CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03929.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03929.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03929.h1

deniedAug 13, 2015· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old married man with one child was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from significant delinquent debts totaling $31,760, which raised security concerns under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 19(a) and 19(c).

The applicant failed to provide documentation to support his claims of establishing payment plans for these delinquent debts. Additionally, he did not submit evidence to substantiate his dispute of a specific debt listed in subparagraph 1.d.

Ultimately, the applicant's excessive delinquent debts were not mitigated by any evidence of responsible financial behavior, leading to the conclusion that he did not demonstrate the necessary financial responsibility for a security clearance. The clearance was therefore denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to provide documentation supporting his claims of satisfying delinquent debts through payment plans.
The applicant did not submit evidence to support his dispute of the debt listed in subparagraph 1.d.
The applicant's excessive delinquent debts raised security concerns that were not mitigated by any evidence of responsible financial behavior.

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 protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 8, 2014
Answer filedNov 18, 2014
Hearing held—Applicant represented himself.
Decision dateAug 13, 2015

Cite For

Failure to Provide Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Importance of Documentation in Mitigating Financial Concerns
Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Evaluations

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 incurred approximately $31,760 of delinquent debt, which raised significant financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant's failure to provide supporting documentation for his claims of payment plans and his inability to dispute the debts led to a decision against him.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a–1.k	11 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	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: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 14-03929 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Caroline E. Heintzelman, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

08/13/2015 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:

Appellant failed to provide documentation supporting his contention that he was satisfying his delinquent debts through payment plans. Clearance is denied.

Statement of the Case

On November 8, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. 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) implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006.

On November 18, 2014, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting subparagraph 1.cand denying the remainder. On February 26, 2015, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) consisting of documents supporting the Government’s allegations. Applicant received the FORM on April 6, 2015, and was informed that he had until May 6, 2015 to submit a response. Applicant did not submit one, whereupon the case was assigned to me on May 21, 2015.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 38-year-old married man with one child. He has been married since 2003 and has been a homeowner since 2004. (Item 2 at 7, 14) He is a high school graduate and is currently working towards a bachelor’s degree. (Item 1 at 9; Item 3 at 5) He has been working for a defense contractor since 2001. His current position is in the field of production control. (Item 1 at 10)

Appellant has 11 past-due debts totalling $31,760. (Item 5) He admits subparagraph 1.c, but provided no information about any payment plan. He denies subparagraph 1.don the basis that it is not his debt, and he denies the remainder of the debts on the basis that he has contacted the creditors and is now paying them on time. These contentions are not supported by any documentary evidence.

POLICIES

The adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. According to AG ¶ 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. AG ¶ 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ 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 for obtaining a favorable security decision.

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

Under this guideline, “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.” (AG ¶ 18) Applicant has incurred approximately $31,760 of delinquent debt. AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” apply.

The following mitigating conditions 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; 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.

Appellant failed to provide documentary evidence supporting his contention that he has developed payment plans for any of his delinquent debts. He provided no evidence supporting the basis of his dispute of the debt listed in subparagraph 1.d. Under these circumstances, none of the mitigating conditions apply.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows:

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. The length of time that Appellant has been married, held the same job, and owned a home is indicative of a stable, secure life. He also deserves credit for trying to improve his career opportunities by attending college. However, these positive facts are not sufficient to overcome the security risk generated by his excessive delinquent debts, absent supporting documentation that he is taking steps to satisfy them.

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.k: 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.

MARC E. CURRY Administrative Judge