CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-05951.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-05951.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-05951.h1

grantedApr 28, 2017· Hon. Candace Le'i Garcia· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) cited six delinquent debts totaling $12,162, specifically three student loans amounting to $11,768 and three minor medical debts. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c).

However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. Before the SOR was issued, he resolved all minor medical debts. He also demonstrated a good-faith effort to repay his student loans by making regular payments. The Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), and AG ¶ 20(d) were applied as mitigating conditions.

The judge determined that the applicant's financial difficulties were largely due to circumstances beyond his control, such as limited income and periods of unemployment. Given the applicant's proactive steps to resolve his debts and his demonstrated commitment to financial responsibility, his financial situation was deemed under control, and eligibility for a security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant resolved his delinquent medical debts before the SOR was issued.
The applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors by making regular payments on his student loans.
The applicant's financial difficulties were largely due to circumstances beyond his control, such as limited income and unemployment.

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(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s Control
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem And/or There Are Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved or Is Under Control
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 25, 2016
Answer filedMar 29, 2016Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on the written record.
Decision dateApr 28, 2017

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
Impact of Circumstances Beyond Control on Financial Obligations

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 mitigated the financial considerations security concerns related to six delinquent debts totaling $12,162. The applicant demonstrated responsible behavior by resolving minor medical debts and making consistent payments towards student loans, leading to a favorable decision for security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Three student loans totaling $11,768 $11,768	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.b	Three minor medical debts	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.c–1.f	4 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For 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 No. 15-05951 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

04/28/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

GARCIA, Candace Le’i, Administrative Judge:

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

Statement of the Case

On February 25, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) 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; 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 responded to the SOR on March 29, 2016, and elected to have the case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. The Government’s written case was submitted on July 8, 2016. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, who was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. Applicant received the FORM on May 17, 2016. Applicant did not object to the Government’s evidence. The Government’s documents identified as Items 1 through 6 are admitted into evidence. Other than his Answer to the SOR, identified as Item 2, Applicant failed to submit any additional documentation. The case was assigned to me on April 7, 2017.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 28-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He obtained his high-school diploma in June 2007, attended one community college from September 2007 to May 2009, and another community college from September 2010 to May 2013, but did not earn a degree. From June 2005 to December 2014, Applicant worked seasonal jobs part-time during the school year and full-time during school breaks, but was unemployed from November 2010 to May 2012. He has worked as a federal contractor for his current employer since December 2014. He has never held a DOD security clearance. As of his March 2015 Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (SF 86), he had never been married and had no children.1

The SOR alleges six delinquent debts totaling $12,162, comprised of three student loans totaling $11,768, and three minor medical debts. Applicant admitted to all of the SOR debts. The debts are established by Applicant’s admissions and credit reports.2

Applicant provided documentation demonstrating that he paid the three minor medical debts in March 2016. He also provided documentation showing that his three student loans totaling $14,556 were being serviced by one debt collector as of February 2016, and Applicant paid $119 monthly towards them from September 2015 to March 2016. The payments automatically come out of his bank account monthly.3

Applicant took out three student loans to help finance his education at community college. The student loans became delinquent partly because of Applicant’s limited income during the times he worked seasonally, and his period of unemployment. While he was financially supported by his father and an inheritance from his grandfather’s estate when he was unemployed, Applicant stated that his financial situation was still tight. He believed two of his three medical bills likely occurred because of an insurance issue. He acknowledged that he could have managed his finances better.

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 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 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 national security.”

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 security 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 of 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. The following are potentially applicable in this case:

(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and

Applicant was unable or unwilling to pay his debts. The evidence is sufficient to raise AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(b) as disqualifying conditions.

Conditions that could mitigate the financial considerations security concerns are provided under AG ¶ 20. The following 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, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and

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

Applicant’s limited income during his seasonal jobs and his period of unemployment contributed to his financial problems. Applicant also failed to better manage his finances. He began resolving his student loans before he received the SOR, and he intends to continue paying them through an automatic monthly deduction from his bank account. He resolved his delinquent medical debts. I am satisfied that Applicant’s finances are in order. AG ¶ 20(b) is partially applicable, and AG ¶¶ 20(c) to 20(d) are applicable.

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 the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in this whole-person analysis.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. I conclude Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns.

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.f: 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 Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

________________________ Candace Le’i Garcia Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Items 1-6. 2 Items 1-6. 3 Items 1-6.