CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01983.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01983.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01983.h1

deniedMar 24, 2017· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 52-year-old defense contractor and retired Marine Corps gunnery sergeant was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant faced concerns stemming from 22 delinquent debts, primarily student loans, totaling approximately $68,125.

The Statement of Reasons detailed each of these 22 delinquent debts, all totaling approximately $68,125. Disqualifying conditions F.1.a and F.1.c were raised, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations and an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.

Although mitigating condition F.2.c was applied, which considers financial problems that are not chronic and are unlikely to recur, the applicant failed to provide documentation supporting his claim of making payments through wage garnishment. He also did not present a plan to resolve his debts or demonstrate that his financial problems were unlikely to recur. Consequently, the judge found that the applicant did not mitigate the financial concerns, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has 22 delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125, primarily from student loans.
He provided no documentation to support his claims of making payments or a plan to resolve his debts.
The applicant did not demonstrate that his financial problems were unlikely to recur.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.1.craisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

F.2.cappliedThe 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

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 13, 2016
Answer filedFeb 6, 2016Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on the written record.
Decision dateMar 24, 2017

Cite For

Failure to Provide Documentation Supporting Claims of Financial Stability
Inability to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating a Plan to Address Delinquent Debts

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 unresolved financial issues, including multiple delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125, primarily from student loans. The applicant's failure to provide sufficient evidence of efforts to resolve these debts led to a decision against granting security clearance under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.m	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.n	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.o	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.p	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.q	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.r	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.s	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.t	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.u	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.v	Delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. $68,125	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	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. 15-01983 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

03/24/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

On January 13, 2016, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG).

Applicant answered the SOR on February 6, 2016, and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on March 28, 2016. The evidence included in the FORM is identified as Items 5-10 (Items 1-4 include pleadings and transmittal information). The FORM was mailed to Applicant, who received it on April 6, 2016. Applicant was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant did not submit additional evidence, nor object to the Government’s evidence. Items 5-10 are admitted into evidence without objection. The case was assigned to me on January 27, 2017.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted all the allegations in his answer to the SOR.1 The admissions are adopted as findings of fact. After a careful review of the pleadings and evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact.

Applicant is 52 years old. He has worked for a defense contractor since 2008. He is married with three adult children. He retired from the Marine Corps after 20 years of honorable service at the rank of gunnery sergeant (E-7). He holds an associate’s degree.2

The SOR alleges 22 delinquent debts totaling approximately $68,125. All the debts appear to be from student loans. The debts are supported by credit reports from September 2015, February 2015, December 2013, August 2008, Applicant’s statement to a defense investigator in January 2014, and by Applicant’s SOR admissions.3

Applicant disclosed his delinquent student loan accounts in his security clearance application. He also stated he was making biweekly payments through wage garnishment actions, but offered no documentation supporting this assertion. In his statement to a defense investigator, he stated that he was making regular student loan payments when the total monthly payment amount was $1,000. In approximately 2011, the monthly amount increased to $2,000 and he could no longer afford the payments. He does not know why the payment amount doubled. He attempted to get a consolidation loan, but was unsuccessful. As stated above, he claims his wages were garnished for several years in the amount of approximately $1,000 monthly to pay his student loan accounts. He supplied no supporting documentation. All the student loan accounts are still delinquent, and Applicant offered no plan to address these accounts.4

Applicant indicated he consulted a credit counseling service (CCS) (date unspecified) about his non-student loan debt. He asserts he pays $533 monthly to the CCS, which then makes payment towards his $23,000 worth of credit card debt. He did not provide documentation of this arrangement.5

Applicant did not provide any information about his current financial situation or a budget. He offered that he was a financial counselor when in the military and finds his current position disheartening.6

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used 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 overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. 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.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record.

Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an “applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain 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 that an 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.

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

AG ¶ 18 expresses the security concern for financial considerations:

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. I have considered all of them under AG ¶ 19 and the following potentially apply:

(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and

Applicant has delinquent debts that remain unpaid or unresolved. I find both disqualifying conditions are raised.

The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties. I have considered all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 and the following potentially apply:

(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; and

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

Applicant’s debts are recent and remain unresolved. He did not provide sufficient evidence to show that his financial problems are unlikely to recur. AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply. Applicant presented no evidence that the debts were due to circumstances beyond his control. I find AG ¶ 20(b) does not apply. He failed to provide documentation showing any efforts to contact the creditors, set up payment plans, or make payments on the debts. There is some evidence of financial counseling. AG ¶ 20(c) partially applies. AG ¶ 20(d) does not apply.

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. 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 guideline and the whole-person concept.

I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I considered his honorable military service. Applicant has not established a track record of financial stability.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline F, 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 – 1.v: 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.

_____________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 In his answer for every allegation he stated, “I admit. See continuation of statement of reasons,” but there was no additional information included with his answer. Additionally, as stated above, Applicant did not reply to the FORM submitted by Department Counsel. 2 Item 5. 3 Items 6-10. 4 Items 5, 10. 5 These non-student loan debts were not alleged in the SOR. I will only use this information as it might apply to potential mitigating conditions and the whole-person factors. 6 Items 10.