CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03771.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03771.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03771.h1

deniedJun 25, 2015· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old analyst employed by a defense contractor was denied retention of his security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to nearly $19,000 in delinquent debts. The Statement of Reasons cited several issues, including over $18,000 in delinquent government-guaranteed education loans, one of which had monthly payments of $84 starting in September 2014 and another due to exit forbearance. Additionally, two delinquent cable accounts remained unpaid.

The judge found that the applicant voluntarily incurred these debts and had not resolved them. The overwhelming majority of the outstanding amount stemmed from government-backed education loans. Disqualifying conditions F.1 and F.2 were raised, indicating a pattern of financial irresponsibility and an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate that his financial difficulties were beyond his control or that he had taken responsible action to address his debts. No mitigating conditions were met, leading to the conclusion that the applicant did not warrant continued access to classified information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has nearly $19,000 in delinquent debt that he voluntarily incurred and has yet to resolve.
The overwhelming majority of the delinquent debt is for government-backed education loans.
Applicant did not demonstrate that his financial difficulties were beyond his control or that he acted responsibly in addressing his debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.2raisedA 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 issuedAug 15, 2014
Answer filed—
Hearing heldJan 22, 2015
Decision dateJun 25, 2015

Cite For

Failure to Demonstrate Responsible Action Towards Resolving Debts Under Guideline F
Inability to Meet Mitigating Conditions for Financial Considerations
Significant Delinquent Debts as a Basis for Denial of Security Clearance

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 nearly $19,000 in delinquent debts, primarily consisting of government-backed education loans and unpaid cable bills. The applicant's financial difficulties were deemed recent and ongoing, with insufficient evidence of responsible action taken to resolve the debts, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Delinquent education loans totaling over $18,000 guaranteed by the Government. $18,000	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Delinquent education loan account with monthly payments of $84 started in September 2014.	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Delinquent education loan due to come out of forbearance soon.	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Two delinquent cable accounts that have not been paid.	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: ) ) XXXXXX, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx ) ISCR Case No. 14-03771 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

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

06/25/2015 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:

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

On 15 August 2014, 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 5 December 2014, and I convened a hearing 22 January 2015. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 30 January 2015.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted the SOR allegations. He is a 42-year-old Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act analyst employed by a defense contractor since May 2013. He seeks to retain the clearance issued to him in approximately 2002. He requires the clearance for access to the building where he works (Tr. 48).

The SOR alleges, Government exhibits (GE 2-4) establish, and Applicant admits, four delinquent debts totaling nearly $19,000. Over $18,000 of the debt consists of delinquent education loans guaranteed by the Government. The remaining debt is for two delinquent cable accounts. Applicant began making $84 monthly payments on the education loan at SOR 1.bin September 2014, and has made required payments of $420 through December 2014 (AE A). The education loan at SOR 1.cis due to come out of forbearance soon (Tr 44). The cable bills have not been paid (Tr. 63), although Applicant has had some difficulty locating the proper creditor.

Applicant attributed his delinquent debts, particularly his education loans, to putting his child support obligations ahead of his education loans (Tr. 43), and to periods of unemployment and underemployment he experienced before he obtained his current job. However, he has had no child support obligation since 2012 (Tr. 47), and his periods of unemployment/underemployment have not been clearly identified (Tr 49- 50).

Applicant provided no work or character references or evidence of community and civic contributions. He has received no credit or financial counseling (Tr. 64).

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.4

ANALYSIS

The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has nearly $19,000 in delinquent debt that he voluntarily incurred and has yet to resolve. Moreover, the overwhelming majority of the delinquent debt is for Government-backed education loans he incurred to further his education. He has only recently begun to make any progress on these debts, after receiving the SOR.

In addition, Applicant meets none of the mitigating conditions for financial considerations. His financial difficulties are recent, not infrequent, and ongoing. The circumstances that he cites as the cause of his indebtedness have not been demonstrated to be beyond his control, as he has not detailed his unemployment/unemployment and his child care obligation ended in 2012. He cannot be considered to have acted responsibly in addressing his debts under the circumstances, because he took no action to resolve his debts until he received the SOR. Further, his recent start of a repayment plan on one of his education loans have not continued long enough to consider them a good-faith effort to resolve his debts.

The concern with Applicant is that while he now promises to address his delinquent debts, he has made little progress in that direction. The Government is not the collection agent of last resort. The Government expects applicants to deal with their delinquent debts because of their legal and moral obligation to do so, not because they face the risk of adverse administrative action. He has not received credit or financial counseling. He certainly has not demonstrated that these delinquent debts are being resolved in an expeditious manner. Further, he provided no favorable character and work references to establish a “whole-person” analysis supporting a favorable clearance action. Accordingly, I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs a-d: 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

Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government exhibits (GE) 1-4, hearing exhibits (HE) I-III, and Applicant exhibit (AE) A. AE A was timely received post-hearing.

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. Applicant’s clearance had been erroneously reinstated based on his earlier investigation (HE I-III). Accordingly, Applicant had not thought it necessary to bring any documentation to the hearing regarding the status of his debts (Tr. 24-40). Consequently, I left the record open to give Applicant the opportunity to submit AE A (Tr. 70-73). 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;