CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-05248.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-05248.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05248.h1

deniedAug 14, 2017· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

The applicant, a 56-year-old electrician with a history of financial difficulties, faced security clearance denial under Guideline F due to three delinquent debts totaling nearly $13,000 and a prior foreclosure. Despite being re-employed since June 2011, the applicant failed to document any efforts to resolve his debts or provide a satisfactory explanation for his financial issues, leading to the conclusion that granting a clearance was not consistent with national interest.

Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), the Statement of Reasons alleged the following: Delinquent debt in the amount of $4,000, which is a collection account (1.a). Delinquent debt in the amount of $3,000, which is a collection account (1.b). Delinquent debt in the amount of $5,000, which is a collection account (1.c). Foreclosure on a home in September 2010 (1.d).

The judge denied the clearance. The government raised disqualifying conditions F.1.a, F.1.b, F.1.c. The decision turned on the following: Applicant admitted to three delinquent debts totaling nearly $13,000; Applicant provided no documentation of efforts to resolve his debts since at least October 2014; Applicant failed to explain his inability to keep up with bills despite receiving unemployment compensation, military retired pay, and his wife's salary.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant admitted to three delinquent debts totaling nearly $13,000.
Applicant provided no documentation of efforts to resolve his debts since at least October 2014.
Applicant failed to explain his inability to keep up with bills despite receiving unemployment compensation, military retired pay, and his wife's salary.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1.aappliedInability to Satisfy Debts
F.1.bappliedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
F.1.cappliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“The Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 19, 2016
Answer filedOct 28, 2016Applicant requested a decision without hearing.
Decision dateAug 8, 2017

Cite For

Failure to Document Efforts to Resolve Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Impact of Financial Difficulties on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Providing Evidence of Good-faith Efforts to Address 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 against the applicant on all financial allegations under Guideline F, citing a lack of documented efforts to resolve significant delinquent debts totaling nearly $13,000. The applicant's financial difficulties were deemed recent and frequent, with no evidence of counseling or good-faith efforts to repay creditors.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Delinquent debt in the amount of $4,000, which is a collection account. $4,000	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	—	—
1.b	Delinquent debt in the amount of $3,000, which is a collection account. $3,000	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	—	—
1.c	Delinquent debt in the amount of $5,000, which is a collection account. $5,000	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	—	—
1.d	Foreclosure on a home in September 2010.	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	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: ) ) XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX ) ISCR Case No. 15-05248 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Candace L. Garcia Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

08/14/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:

Based on the record in this case, I deny Applicant’s clearance.

On 19 May 2016, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) raising security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a decision without hearing by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The record in this case closed 28 October 2016, when Applicant’s response to the FORM was due. Applicant provided no additional documents. DOHA assigned the case to me 8 August 2017.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations. He is a 56-year-old electrician sponsored for a clearance by a U.S. defense contractor since June 2011. He was unemployed from May 2010 to June 2011. From May 2006 to May 2010, he was employed by another Government contractor. He served honorably in the United States military from March 1981 until November 2001, when he retired. Applicant has been married since June 1986, and has no children. He has not previously held a clearance (Item 3).3

The SOR alleges, Government exhibits (Items 4-6) establish, and Applicant admits three delinquent debts totaling nearly $13,000. He also admits that his house was foreclosed upon in September 2010.

During Applicant’s March 2015 interview (Item 4), he told the investigator that he received unemployment compensation when he was out of work, and between that, his military retired pay, and his wife’s salary, he had no financial difficulties during his unemployment. Nevertheless, he could give the investigator no explanation for his delinquencies. He claimed that he was getting help drafting creditor letters to resolve his delinquent accounts from a friend who was a paralegal, and that he would get his friend’s help exploring the SOR debts.

Applicant has documented no contacts with his creditors since his March 2015 interview, his June 2016 Answer, or his August 2016 FORM. He provided no budget or financial statement. He has not documented any financial or credit counseling. He provided no work or character references, or any evidence of community involvement.

POLICIES

The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the factors listed in AG ¶ 2(d). Any one disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.

Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.5

ANALYSIS

The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has an extensive history of financial difficulties for which he has documented no resolution since at least October 2014.6

Applicant meets none of the mitigating conditions for financial considerations, given that he has documented no actions to address his debts. Moreover, his financial problems are recent, frequent, and incapable of assessment since he has provided no explanation about why he was unable to keep up with his bills during his unemployment despite receiving unemployment compensation, his military retired pay, and his wife’s salary. Certainly, a year’s unemployment was a circumstance beyond his control, but in this case, he has been re-employed since June 2011 without documenting any responsible action to address his debts. Applicant has had no credit or financial counseling, and there is no evidence any of the debts have been, or are being, resolved. Further, his lack of effort does not constitute a good-faith effort to address his debts. Accordingly, I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs a-d: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance denied.

JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-6 .

DoD acted 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 (AG) effective within the DoD on 1 September 2006. On 10 December 2016, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) signed Security Executive Agent Directive 4, implementing new AG, effective with any decision issued on or after 8 Ju ne 2017. This decision is issued under the original AG, but I have examined the new AG to ensure that I would not reach a different result if I issued this decision under the new AG. I would not rule differently under either set of AG. Applicant almost certainly held a clearance while in the military, but did not disclose any on his October 2014 clearance application (Item 3). Nor did he discuss holding a clearance during his March 2015 interview with a Government investigator (Item 4).

He acknowledged the foreclosure, but claimed that the lender acted illegally. He apparently was not asked about SOR debt 1.a, but now attributes it to his unemployment. He claimed not to know about SOR debts 1.band 1.c, but now claims that SOR debt 1.bis the same as SOR debt 1.cand that he settled SOR debt 1.cin May 2016, before he received the SOR. However, he provided no corroboration for this claim, and the creditor and collection agent for SOR debt 1.care different than the creditor for SOR 1.b, and the accounts have diifferent account numbers (Item 5). Only the fact that the two debts are for nearlly identical amounts tends to corroborate Applicant’s claim. See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).

¶19(a) inability to satisfy debts; (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;

¶20(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur . . . ¶20(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

¶20(c) the individual has received or is receiving counseling for the problem . . . and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;

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