CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-08830.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-08830.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-08830.h1

deniedAug 14, 2017· Hon. Robert J. Kilmartin· hearing

Summary

A 53-year-old single mother was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial difficulties. The applicant had filed four bankruptcies between 1987 and 2007. Two of these, Chapter 13 filings in 1995 and 2007, were dismissed due to incomplete documentation or failure to make payments.

Additionally, the applicant admitted to delinquent debts totaling $12,676, which included medical bills, consumer debts, and a $1,134 student loan. The judge noted that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence of debt resolution, documentation of payments, or a credible plan to manage these financial obligations. No evidence was presented to show disputes with creditors.

The decision to deny eligibility for access to sensitive information was based on the applicant's repeated financial instability and the lack of a clear path to resolve outstanding debts, raising trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant filed four bankruptcies between 1987 and 2007, with two Chapter 13 bankruptcies dismissed for failure to make payments.
Applicant admitted to delinquent debts totaling $12,676, including medical bills and consumer debts, without providing documentation of payment or resolution.
No evidence was presented to show disputes with creditors or a credible plan to address the debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F2raisedA History of Financial Irresponsibility

Key Rule Quoted

“The security clearance decision is based on the whole person concept, which includes consideration of the applicant's character, conduct, and circumstances.”
— ISCR Case No. 15-08830

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 15, 2016
Answer filedAug 8, 2016
Hearing heldJul 13, 2017
Decision dateAug 14, 2017

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Impact of Multiple Bankruptcies on Trustworthiness
Lack of Evidence for Debt Resolution in 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 that the applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations trustworthiness concerns, resulting in a denial of eligibility for access to sensitive information. The applicant admitted to multiple bankruptcies and a total of $12,676 in delinquent debts, including medical and consumer debts, but failed to provide sufficient documentation to support her claims of resolution or dispute.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.b	A Chapter 13 filed in June 1995 was dismissed in March 1996 due to incomplete documentation and failure to make payments.	Against Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	A Chapter 13 filed in November 2007 was dismissed in April 2008 for failure to make payments.	Against Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	a $1,134 student-loan debt. $1,134	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.k–1.e	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	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: ) ) ) ADP Case No. 15-08830 ) Applicant for Public Trust Position )

For Government: Benjamin Dorsey, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

08/14/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

KILMARTIN, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations trustworthiness concerns. Applicant’s eligibility for access to sensitive information in a public trust position is denied.

Statement of the Case

On June 15, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The action was taken under DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the adjudicative guidelines (AG’s) effective within the DOD for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.

The Director of National Intelligence issued Security Executive Agent Directive 4 (SEAD 4) on December 10, 2016, revising the 2006 AG’s. The revised AG’s apply to all adjudicative decisions issued on or after June 8, 2017. This decision is based on the newly promulgated adjudicative guidelines effective June 8, 2107.1 Applicant timely answered the SOR, and elected to have a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel indicated the Government was ready to proceed on August 26, 2017. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Notice of Hearing on June 6, 2017, scheduling the hearing on July 13, 2017. The case was assigned to an administrative judge on May 4, 2017, and later transferred to me on July 13, 2017. I conducted the hearing as scheduled on July 13, 2017. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (Tr.) on July 21, 2017.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In her Answer to the SOR on August 8, 2016, Applicant admitted to filing four bankruptcies between 1987 and 2007. A Chapter 13 filed in June 1995 alleged in SOR ¶ 1.b, was dismissed in March 1996 due to incomplete documentation and failure to make payments. Similarly, a Chapter 13 filed in November 2007 and alleged at SOR ¶ 1.d, was dismissed in April 2008 for failure to make payments. Applicant admitted to most of the other allegations of delinquent debts totaling $12,676 in her Answer. She only denied SOR ¶ 1.k (stating she only had one account with this particular creditor). It is a duplicate with the debt alleged in SOR 1.e. She also denied the debt alleged at SOR ¶ 1.h (a $1,134 student-loan debt). She claimed to have paid this student-loan debt from her 2011 tax return, but she provided no substantiating documentation.

Five of the remaining delinquent debts alleged in the SOR were for medical bills incurred at a time when she was unemployed or lacked adequate medical insurance. The other delinquencies resulted from credit card or consumer debts. In response to the vast majority of the allegations, Applicant stated that she owed these medical debts because she had health problems causing periods of unemployment. In addition to her numerous delinquent medical bills, Applicant has miscellaneous delinquent consumer debts. She has provided no documentation to show disputes with any of her creditors, or actual payments made toward a payment plan, let alone proof that any of these debts have been resolved. All of the alleged debts are reflected in her credit reports. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings and exhibits, and her testimony, I make the following additional findings of fact. . Applicant is 53 years old. She graduated from high school in 1982. She was married in 1989 and divorced in 2000. Applicant is a single mother of two sons, ages 23 and 26, whom she put through college.4 She had various jobs including previous positions with federal contractors and intermittent health insurance. She voluntarily left the job force in 1994 to be a stay-at-home mother.5 She returned to work doing temporary jobs from 1996 through 2008.6 Presently, she has been employed in hospital

FOOTNOTES

1 Although I have decided this case under the new AG’s promulgated by Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD) 4, of December 10, 2016 and effective on June 8, 2017, I have also considered the case under the former AG’s effective on September 1, 2006, and my decision would be the same under either version. 4 Tr. at 28, 29. 5 Tr. at 32. 6 Tr. at 33.