CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01813.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01813.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01813.h1

deniedNov 9, 2016· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 37-year-old Rotary Wing Mechanic was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant past-due debts exceeding $30,000. The applicant admitted to several specific debts, including approximately $21,452 owed to Creditor A, about $3,704 to Creditor C, and roughly $2,398 to Creditor D. These admissions raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline paragraphs 19(a) and 19(c).

While the applicant acknowledged the debts and attributed some financial difficulties to job loss, he failed to provide evidence of responsible actions taken to address these financial obligations. Although mitigating condition Adjudicative Guideline paragraph 20(b) was considered, it was not sufficiently applied.

Ultimately, the applicant's financial difficulties were not mitigated under the whole-person concept. The lack of demonstrated efforts to resolve the admitted past-due debts led to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant admitted to multiple past-due debts totaling over $30,000.
Applicant failed to provide evidence of responsible actions taken to address his financial obligations.
The applicant's financial difficulties were not sufficiently mitigated under the whole-person concept.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlAlthough the applicant attributed his financial difficulties to job loss, he did not provide evidence of responsible action.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 29, 2015
Answer filedSep 21, 2015
Hearing heldMay 11, 2016
Decision dateNov 9, 2016

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns Despite Job Loss
Importance of Providing Evidence of Responsible Financial Management in Security Clearance Cases

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 multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, with debts totaling over $32,000. While one debt was settled and found for the applicant, the majority of the debts were found against him, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor A for a past-due debt in the amount of about $21,452. $21,452	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor C for a past-due debt in the amount of about $3,704. $3,704	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.d	Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor D for a past-due debt in the amount of about $2,398. $2,398	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. 15-01813 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Douglas Velvel, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

November 9, 2016

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on August 22, 2012. On August 29, 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 21, 2015, and requested an Administrative Determination by an administrative judge. Department Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on December 21, 2015. Applicant did not respond to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on May 11, 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 all the Paragraphs of the SOR, with explanations.

Guideline F - Financial Considerations

Applicant is a 37-year-old “Rotary Wing Mechanic.” (Item 2 at pages 5 and 12.)

1.a. Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor A for a past-due debt in the amount of about $21,452. Applicant avers that he “cosigned for a family member to attend school.” (Answer at page 1.) He further avers: “She is currently and has been paying since June of 2013. I do not make any payments on this loan.” (Id.) As this rather substantial debt still appears as “Past Due: $19,239" on the Government’s most recent December 18, 2015 credit report; I find that it is not current as alluded to by Applicant, but still past due. (Item 4 at page 3.) This allegation is found against Applicant.

1.b. Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor B for a past-due debt in the amount of about $4,688. Applicant avers: “It is the remainder of my car payments. My car was repossessed in 2009 after losing my job. Soon I will be starting settlement payments on this.” (Answer at page 1.) As Applicant has submitted nothing further in this regard; despite having nearly eight months to do so (from his September 2015 Answer to the undersigned May 2016 assignment), this allegation is found against Applicant.

1.c. Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor C for a past-due debt in the amount of about $3,704. Applicant avers: “That debt has been settled and paid in full in the amount of $2,544.22.” He has also submitted documentation in support of this averment. (Answer at page 2.) This allegation is found for Applicant.

1.d. Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor D for a past-due debt in the amount of about $2,398. Applicant avers: “This will be settled on shortly.” (Answer at page 1.) As Applicant has submitted nothing further in this regard; despite having nearly eight months to do so, this allegation is found against Applicant.

1.e. Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor E for a past-due debt in the amount of about $2,506. Applicant avers: “This too will be settled on shortly.” (Answer at page 1.) As Applicant has submitted nothing further in this regard; despite having nearly eight months to do so, this allegation is found against Applicant.

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. (AG Paragraph 2.) 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. AG Paragraph 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the 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 AG 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. These may be mitigated by Subparagraph 20(b) where “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment . . .), and the individual has acted responsibly under the circumstances.” Although Applicant can attribute his financial difficulties to “losing . . . [his] job” in 2009, he was given an opportunity to submit documentation of responsible action on his delinquent debts in response to the FORM. He has not submitted any evidence that he has addressed his admitted past-due debts, alleged in Subparagraphs 1.a., 1.b., 1.d. and 1.e. Therefore, I can find no countervailing Mitigating Condition that is applicable here. Financial Considerations are found against 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. Applicant has failed to fully respond to the Government’s concerns; and as such, has failed to meaningfully address the alleged past-due debt. For this reason, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the whole-person concept arising from his Financial Considerations.

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. and 1.b. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c. For Applicant

Subparagraphs 1.d. and 1.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