CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01149.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01149.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01149.h1

grantedAug 5, 2016· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old Financial Audit Support Analyst was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons cited several financial issues, including a disputed debt of $21,577 owed to Creditor A, on which the applicant has made $100 monthly payments since September 2015. Additionally, the applicant was indebted to Creditor B for $1,414, delinquent since 2013, and has been making $75 monthly payments. Two other past-due debts to Creditor B were also alleged.

The judge applied Disqualifying Conditions F.19.a and F.19.c, but ultimately found that Mitigating Condition F.20.d applied. The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve his financial obligations. Specifically, two of the alleged debts to Creditor B were successfully disputed and subsequently removed from his credit reports.

The applicant's consistent monthly payments on the remaining debts, combined with the successful resolution of the disputed items, demonstrated reliability and trustworthiness in his financial conduct. Based on these efforts, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant made a good-faith effort to address his debts by making monthly payments.
Two of the alleged debts were successfully disputed and removed from credit reports.
The applicant's overall financial conduct demonstrated reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.19.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.19.craisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

F.20.dappliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 22, 2015
Answer filedSep 30, 2015
Hearing held—Applicant represented himself.
Decision dateAug 5, 2016

Cite For

Good-faith Efforts in Addressing Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Successful Dispute of Debts as a Mitigating Factor
Whole-person Concept in Evaluating Security Clearance Eligibility

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant had financial concerns under Guideline F but determined that he made a good-faith effort to address his debts. As a result, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant on all allegations related to financial considerations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant is indebted to Creditor A, disputed amount of $21,577, making monthly payments of $100 since September 2015. $21,577	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.b	Applicant was indebted to Creditor B on a past-due debt, successfully disputed.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant was indebted to Creditor B on a past-due debt, successfully disputed.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant is indebted to Creditor B in the amount of $1,414, delinquent since 2013, making monthly payments of $75. $1,414	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Debt Paid in Full

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. 15-01149 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Chris Morin, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

August 5, 2016

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on July 28, 2014. On August 22, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F 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 answered the SOR in writing (Answer) on September 30, 2015, and requested an Administrative Determination by an administrative judge. Department Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on November 30, 2015. Applicant responded to the FORM (Response) on January 16, 2016. Department Counsel had no objection, and the documents are entered into evidence. The case was assigned to me on February 19, 2016. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in all four Paragraphs of the SOR, with explanations.

Guideline F - Financial Considerations

Applicant is 46 years old, and is employed by a federal contractor as a “Financial Audit Support Analyst.” (Item 3 at pages 5 and 18.)

1.a. Although Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor A, he disputes the amount alleged. He has been disputing this alleged $21,577 debt, since at least June of 2014, more than a year prior to the issuance of the SOR. This is evidenced by correspondence with the successor creditor to this debt. (Answer at pages 8–12, and Response at Exhibits A~C.) However, in an abundance of caution, Applicant has been making monthly payments of $100 towards this debt since September of 2015, as evidenced by correspondence with the successor creditor to this debt. (Response at Exhibit D.) I find that Applicant is making a good-faith effort to address this alleged past-due debt.

1.b., 1.c. and 1.d. Although Applicant initially admitted that he was indebted to Creditor B on three past-due debts, he has now successfully disputed two of these three debts, allegations 1.b. and 1.c. This is evidenced by them not appearing on the Government’s August 2015 credit report (Item 5), and by them being eliminated from Applicant’s September 2015 credit report (Answer at page 13).

As to 1.d., the third debt to Creditor B, in the amount of $1,414, delinquent since 2013, Applicant has been making monthly payments of $75 towards this debt (Response at Exhibit E); and as such, it does not appear as past due on the Government’s August 2015 credit report (Item 5 at page 3). I find that Applicant has made a good-faith effort to address these alleged past-due debts.

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 two conditions that could raise security concerns. Under Subparagraphs 19(a) and 19(c) an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and “a history of not meeting financial obligations.” may raise security concerns. Applicant had two delinquent past-due debts. However, under Subparagraph 20 (d), it may also be mitigating where “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Applicant has successfully disputed two of the four alleged past-due debts; and as to the other two admitted debts, Applicant is making a good-faith effort to address both through monthly payments. Financial Considerations is found for Applicant.

Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of 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 without questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For this reason, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his Financial Considerations, under the whole-person concept.

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: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a.~1.d. For Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge