CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-05438.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-05438.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05438.h1

deniedAug 24, 2017· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old married applicant with two children was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from unresolved financial issues and the deliberate omission of relevant information on her March 2015 security clearance application (SCA).

Specifically, the applicant failed to resolve a past-due debt of approximately $1,029 owed to Creditor D. Additionally, she answered "No" to a question regarding financial delinquency on her SCA, despite having been engaged with a credit counseling service since August 2013 to address past-due debts. The judge found her explanation for this response not credible, concluding that she had deliberately omitted relevant financial information.

The judge determined that the applicant had not sufficiently mitigated the financial issues and that her lack of candor regarding her debts warranted the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to resolve a past-due debt of approximately $1,029, which was deemed outstanding.
The applicant deliberately omitted relevant financial information from her security clearance application, indicating a lack of candor.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 16(a)raisedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceiving Financial Counseling From a Legitimate SourceWhile the applicant was receiving counseling for some debts, the unresolved debt was not mitigated.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort regarding the outstanding debt.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 16, 2016
Answer filedMar 5, 2016
Hearing held—Decision made on the record without a hearing.
Decision dateAug 24, 2017

Cite For

Deliberate Falsification of Security Clearance Applications Under Guideline E
Failure to Mitigate Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Full Disclosure in Security Clearance Applications

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct allegation under Guideline E, determining that the applicant deliberately falsified her security clearance application by omitting relevant financial information. The applicant's response was deemed not credible, and no mitigating conditions were found applicable to her case.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant answered “No” in answer to “Section 26 – Financial . . . Delinquency Involving Routine Accounts” on her March 2015 SCA. She avers, in part, “I did not believe I was delinquent with bills as I was in contact with and working with all credit card companies in question.” This response is not credible as it is obvious from Applicant’s Response that she was dealing with her past-due debts through the credit counseling service since August of 2013. This allegation is found against Applicant.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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 several past-due debts, some of which were being addressed through a credit counseling service, while one debt remained unresolved. Ultimately, the judge ruled against the applicant on the unresolved debt, concluding that the applicant failed to mitigate the financial concerns raised.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.d	Applicant is indebted to Creditor D for a past-due debt in the amount of about $1,029. $1,029	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(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. 15-05438 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Carroll J. Connelley, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

August 24, 2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

Statement of the Case

Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on March 14, 2015. (Item 2.) On February 16, 2016, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) sent her a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guidelines F and E. (Item 1.) The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (EO) 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) implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR on March 5, 2016 (Answer), and requested a decision on the record without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on April 21, 2016. On April 22, 2016, a complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was sent to Applicant, including documents identified as Items 1 through 5. She was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s evidence. She received the FORM on May 2, 2016, and on May 20, 2016, she submitted additional items in response to the FORM (Response), to which the Government had no objection. The case was assigned to me on December 13, 2016. On June 8, 2017, the DOD implemented new AG.1 Accordingly, I have applied the June 2017 AG.2 However, because the September 2006 AG were in effect on the date the FORM was completed, I have also considered the September 2006 AG. Having considered both versions of the AG, I conclude that my decision would have been the same had I applied the September 2006 AG.

Findings of Fact3

Applicant, age 55, is married, and has two children. (Item 2 at pages 5, 19, and 21–22.) She attributes her past-due indebtedness to loss of employment in 2014, and to her suffering from “late stage Lyme disease,” and to caring for her mother-in-law who suffers from “Alzheimer disease.” (Answer at page 1.) As Applicant neither formally admits nor denies the allegations, I will consider them denied.

Guideline F – Financial Considerations

1.a. Applicant was indebted to Creditor A for a past-due debt in the amount of about $9,752. (Item 5 at page 6.) Through the auspices of a credit counseling service, she is making monthly payments of $224 towards this debt, as evidenced by documentation from that credit counseling service. (Response at pages 3–9.) I find that Applicant is addressing this debt.

1.b. Applicant was indebted to Creditor B for a past-due debt in the amount of about $2,799. (Item 5 at page 6.) Through the auspices of a credit counseling service, she is making monthly payments of $71 towards this debt, as evidenced by documentation from that credit counseling service. (Response at pages 7–9.) I find that Applicant is addressing this debt.

1.c. Applicant was indebted to Creditor C for a past-due debt in the amount of about $455. (Item 4 at page 4.) Through the auspices of a credit counseling service, she was making monthly payments of $16 towards this debt, and is now current with this debt. This evidenced by documentation from that credit counseling service, and the Government’s most recent credit report. (Response at pages 7–9, and Item 5 at page 8.) I find that Applicant has addressed this debt. 1.d. Applicant is indebted to Creditor D for a past-due debt in the amount of about $1,029. (Item 5 at page 3.) She avers that Applicant “had automatic payments taken out . . . [and] continued to make monthly payments” toward this debt. (Answer at page 2.) However, as Applicant has offered nothing in support of this averment, I find that this debt is still outstanding.

1.e. Applicant is indebted to Creditor E for a past-due debt in the amount of about $4,823. (Item 5 at page 4.) Through the auspices of a credit counseling service, she is making monthly payments of $134 towards this debt, as evidenced by documentation from that credit counseling service. (Response at pages 3–9.) I find that Applicant is addressing this debt.

Guideline E – Personal Conduct

2.a. Applicant answered “No” in answer to “Section 26 – Financial . . . Delinquency Involving Routine Accounts” on her March 2015 SCA. She avers, in part, “I did not believe I was delinquent with bills as I was in contact with and working with all credit card companies in question.” (Answer at page 2.) This response is not credible as it is obvious from Applicant’s Response that she was dealing with her past-due debts through the credit counseling service since August of 2013. (Response at pages 7–9.) 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. 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, “Any 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, “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, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining 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 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 EO 10865, “Any 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 EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information.)

ANALYSIS

Guideline F - Financial Considerations

The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 18:

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 personnel 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. . . .

This concern is broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly compromise classified information to raise money. It encompasses concerns about a person’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified information. A person who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012).

Applicant’s past-due indebtedness, as evidenced by her credit reports, establish two disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability to satisfy debts”), and AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”). The security concerns raised in the SOR may be mitigated by any of the following potentially applicable factors:

AG ¶ 20(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;

AG ¶ 20(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, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

AG ¶ 20(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

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

AG ¶ 20(a) is not established. Applicant’s delinquent debt noted in SOR Subparagraph 1.d. remains unresolved.

AG ¶ 20(b) is not established. While Applicant’s loss of income and her illness were conditions beyond her control, she has not acted responsibly to address allegation 1.d., as noted above.

Applicant failed to meet her burden to mitigate the financial concerns set out in the SOR. For these reasons, I find SOR ¶ 1.d. against Applicant.

Guideline E - Personal Conduct

The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 15:

Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. The following will normally result in an unfavorable national security eligibility determination, security clearance action, or cancellation of further processing for national security eligibility:

(a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to meeting with a security investigator for subject interview, completing security forms or releases, cooperation with medical or psychological evaluation, or polygraph examination, if authorized and required; and

(b) refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security officials, or other official representatives in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination.

Based on Applicant’s alleged deliberate falsification of his SCA, the following disqualifying condition could apply:

AG ¶ 16 (a): deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.

Applicant denied intentionally falsifying her SCA. When a falsification allegation is controverted, the Government has the burden of proving it. An omission, standing alone, does not prove falsification. An administrative judge must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine an applicant’s state of mind at the time of the omission.4

In this instance, it is clear from Applicant’s Response to the FORM that she was aware of her delinquent debts, at the time she completed her SCA. She should have disclosed the delinquent debts she clearly had knowledge of on her SCA. Given these facts, I find substantial evidence of an intent by Applicant to omit, conceal, or falsify facts from and on her SCA. Therefore, AG ¶ 16(a) is established.

The personal conduct security concerns raised in the SOR may be mitigated by any of the following potentially applicable factors:

AG ¶ 17 (a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;

AG ¶ 17 (b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully; AG ¶ 17 (c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

AG ¶ 17 (d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;

AG ¶ 17 (e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress;

AG ¶ 17 (f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability; and

AG ¶ 17 (g) association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased, or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and regulations.

After considering the mitigating conditions outlined above, none of them apply. Applicant did not make prompt or good-faith efforts to correct her falsification or concealment. She provided no information that indicates she was ill-advised in completing her SCA. Falsifying information is a serious offense and Applicant has not shown that similar lapses in judgment are unlikely to recur. Further, she failed to take responsibility for her actions. She has not provided sufficient information in this record to demonstrate that she has met her burden of proof for her personal conduct.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether the granting or continuing of national security eligibility is clearly consistent with the interests of national security must be an overall common-sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the applicable guidelines, each of which is to be evaluated in the context of the whole person. An 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. I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines F and E in my whole-person analysis, and I have considered the factors in AG ¶ 2(d). After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guidelines F and E, and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude that Applicant deliberately falsified her SCA, and she has not mitigated the security concerns raised by her financial indebtedness. Accordingly, Applicant has not carried her burden of showing that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information.

FORMAL FINDINGS

I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR:

Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a.~1.c. and 1.e.: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline E (Personal Conduct): AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 On December 10, 2016, the Security Executive Agent issued Directive 4 (SEAD-4), establishing a “single, common adjudicative criteria for all covered individuals who require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position.” (SEAD-4 ¶ B, Purpose.) The SEAD-4 became effective on June 8, 2017 (SEAD-4 ¶ F, Effective Date). The National Security Adjudicative Guidelines (AG), which are found at Appendix A to SEAD-4, apply to determine eligibility for initial or continued access to classified national security information. (SEAD-4 ¶ C, Applicability.)

2 ISCR Case No. 02-00305 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 12, 2003) (security clearance decisions must be based on current DoD policy and standards).

3 Unless otherwise indicated by citation to another part of the record, I extracted these facts from Applicant’s SOR answer (Item 1), her SCA (Item 2), and the summary of her April 2015 subject interview (Item 3).I will consider only those facts in Item 3 that are not adverse to the Applicant unless they are contained in other evidence or based upon Applicant’s admissions in her answer. 4 See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2004).