CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00108.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00108.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00108.h1

grantedJun 1, 2017· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 61-year-old defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons (SOR) cited delinquent property taxes totaling approximately $34,515 for tax years 2012 through 2014, along with two medical collection accounts for $450 and $233. These issues raised disqualifying conditions F.1.a and F.1.c.

However, the applicant demonstrated substantial mitigating efforts. She self-reported her property tax delinquencies and provided documentation of significant payments made towards them. She also provided documentation confirming the payment of the medical debts listed in SOR ¶ 1.c.

The judge found that the applicant's actions, including being current on all other debts and obligations, were sufficient to mitigate the security concerns. Mitigating conditions F.2.a, F.2.c, and F.2.d were applied, leading to the decision to grant her eligibility for a security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant self-reported her property tax delinquencies and provided documentation of payments made.
She is current on all other debts and obligations, demonstrating responsible financial behavior.
The applicant's efforts to resolve her debts were deemed sufficient to mitigate security concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.1.craisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

F.2.aappliedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
F.2.cappliedThe 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
F.2.dappliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance adjudication is not a debt collection procedure. It is a procedure designed to evaluate an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 3, 2016
Answer filedJun 24, 2016
Hearing heldN/ADecided on the written record.
Decision dateJun 1, 2017

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating a Plan to Resolve Financial Issues
Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Evaluations

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. The applicant demonstrated efforts to resolve her debts, including paying a significant portion of her property taxes and one medical debt, leading to a favorable decision for her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The SOR alleged Applicant was delinquent on her property taxes in the approximate amount of $34,515 for tax years 2012 through 2014. $13,483	For Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.b	The SOR alleged she had two medical collection accounts for $450 and $233. $450	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.c	Applicant provided documentation showing she paid the medical debt listed in SOR ¶ 1.c. $233	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full

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. 16-00108 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Rhett Petcher, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

06/01/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:

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

Statement of the Case

On June 3, 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. 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) effective within the DOD on September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR on June 24, 2016. She elected to have her case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on July 20, 2016. The FORM was mailed to Applicant, who received it on August 4, 2016. As evidence, the Government offered Items 1 through 4 (Item 1 is a pleading. Items 2-4 are evidentiary matters and are admitted without objection). Applicant was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. She submitted a written response, which is admitted as Applicant exhibit (AE) A. Department Counsel’s transmittal memorandum is marked as hearing exhibit (HE) I. The case was assigned to me on May 19, 2017.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, she essentially denied all the allegations by her explanations. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings and evidence submitted, I make the following findings of fact.

Applicant is 61 years old. She is married (divorced from first husband), and has five adult children. She has worked for her current employer, a defense contractor, since March 2015. She is a high school graduate and has completed some technical training.1

The SOR alleged Applicant was delinquent on her property taxes in the approximate amount of $34,515 for tax years 2012 through 2014. It also alleged she had two medical collection accounts for $450 and $233.2

Applicant listed the delinquent property taxes in her security clearance application and in her background interview. They do not appear in her credit report. These taxes are for approximately 707 acres of land. She is current on her taxes on about 278 acres, but owes a balance on the remaining acres. She supplied documentation that she paid her 2012 property taxes in the amount of approximately $13,283, and she is working on paying the remaining taxes. This debt is being resolved.3

Applicant provided documentation showing she paid the medical debt listed in SOR ¶ 1.c. She believes she paid the other medical debt (SOR ¶ 1.b), but she cannot find the receipt. She is still looking for it and if she cannot locate it she will pay the amount owed. These two debts are satisfied or being satisfied. According to the admitted credit report, she is current on all her other debts and obligations, including her mortgage and several credit cards.4

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 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, these guidelines are applied 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.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record.

Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must 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 applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and 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 that an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.

Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that 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

AG ¶ 18 expresses the security concern for financial considerations:

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. I have considered all of them under AG ¶ 19 and the following potentially apply:

(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and

Applicant accumulated delinquent debts over an extended period of time. I find both disqualifying conditions are raised.

The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties. I have considered all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 and the following potentially apply:

(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 self-reported her property tax delinquencies that otherwise would not have shown up on her credit report. She documented that she has paid over $13,000 toward her tax debt and continues to reduce the debt. She paid one collection medical debt and is reviewing whether she owes the second debt. These circumstances do not cast doubt on her reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. AG ¶ 20(a) partially applies.

There was no evidence to suggest that the debts were due to conditions beyond Applicant’s control. AG ¶ 20(b) does not apply.

Applicant is making positive strives on her property tax debt. She paid one medical debt and is reviewing whether she previously paid the second debt. Regardless, it is of minimal amount and of little security significance. AG ¶ 20(c) and ¶ 20(d) partially apply.

A security clearance adjudication is not a debt collection procedure. It is a procedure designed to evaluate an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. See ISCR Case No. 09-02160 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010). An applicant is not required, as a matter of law, to establish resolution of every debt alleged in the SOR. An applicant need only establish a plan to resolve the financial problems and take significant actions to implement the plan. There is no requirement that an applicant make payments on all delinquent debts simultaneously, nor is there a requirement that the debts alleged in the SOR be paid first. See ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008). There is also no requirement that an applicant pay every debt listed in the SOR, only that she remove concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness raised by those debts. See ISCR Case No. 14-00504 at 3 (App. Bd. August 4, 2014). Applicant has taken significant action to resolve his debts.

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 the 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 guideline 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 considered Applicant’s personal circumstances. The evidence supports that she resolved or is resolving the debts. The record contains sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant mitigated the security concerns arising under Guideline F, financial considerations.

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.c: 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.

_____________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Item 2. 2 Item 1. 3 Item 1; AE A. 4 Items 1, 4; AE A