CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-00375.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-00375.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-00375.h1

deniedAug 15, 2017· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

The security clearance application of a 38-year-old self-employed office manager was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Administrative Judge Darlene D. Lokey Anderson found that the applicant had a history of eight delinquent debts, totaling approximately $14,344, which raised concerns about her reliability and judgment.

The Statement of Reasons detailed several specific financial issues. These included six delinquent medical accounts, ranging from approximately $194 to $5,910, all of which had been placed for collection. Additionally, two state tax liens were filed against the applicant in July 2007 for approximately $268, and in October 2007 for approximately $604.

The denial was based on the applicant's admitted history of these eight delinquent debts. Crucially, she failed to provide documentation to substantiate any claims of payment arrangements or efforts to resolve these outstanding obligations. Consequently, no mitigating conditions were found applicable, as the applicant did not demonstrate responsible action regarding her financial issues.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has a history of eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $14,344.
Applicant failed to provide documentation to substantiate claims of payment arrangements.
No mitigating conditions were applicable as the applicant did not demonstrate responsible action regarding her debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1.araisedInability to Satisfy Debts
F.1.braisedUnwillingness to Satisfy Debts Regardless of the Ability to Do So
F.1.craisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

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 issuedJun 7, 2016
Answer filedJun 14, 2016Applicant requested decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateAug 15, 2017

Cite For

Failure to Provide Evidence of Financial Responsibility Under Guideline F
Denial Based on Unresolved Delinquent Debts
Lack of Mitigating Circumstances for Financial Issues

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 had multiple delinquent debts totaling approximately $14,344, which raised significant financial concerns under Guideline F. Despite the applicant's claims of attempting to resolve these debts, the judge concluded that there was insufficient evidence of responsible action or mitigation, resulting in a decision against the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	A delinquent medical account that was placed for collection in the amount of $5,910. $5,910	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	A delinquent medical account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $5,685. $5,685	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	A delinquent medical account that was placed for collection in the approximate amount of $845. $845	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	A delinquent medical account that was placed for collection in the approximate amount of $494. $494	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	A delinquent medical account that was placed for collection in the amount of $344. $344	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	A delinquent medical account that was placed for collection in the amount of $194. $194	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	A state tax lien was filed against the Applicant in July 2007 in the approximate amount of $268. $268	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Unknown	—	—	—
1.h	A state tax lien was filed against the Applicant in October 2007 in the approximate amount of $604. $604	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Unknown	—	—	—

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: 16-00375 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Ross Hyams, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

August 15, 2017

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:

On August 9, 2015, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-86). On June 7, 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 on June 14, 2016. She admitted all of the SOR allegations concerning her delinquent debts, and requested that her case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing. (Item 1.) On August 15, 2016, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), containing seven Items, was mailed to Applicant and received by her on August 29, 2016. The FORM also notified Applicant that the Government amended the SOR to add two additional allegations under Guideline F, referenced as 1(g), and 1(h). Applicant was notified that she had an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of her receipt of the FORM.

Applicant did not respond to the FORM. DOHA assigned the case to me on July 11, 2017, and Items 1 through 7 are admitted into evidence. Going forward, the Government’s items will be referred to as Government Exhibits. Applicant’s failure to respond to the FORM will be considered a denial.

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 38 years old. She is married with three children. Since May 2005, Applicant has been working as a self-employed office manager. Since 2016, she joined her husband as a truck driver working for a defense contractor. She is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with her employment. (Government Exhibit 4.)

Applicant has a history of financial problems involving eight delinquent debts totaling approximately $14,344. She claims that the debts alleged allegations 1(a), and 1(b), are one in the same debt. She admits each of the remaining debts. Each of the debts listed in the SOR remain owing. (Government Exhibit 3.)

1(a) A delinquent medical account that was placed for collection in the amount of $5,910. 1(b) A delinquent medical account placed for collection in the approximate amount of $5,685. Applicant states that the debts in 1(a) and 1(b) are one in the same debt. She states that she had made arrangements to pay $25 monthly which was to be deducted from her bank account in July. Applicant states that she then lost contact with the bank and it has been difficult for her to stay on top of her bills. (Government Exhibit 3.) The debt remains owing in Applicant’s credit reports dated August 28, 2015, and May 18, 2016. (Government Exhibits 6 and 7.) 1(c) A delinquent medical account that was placed for collection in the approximate amount of $845. Applicant states that she is trying to resolve the bill and plans to make arrangements to pay off the account. (Government Exhibit 3.)

1(d) A delinquent medical account that was placed for collection in the approximate amount of $494. She states that she tried to dispute the debt, but did not hear anything from the creditor. She further states that she has made arrangements to pay off the debt by the end of the month, with payments to be made on June 17, and June 24, 2017. (Government Exhibit 3.)

1(e) A delinquent medical account that was placed for collection in the amount of $344. Applicant is trying to contact the creditor to resolve the debt. (Government Exhibit 3.)

1(f) A delinquent medical account that was placed for collection in the amount of $194. She states that she has contacted the creditor to establish a payment plan. (Government Exhibit 3.)

On August 12, 2017, the Government amended the SOR to add the following two allegations. 1(g) A state tax lien was filed against the Applicant in July 2007 in the approximate amount of $268. 1(h) A state tax lien was filed against the Applicant in October 2007 in the approximate amount of $604. Applicant failed to respond to the allegations. Applicant’s silence in response to the amendment and the new allegations will be considered denials. The Government’s evidence shows that both tax liens are still owing. (Government Exhibit 6.)

Applicant states that until last year, she was a stay at home mother. Since last year, she has joined her husband as an over-the-road truck driver to run the sensitive item loads. She enjoys her job. Her husband and father are Marine Veterans, and she takes pride in working for the Government. She states that she is making every effort to resolve her delinquent debts in a timely fashion. (Government Exhibit 3)

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 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. Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern. It may indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.

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 seven delinquent debts that have been placed in collection that she has not resolved. This fact establishes prima facie support for the foregoing disqualifying conditions, and shifts the burden to Applicant to mitigate the concerns.

The guideline includes seven 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;

(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;

(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;

(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;

(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue; (f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income; and

(g) the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements.

None of the mitigation conditions under AG ¶ 20 are applicable here. Although Applicant claims that she has or is going to make arrangement to pay the creditors listed in the SOR. She has failed to submit any documentation to substantiate this. Mere claims to have made payment arrangements to pay the creditors are not enough to carry her burden of proof. There are no clear indications that her financial problems are under control. Furthermore she failed to present any evidence as to why her debts became delinquent, how her financial situation has changed, if any, since the time of the delinquencies, and whether her financial situation is now stable and manageable. With the facts presented Applicant has not acted responsibly or in good-faith to demonstrate that she has done anything about her indebtedness. The record fails to establish any mitigation of financial security concerns under any of the provisions of AG ¶¶ 20(a) through 20(g).

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.

I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is a mature adult, who took no reasonable and effective action to resolve the financial issues of concern to the Government in the SOR. Her financial problems still exist and there is no real solution here. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with serious doubt as to Applicant’s judgment, eligibility, and suitability for a security clearance. She has not met her 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 through1.h: 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.

Darlene Lokey Anderson Administrative Judge