CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-05013.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-05013.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05013.h1

grantedMar 1, 2017· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

This case involved a 33-year-old government contractor employee whose security clearance was initially questioned under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $52,000 in past-due student loan debt owed to three creditors. The Statement of Reasons listed multiple allegations, all pertaining to this admitted student loan debt. Additionally, a specific debt of about $365 to Creditor K was identified and subsequently settled in full by the applicant after the hearing.

Disqualifying conditions under Guideline F were raised, but the applicant demonstrated mitigating factors. He initiated a debt consolidation program to manage his outstanding student loans and successfully resolved the disputed debt to Creditor K.

The judge determined that the applicant had made a good-faith effort to address his financial issues. It was concluded that his past financial difficulties were unlikely to recur and did not cast doubt on his current reliability. Consequently, the security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant initiated a debt consolidation program to address outstanding student loans.
The applicant successfully settled a disputed debt after the hearing.
The applicant's past financial issues were unlikely to recur and did not affect his current reliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedBehavior Happened Long Ago and Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Debts

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 5, 2016
Answer filedApr 6, 2016
Hearing heldJul 18, 2016
Decision dateMar 1, 2017

Cite For

Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Mitigation of Financial Considerations Due to Past Circumstances
Whole-person Analysis in Security Clearance Decisions

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 a history of financial difficulties primarily due to student loans totaling approximately $52,000, which he attributed to periods of unemployment. However, the applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to address his debts through a debt consolidation program and settled a smaller debt, leading to a ruling in his favor under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits that he is indebted to three different creditors for past-due student loans totaling about $52,000. $52,000	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other
1.b	Applicant admits that he is indebted to three different creditors for past-due student loans totaling about $52,000. $52,000	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other
1.c	Applicant admits that he is indebted to three different creditors for past-due student loans totaling about $52,000. $52,000	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other
1.d	Applicant admits that he is indebted to three different creditors for past-due student loans totaling about $52,000. $52,000	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other
1.e	Applicant admits that he is indebted to three different creditors for past-due student loans totaling about $52,000. $52,000	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other
1.f	Applicant admits that he is indebted to three different creditors for past-due student loans totaling about $52,000. $52,000	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other
1.g	Applicant admits that he is indebted to three different creditors for past-due student loans totaling about $52,000. $52,000	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other
1.h	Applicant admits that he is indebted to three different creditors for past-due student loans totaling about $52,000. $52,000	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other
1.i	Applicant admits that he is indebted to three different creditors for past-due student loans totaling about $52,000. $52,000	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other
1.j	Applicant admits that he is indebted to three different creditors for past-due student loans totaling about $52,000. $52,000	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Other
1.k	After his hearing, Applicant has determined that the alleged past-due debt to Creditor K, in the amount of about $365, is his debt. This debt has been 'Settled in Full.' $365	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented 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. 15-05013 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Aubrey De Angelis, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Atoy H. Wilson, Esq.

March 1, 2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

Statement of the Case

On December 3, 2014, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (e- QIP). On March 5, 2016, the Department of Defense issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 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 September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR on April 6, 2016 (Answer), and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on May 31, 2016. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on June 15, 2016 scheduling the hearing for July 18, 2016. The hearing was convened as scheduled. The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 4, which were admitted without objection. Applicant offered Exhibits (AppXs) A through E, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf. The record was closed on September 19, 2016, after the receipt of AppX E. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on July 26, 2016.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is 33 years old. (TR at page 19 lines 19–24, and GX 1 at page 5.) He has been employed with a Government contractor since July of 2014 in “Security.” (GX 1 at page 10.) He currently does not hold a security clearance.

The Government alleged that Applicant is ineligible for a clearance because he made financial decisions that indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which raise questions about his reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. The SOR identified 11 debts, all but one of them are student loans, totaling approximately $52,000. Applicant admits all but one of the allegations, 1.k., the non-student loan, explaining that he is unaware of this alleged past-due debt. (TR at page 65 line 24 to page 67 line 13.) The alleged debts were listed on credit reports dated December of 2014, January of 2016, and May of 2016. (GXs 2–4.)

Guideline F - Financial Considerations

1.a.~1.j. Applicant admits that he is indebted to three different creditors for past- due student loans totaling about $52,000. He attributes this past-due indebtedness to periods of unemployment from 2009–2014. (TR at page 37 lines 1–14, and at page 44 line 23 to page 48 line 9.) Applicant mistakenly thought that he had begun to address his outstanding student loans through a debt consolidation program; but when interviewed regarding his application for a security clearance, he discovered that his consolidated payments only addressed the student loan alleged in subparagraph 1.j. (TR at page 32 line 19 to page 33 line 1, at page 65 lies 20–23, and AppX C.)

Prior to his hearing, Applicant initiated a debt consolidation program to address his remaining student loans. (TR at page 63 line 13 to page 65 line 23, at page 67 line 24 to page 69 line, at page 81 lines 3–18, and AppXs A and B.) He has now submitted a post-hearing exhibit showing that his debt consolidation has been successful, and that he now owes $43,026.02 at an interest rate of 5.375%. (AppX E at pages 4–6.) I find that Applicant has initiated a good-faith effort to address his outstanding student loans.

1k. After his hearing, Applicant has determined that the alleged past-due debt to Creditor K, in the amount of about $365, is his debt. (TR at page 65 line 24 to page 67 line 13, and AppX E at page 3.) This debt has been “Settled in Full,” as evidenced by correspondence from the successor creditor to Creditor K. (AppX E at page 3.)

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 to be 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, administrative judges apply the guidelines in conjunction with the factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a) describing 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 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 ¶ 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable clearance 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 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 EO 10865 provides that adverse 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 for Financial Considerations is set out in AG ¶ 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 AG ¶ 19. Two are potentially applicable in this case:

(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and

Applicant accumulated a significant amount of delinquent student loans. His actions demonstrated both a history of not addressing his debt and an inability to do so. The evidence is sufficient to raise the above disqualifying conditions.

Three Financial Considerations mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 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 . . . ), and the individual acted reasonably under the circumstances; and

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

The evidence shows that Applicant thought he was addressing his admitted student loans, but was mistaken. He has now established a consolidated loan payment plan for his student loans, and has settled the remaining small debt of allegation 1.k. His behavior happened so long ago, and occurred under such circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(b), and 20(d) provide mitigation.

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(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 guidelines and the whole-person concept.

I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis. Applicant has the support of those who know him in the work place. (AppX E at pages 1and 2.) Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has mitigated Financial Considerations security concerns 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.k.: 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 or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

________________________ Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge