CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-04090.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-04090.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-04090.h1

deniedJul 1, 2015· Hon. David M. White· hearing

Summary

A 27-year-old welder was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from allegations that the applicant had incurred over $10,000 in delinquent debt within the past seven years, which he remained unable or unwilling to repay.

Specifically, the Statement of Reasons cited the applicant's outstanding delinquent debt exceeding $10,000. Disqualifying conditions under Guideline F were raised, indicating concerns about the applicant's financial responsibility and potential vulnerability.

The judge determined that the applicant had indeed incurred over $10,000 in delinquent debt and had not demonstrated an ability or willingness to repay it. Furthermore, the applicant failed to provide any evidence of seeking financial counseling or making efforts to resolve his outstanding obligations. Consequently, no mitigating factors were found to alleviate the financial concerns, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant incurred over $10,000 in delinquent debt that he remains unable or unwilling to repay.
Applicant provided no evidence of financial counseling or efforts to resolve his debts.
The judge found no mitigating factors to alleviate the financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Key Rule Quoted

“Failure 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 or sensitive information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 16, 2015
Answer filedMay 9, 2016Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing was held; case decided on the written record.
Decision dateJun 27, 2017

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Debt Under Guideline F
Lack of Mitigating Circumstances for Financial Issues
Importance of Demonstrating Financial Responsibility for 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: denied

The applicant incurred over $10,000 in delinquent debt, which he remains unable or unwilling to repay. The judge found that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant incurred more than $10,000 in delinquent debt over the past seven years that he remains unable or unwilling to repay. $10,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (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: 15-04090 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Philip J. Katauskas, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

06/27/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:

Applicant incurred more than $10,000 in delinquent debt over the past seven years that he remains unable or unwilling to repay. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, national security eligibility is denied.

On August 26, 2014, Applicant submitted a security clearance application. (Item 5.) On December 16, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DoD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. (Item 1.) The action was taken 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 for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, effective within the DoD after September 1, 2006. Applicant answered the SOR on May 9, 2016, and requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing. (Item 4.) On June 22, 2016, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), containing eight Items, was mailed to Applicant on June 22, 2016, and received by him on June 28, 2016. The FORM notified Applicant that he had an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. Applicant did not submit additional information in response to the FORM, did not file any objection to its contents, and did not request additional time to respond beyond the 30-day period he was afforded.

The SOR in this case was issued under the adjudicative guidelines that came into effect within the DoD on September 1, 2006. Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) 4, National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (December 10, 2016), implements new adjudicative guidelines, effective June 8, 2017. All national security eligibility decisions1 issued on or after June 8, 2017, are to be decided using the new National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (AG), as implemented in Appendix A of SEAD 4. I considered the previous adjudicative guidelines, as well as the new AG, in adjudicating Applicant’s national security eligibility. My decision would be the same under either set of guidelines, although this decision is issued pursuant to the new AG promulgated in SEAD 4.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is 27 years old, and has worked as a welder for a defense contractor since 2014. He is a high school graduate, and completed two subsequent technical certificate programs. He has never married and has no children. He has no prior military service or Federal civilian employment. This is his first application for a security clearance. (Item 5.)

In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted being delinquent on all 12 debts alleged in the SOR, without further explanation. (Item 4.) The debts are also documented in the two record credit bureau reports from September 2014 and March 2015. (Items 7 and 8.)

Applicant’s SOR-alleged debts became delinquent between 2010 and 2014, and total $10,107. They range from two $75 parking tickets to a $2,535 civil judgment that was entered against him in 2011. He provided no explanation for his nonpayment of these debts, and no evidence of his willingness or ability to resolve any of them. Applicant did not document any financial counseling or provide budget information from which to predict his future solvency. He offered no evidence to support findings concerning his good character or trustworthiness, the quality of his professional performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or character in person since he elected to have his case decided without a hearing.

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for national security eligibility, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility.

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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context 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 national security eligibility 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. I have not drawn inferences based on mere speculation or conjecture.

Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”

A person applying for national security eligibility seeks to enter 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 national security eligibility. 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 or sensitive information. Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of Executive Order 10865, “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also Executive Order 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information.)

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

The security concerns relating to the guideline for financial considerations are set out in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:

Failure 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 or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other issues of personal security concern such as excessive gambling, mental health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds.

AG ¶ 19 describes three conditions that could raise security concerns and may be disqualifying in this case:

(a) inability to satisfy debts;

(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; and

Applicant has been continuously employed since 2014, yet incurred more than $10,000 in delinquent debts. He was unable or unwilling to repay these debts, and failed to explain why they remain delinquent. These financial issues date back to 2010, and continue. These facts establish prima facie support for the foregoing disqualifying conditions, and shift the burden to Applicant to mitigate those concerns.

The guideline includes four conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate the security concerns arising from Applicant’s undisputed financial difficulties:

(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, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

(c) the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and

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

Applicant continues to owe more than $10,000 for 12 debts that became delinquent between 2010 and 2014. He offered no reasonable basis to conclude that such problems will not recur, so mitigation was not established under AG ¶ 20(a). He neither asserted nor documented that his delinquent debts arose from conditions that were beyond his control, or that he acted responsibly under the circumstances, as required for mitigation under AG ¶ 20(b). He also failed to provide evidence of financial counseling or efforts to resolve the debts that could establish mitigation under the provisions of AG ¶¶ 20(c) or 20(d).

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 relevant circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d):

(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.

According to 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 applicable guidelines and the whole-person concept. I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a mature adult, who is accountable for his choices. He continues to owe more than $10,000 in delinquent debt that he has accumulated over the past seven years, and either cannot or chooses not to repay. There is no evidence of rehabilitation, and the potential for pressure, exploitation, or duress remains undiminished. Overall, the evidence creates significant doubt as to Applicant’s judgment, eligibility, and suitability for a security clearance. He failed to meet his burden to mitigate the security concerns arising under the guideline for financial considerations.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.l: 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 national security eligibility and a security clearance. National security eligibility is denied.

DAVID M. WHITE Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 SEAD 4 ¶ D.7 defines “National Security Eligibility” as, “Eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position, to include access to sensitive compartmented information, restricted data, and controlled or special access program information.”