creditor proving that he paid or made any payments to the creditor; (2) correspondence to or from the creditor to establish maintenance of contact with the creditor;3 (3) a credible debt dispute; (4) attempts to negotiate payment plans, such as settlement offers or agreements to show that he was attempting to resolve these SOR debts; (5) evidence of financial counseling; or (6) other evidence of progress or resolution of his SOR debts.

Applicant’s failure to prove that he has made more substantial steps to resolve his debts shows a lack of judgment and responsibility that weighs against approval of his security clearance. There is insufficient evidence that he was unable to make greater progress resolving his delinquent debts, or that his financial problems are being resolved, are under control, and will not recur in the future. Under all the circumstances, he failed to establish that financial consideration concerns are mitigated.

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. The administrative judge should 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.

Under AG ¶ 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. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) were addressed under Guideline F, but some warrant additional comment.

There is some evidence supporting approval of Applicant’s clearance. Applicant honorably served in the Army and has worked for a defense contractor since March 2013. Applicant stated that he is going through a divorce, but as noted above there are few details surrounding that divorce.

The financial evidence against approval of Applicant’s clearance is more substantial at this time. Applicant has a history of financial problems. His SOR alleges two collection accounts totaling $25,932 and per his SOR answer, he owes an additional $19,000 to the IRS. He failed to provide sufficient documentation of progress to resolve his financial problems. His failure to provide more corroborating documentation shows lack of financial responsibility and judgment and raises unmitigated questions about Applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. See AG ¶ 18. More information about inability to pay debts or documented financial progress is necessary to mitigate security concerns.

It is well settled that once a concern arises regarding an applicant’s security clearance eligibility, there is a strong presumption against the grant or renewal of a security clearance. See Dorfmont, 913 F. 2d at 1401. Unmitigated financial considerations concerns lead me to conclude that grant of a security clearance to Applicant is not warranted at this time. This decision should not be construed as a determination that Applicant cannot or will not attain the state of reform necessary to justify the award of a security clearance in the future. With more effort towards documented resolution of his past-due debts, and a track record of behavior consistent with his obligations, he may well be able to demonstrate persuasive evidence of his security clearance worthiness. Based on the facts before me and the adjudicative guidelines that I am required to apply, I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant security clearance eligibility at this time.

One additional comment is worthy of note. Applicant’s loyalty and patriotism are not at issue in these proceedings. Section 7 of the Executive Order 10865 specifically provides that industrial security 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.” Security clearance decisions cover many characteristics of an applicant other than loyalty and patriotism. Nothing in this decision should be considered to suggest that I have based this decision, in whole or in part, on any express or implied decision as to an applicant’s loyalty or patriotism.

I have carefully applied the law, as set forth in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), Exec. Or. 10865, the Directive, and the AGs, to the facts and circumstances in the context of the whole person. Financial considerations concerns are not mitigated.

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.c: 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.

_________________________ Robert J. Tuider Administrative Judge

1 Unless otherwise stated, Applicant’s April 24, 2013 SF 86, (Item 3), is the source for facts in this section and is the most current information available. 2The Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts:

In order to qualify for application of [the good-faith mitigating condition], an applicant must present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or some other good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does not define the term “good-faith.” However, the Board has indicated that the concept of good- faith “requires a showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.” Accordingly, an applicant must do more than merely show that he or she relied on a legally available option (such as bankruptcy) in order to claim the benefit of [the good-faith mitigating condition].

(internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004) (quoting ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)). 3“Even if Applicant’s financial difficulties initially arose, in whole or in part, due to circumstances outside his [or her] control, the Judge could still consider whether Applicant has since acted in a reasonable manner when dealing with those financial difficulties.” ISCR Case No. 05-11366 at 4 n.9 (App. Bd. Jan. 12, 2007) (citing ISCR Case No. 99-0462 at 4 (App. Bd. May 25, 2000); ISCR Case No. 99-0012 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 1999); ISCR Case No. 03-13096 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2005)). A component is whether he or she maintained contact with creditors and attempted to negotiate partial payments to keep debts current.