CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-05460.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-05460.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05460.h1

deniedOct 2, 2017· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 70-year-old married man with one child was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to significant outstanding debts. The Statement of Reasons alleged multiple past-due debts totaling approximately $47,397. These included a 2012 outstanding judgment of about $2,909, a 2011 outstanding judgment of about $7,794, and a medical bill of about $92, along with three other admitted past-due debts.

The applicant attributed his financial difficulties to unemployment and a medical emergency. However, the judge found that disqualifying conditions, specifically AG ¶ 19(a), AG ¶ 19(b), and AG ¶ 19(c), were raised. While mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a) and AG ¶ 20(b) were applied, they were insufficient to overcome the concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's admission of over $47,000 in outstanding debts, his failure to provide evidence of responsible action to address these issues, and a lack of demonstrable improvement in his financial situation.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple outstanding debts totaling over $47,000.
He failed to provide evidence of responsible action to address his financial issues.
There was no demonstrable improvement in his financial situation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(b)raisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Unlikely to RecurThe applicant's financial issues were recent and ongoing.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not act responsibly under the circumstances.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 24, 2016
Answer filedApr 26, 2016Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateOct 2, 2017

Cite For

Insufficient Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Financial Difficulties on Security Clearance Eligibility
Whole-person Concept in Evaluating Security Clearance Cases

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 multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including outstanding judgments and past-due debts totaling over $58,000. The applicant admitted to these debts but failed to provide sufficient evidence of mitigation, leading to a decision against the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The first alleged past-due debt is a 2012 outstanding judgment in the amount of about $2,909. $2,909	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	The second alleged past-due debt is a 2011 outstanding judgment in the amount of about $7,794. $7,794	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	The third alleged past-due debt is a medical bill in the amount of about $92. $92	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	These six admitted past-due debts total about $47,397. $47,397	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.e–1.i	5 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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: 15-05460 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Nicole A. Smith, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

October 2, 2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

On June 10, 2014, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-86). On March 24, 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. (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 (Answer) on April 26, 2016. He admitted all of the allegations, and requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing. (Item 1.) On June 16, 2016, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), containing eight Items. Applicant responded to the FORM on August 1, 2016. He did not object to Items 1 through 8. Applicant also submitted additional information, relating to two financial matters that were not alleged, in the SOR, to which Department Counsel had no objection. DOHA assigned the case to me on May 10, 2017. Items 1 through 8 are admitted into evidence. Applicant’s response to the FORM (Response) is marked as exhibit (AppX) A and is also admitted.

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, implements new adjudicative guidelines, effective June 8, 2017. All national security eligibility decisions 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 by SEAD 4. I considered the previous adjudicative guidelines, effective September 1, 2006, as well as the new AG, effective June 8, 2017, 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.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is 70 years old. (Item 3 at page 5.) He is married, with one child. (Item 3 at pages 15 and 20.)

Guideline F – Financial Considerations

Applicant attributes his admitted financial difficulties to a period of unemployment when he lost his contractor position in “October 2012,” until when “work began to pick up in 2015.” (Answer at page 2.) Also, in “July 2015 . . . [he] suffered a cardiac arrest and spent a week hospitalized and after that several months recovering until January 2016 when . . . [he] returned to work.” (Id.)

1.a. The first alleged past-due debt is a 2012 outstanding judgment in the amount of about $2,909. In his Answer, Applicant averred that “circumstances will allow repayment in the next 12 to 18 months,” but has submitted nothing further in this regard. (Answer at page 2.) This allegation is found against Applicant.

1.b. The second alleged past-due debt is a 2011 outstanding judgment in the amount of about $7,794. In his Answer, Applicant averred that the creditor “has been receiving regular installments and the debt is approximately $800,” but has submitted nothing further in this regard. (Answer at page 2.) This allegation is found against Applicant.

1.c. The third alleged past-due debt is a medical bill in the amount of about $92. In his Answer, Applicant averred that “this will be paid by July 2016” (Answer at page 2.) However, in his August 2016 Response he has submitted nothing further in this regard. This allegation is found against Applicant.

1.d.~1.i. These six admitted past-due debts total about $47,397. In his Answer, Applicant simply averred that he is “Seeking Counseling/Guidance,” but has submitted nothing further in regard to these debts. (Answer at page 2.) These allegations are found against Applicant.

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 EO 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 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. . . .

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 two outstanding judgments totaling about $10,700, and seven past-due debts totaling in excess of $47,000. These facts establish prima facie support for the foregoing disqualifying conditions, and shift the burden to Applicant to mitigate those concerns.

The guideline includes two conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate the security concerns arising from Applicant’s alleged 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; and

(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.

However, Applicant has not acted responsibly under the circumstances that were beyond his control (his more than two years of unemployment and his January 2016 heart attack). Furthermore, there are not clear indications that his financial issues are under control, and there is no demonstrative improvement in his financial situation.

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. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s judgment, eligibility, and suitability for a security clearance. He has not met 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.i.: 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.

Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge