CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01318.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01318.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01318.h1

deniedJul 1, 2016· Hon. Erin C. Hogan· hearing

Summary

A 63-year-old Department of Defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from significant financial delinquencies, including approximately $70,000 in unpaid federal taxes for tax years 2012, 2013, and 2014, and multiple charged-off credit card accounts totaling over $26,000.

The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant deliberately falsified her January 13, 2015, security clearance application by answering "no" to a question about being over 120 days delinquent on any debt not previously listed. This was based on her failure to disclose the charged-off credit card accounts, a $15,000 student loan that was at least 120 days past due, and a 120-day past-due credit union account.

While the judge found no intentional falsification of the application, the ongoing and unresolved financial issues, including the unpaid taxes and credit card debts with no repayment arrangements, raised serious concerns about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has approximately $70,000 in unpaid federal taxes for tax years 2012, 2013, and 2014.
The applicant has multiple charged-off credit card accounts totaling over $26,000, with no payments made or arrangements established for repayment.
The applicant's financial problems are ongoing and have not been resolved, raising questions about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's husband's loss of income contributed to their financial difficulties.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant has not demonstrated a good-faith effort to resolve most of her debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance represents an obligation to the Federal Government for the protection of national secrets.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 12, 2016
Answer filedSep 16, 2016
Hearing heldDec 8, 2016
Decision dateMar 16, 2017

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline F
The Impact of Unresolved Tax Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
The Importance of Demonstrating a Good-faith Effort to Resolve 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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant did not deliberately falsify her security clearance application regarding her financial obligations. The applicant's response to the allegations was accepted, leading to a favorable ruling under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant deliberately falsified her security clearance application, dated January 13, 2015, by answering “no” to the question in section 26, “Other than previously listed, have any of the following happened to you? In the past seven years, have you been over 120 days or more delinquent on any debt not previously entered? (Include financial obligations for which you were the sole debtor, as well as those for which you were a cosigner or guarantor. It is alleged Applicant falsified the answer to this question because she did not list the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.b and 1.c, a student loan that was not alleged in the SOR that was 120 days overdue, and a 120-day past-due delinquent credit union account that was not alleged in the SOR.	For Applicant	Falsification Security Form	Financial	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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 three charged-off credit card debts totaling $26,882 and approximately $70,000 in unpaid federal taxes. The judge ruled against the applicant on the majority of the allegations, indicating a lack of good-faith efforts to resolve the debts, while finding one student loan allegation mitigated due to the applicant's participation in a rehabilitation program.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	a charged-off credit card account in the amount of $9,869 $9,869	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	a charged-off credit card account in the amount of $9,454 $9,454	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	a charged-off credit card account in the amount of $7,559 $7,559	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	a student loan that was at least 120 days past due in the amount of $15,000 $15,000	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 (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Claimed Debt Paid in Full
1.e	You are indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes for tax years 2012, 2013, and 2014 in the approximate amount of $70,000 $70,000	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—

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: ) ) [Name Redacted] ) ISCR Case No. 16-01318 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Rhett Petcher, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Applicant’s Husband, Personal Representative

03/16/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

HOGAN, Erin C., Administrative Judge:

On August 12, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations; and Guideline E, Personal Conduct. The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the Department of Defense after September 1, 2006.

On September 16, 2016, Applicant answered the SOR and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on October 14, 2016. The case was assigned to me on November 7, 2016. On November 10, 2016, a Notice of Hearing was issued, scheduling the hearing for December 8, 2016. The hearing was held as scheduled. During the hearing, the Government offered four exhibits which were admitted as Government Exhibits (Gov) 1 – 4. Applicant and Applicant’s husband, who also served as her personal representative, testified and offered two exhibits which were admitted as Applicant Exhibits (AE) A – B. The transcript (Tr.) was received on December 16, 2016. The record was held open until December 22, 2016, to allow Applicant to submit additional documents. Applicant timely submitted additional documents which were admitted without objection as AE C – AE H. Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Procedural Issue

During the hearing, it was discovered that Applicant and her husband owed the federal government approximately $70,000 in federal income taxes for tax years 2012, 2013, and 2014. Department Counsel motioned to amend the SOR pursuant to paragraph E3.1.17 of the Directive to conform with the evidence as follows:

1.e You are indebted to the Federal Government for delinquent taxes for tax years 2012, 2013, and 2014 in the approximate amount of $70,000. As of the date of the Statement of Reasons, the taxes remain unpaid.

There being no objection, the motion to amend the SOR was granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In her response to the SOR, Applicant admits the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a – 1.d, but indicates the balance of the debt in SOR ¶ 1.dis incorrect. She denies the allegations in SOR ¶ 2.a.

Applicant is a 63-year-old employee of a Department of Defense contractor seeking to maintain a security clearance. She has worked for her current employer since September 2016. She has worked for various defense contractors for 33 years. She has held a Secret clearance since 1984. She has a bachelor’s degree. She is married and has a 27-year-old daughter. (Tr. 17 – 21; Gov 1)

On January 13, 2015, Applicant submitted an electronic questionnaire for investigations processing (e-QIP) during a periodic background reinvestigation. A subsequent security clearance background investigation revealed the following delinquent debts: a charged-off credit card account in the amount of $9,869 (SOR ¶ 1.a: Gov 2 at 4; Gov 3 at 2; Gov 4 at 2); a charged-off credit card account in the amount of $9,454 (SOR ¶ 1.b: Gov 2 at 4; Gov 3 at 2; Gov 4 at 2); a charged-off credit card account in the amount of $7,559 (SOR ¶ 1.c: Gov 2 at 12; Gov 3 at 2; Gov 4 at 2); and a student loan that was at least 120 days past due in the amount of $15,000. (SOR ¶ 1.d: Gov 4 at 2).

Applicant and her husband have suffered a 60 percent loss of family income since 2012. In 2012, her husband lost his salaried position of $165,000 a year. Applicant’s salary was also reduced by 15 percent as a result of a transitioning to a new onsite contractor who won the competitive award. They were advised by an attorney to pay secured debt first with the funds that they have available. They focused on paying their mortgage and car payment. They intend to satisfy all delinquencies once they have available income. (Tr. 25 – 27, 54; Answer to SOR)

In 2012, Applicant and her husband’s combined gross income was approximately $240,000. In 2015, their combined gross income was $170,000. Applicant’s husband testified that his annual income for consulting in 2016 will be approximately $50,000. Applicant’s annual salary is $81,000. The household combined income will be $131,000 for 2016. (Tr. 21, 41-42, 51)

In 2015, Applicant’s husband was an employee of a government contractor. He worked on a special project for them. The work ended in October 2015, and the Applicant’s husband stopped receiving a salary in November 2015. He remains a director of the company, but he is not compensated. Since 2013, Applicant’s husband has been working with the company and a local university to establish an aviation center at a local base. He agreed to work without compensation. Once the aviation center is established, he would be compensated at a salary of $200,000 annually. He does not have a written contract. It is a verbal agreement. After the hearing, he provided a letter from the executive vice president of international programs at the company, who confirmed that Applicant’s husband will be rehired with an annual salary of $200,000 once they obtain funds. He anticipates the funds will be available in February 2017. (Tr. 52-53; AE B, AE H)

The current status of the delinquent accounts alleged in the SOR are as follows:

SOR ¶ 1.a: $9,869 charged-off credit card account: No payments have been made toward this account. No arrangements have been made to enter into a payment plan towards this account. (Tr. 27, 53)

SOR ¶ 1.b: $9,454 charged-off credit card account: No payments have been made toward this account. No arrangements have been made to enter into a payment plan towards this account. (Tr. 28, 53)

SOR ¶ 1.c: $7,559 charged-off credit card account: No payments have been made toward this account. No arrangements have been made to enter into a payment plan towards this account. (Tr. 29, 53)

SOR ¶ 1.d: $15,000 student loan account, delinquent over 120 days: This is a student loan for Applicant’s daughter’s college education. Applicant disputes the balance on the account. The current balance on the account is $8,213. In August 2016, Applicant entered into a student loan rehabilitation agreement with a student loan collection agency. She agreed to pay $5.00 per month for 9 months in order to rehabilitate this defaulted student loan account. The payment is being deducted automatically from her debit card. Once the loan is rehabilitated, Applicant and her husband will be required to pay a new monthly loan payment. (Tr. 30-31; AE C) Applicant’s husband handles all of the financial affairs. She testified that they currently do not earn enough to pay off the bills. They pay what they can. Applicant’s husband testified in more detail about the family finances. Applicant and her husband are responsible for $80,000 of their daughter’s student loans. The loan alleged in the SOR is in rehabilitation. Another student loan is in forbearance. The loan has been in forbearance on several occasions since December 2014. The current forbearance period ends soon and they will need to work out a payment plan. Their daughter does not help with the student loans. She is paying for graduate school. (Tr. 46-47, 61)

During the hearing, Applicant’s husband was asked whether they were current on federal and state income taxes. He testified that they owe the IRS approximately $70,000 in back taxes for tax years 2012, 2013, and 2014. They are speaking with an IRS employee to work out a repayment agreement. They also owe taxes to the state. In June 2016, Applicant’s husband entered into a repayment agreement with the state to pay $245 a month towards the state tax debt. They owe $3,178.82 for tax year 2011 and $1,702.06 for tax year 2013. (Tr. 58-59, 69-70; AE E)

After the hearing, Applicant submitted more detailed information about the household budget. Their total monthly income is $10,150. Their monthly living expenses total $10,147. They have $3.00 left over each month after expenses. (AE D) They also provided the name and number of the IRS employee that they were working with to resolve the federal tax debt. There was no repayment agreement in effect at the close of the record. (AE D; HE III)

Applicant and her husband are both over 62. They are able to protect their home under their state’s homestead law. The law prevents creditors from placing a lien on their home. The law also protects up to $15,000 in the value of a car used for personal transportation from creditors who hold a judgment and seek a levy on execution. (Answer to SOR; AE F; AE G)

Personal Conduct

Under personal conduct, the SOR alleged that Applicant deliberately falsified her security clearance application, dated January 13, 2015, by answering “no” to the question in section 26, “Other than previously listed, have any of the following happened to you? In the past seven years, have you been over 120 days or more delinquent on any debt not previously entered? (Include financial obligations for which you were the sole debtor, as well as those for which you were a cosigner or guarantor. It is alleged Applicant falsified the answer to this question because she did not list the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.band 1.c, a student loan that was not alleged in the SOR that was 120 days overdue, and a 120-day past-due delinquent credit union account that was not alleged in the SOR. (Gov 1; section 26)

Applicant says that the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.band 1.cwere not 120 days past due at the time she completed her security clearance application. She had completed a ten-month rehabilitation program for the student loan account. She was advised the student loan would be removed for her credit report at the completion of the plan. The plan was completed in November 2014. This was before she completed the e- QIP and she believed the account was current because it was in forbearance at the time she completed the e-QIP in January 2015. Finally, the credit union loan became 120 days delinquent the month she completed her application. This account is now current. (Answer to SOR)

Applicant relied on the information that her husband provided her when completing the e-QIP application. She was aware that they were behind on some of the bills, but not more than 90 days behind. She followed her husband’s recommendations because he pays all of the bills. (Tr. 33-38) During the hearing, it was clear that Applicant did not have a firm grasp on the family finances. Particularly telling, was when her husband testified that they owed over $70,000 in federal taxes. She was clearly surprised by this information.

Whole-Person Factors

Applicant has had a long successful career as a government contractor. She provided copies of several awards and letters of appreciation received during her career. (AE A)

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered when determining 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, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel . . .” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining 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 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 information.

Section 7 of EO 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

The security concern relating to the guideline 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 disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns. I find AG ¶19(a) (an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts); and AG ¶19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations), apply. Applicant has three delinquent credit card accounts with a total balance of $26,882. She and her husband also owe the IRS approximately $70,000 for tax years 2012, 2013 and 2014.

An individual who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in her obligations to protect classified information. Behaving irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life. A person’s relationship with her creditors is a private matter until evidence is uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to pay debts under agreed terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be debt free, but is required to manage her finances in such a way as to meet her financial obligations.

With regard to Applicant’s tax debts for tax years 2012, 2013, and 2014, the recent emphasis of the DOHA Appeal Board on security concerns arising from tax cases is instructive. See ISCR Case No. 14-05794 at 7 (App. Bd. July 7, 2016) (reversing grant of security clearance and stating, “His delay in taking action to resolve his tax deficiency for years and then taking action only after his security clearance was in jeopardy undercuts a determination that Applicant has rehabilitated himself and does not reflect the voluntary compliance of rules and regulations expected of someone entrusted with the nation’s secrets.”); ISCR Case No. 14-01894 at 2-6 (App. Bd. Aug. 18, 2015) (reversing grant of a security clearance and emphasizing the applicant’s failure to timely file and pay taxes); ISCR Case No. 12-05053 at 4 (App. Bd. Oct. 30, 2014) (reversing grant of a security clearance, noting not all tax returns filed). See also ISCR Case No. 14-03358 at 3, 5 (App. Bd. Oct. 9, 2015) (reversing grant of a security clearance, and stating “A security clearance represents an obligation to the Federal Government for the protection of national secrets. Accordingly failure to honor other obligations to the Government has a direct bearing on an applicant’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information.”).

The Government’s substantial evidence and Applicant’s own admissions raise security concerns under Guideline F. The burden shifted to Applicant to produce evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. (Directive ¶E3.1.15) An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. (See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sept. 22, 2005))

The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties. The following mitigating conditions potentially apply:

AG ¶ 20(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) does not apply. Applicant’s financial problems are continuing. There is no indication that the delinquent debt will be resolved in the near future.

AG ¶ 20(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) applies with respect to Applicant’s husband’s reduction in income in 2013. However, it does not justify the $70,000 federal tax debt for tax years 2012, 2013, and 2014. While Applicant was unaware of the tax situation, she should been aware of it. AG ¶ 20(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) does not apply. While Applicant has resolved some debt, she has not taken steps to resolve most of the debts alleged in the SOR. The promise of her husband’s future salary is not sufficient to conclude the financial problems will be resolved. A promise to pay in the future does not mitigate the financial concern. The DOHA Appeal Board has indicated that promises to pay off delinquent debts in the future are not a substitute for a track record of paying debts in a timely manner and otherwise acting in a financially responsible manner. ISCR Case No. 07-13041 at 4 (App. Bd. Sept. 19, 2008) (citing ISCR Case No. 99-0012 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 1999)).

AG ¶ 20(d) (the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts) applies with respect to the student loan account alleged in SOR ¶ 1.d. Applicant is currently in a rehabilitation program regarding this loan. A question remains as to whether Applicant will be able make payments towards the loan once the rehabilitation period is complete and the lender wants to negotiate a higher payment. The three credit card debts and the $70,000 tax debt remain unresolved. I cannot conclude Applicant initiated a good-faith effort to resolve these debts. As such, AG ¶ 20(d) does not apply with respect to these debts.

The DOHA Appeal Board has previously explained what constitutes a “good faith” effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts:

In order to qualify for application of [the “good faith” mitigating condition], an applicant must present evidence showing either a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or some other good-faith action aimed at resolving the applicant’s debts. The Directive does not define the term ‘good-faith.’ However, the Board has indicated that the concept of good- faith ‘requires a showing that a person acts in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation.’ Accordingly, an applicant must do more than merely show that he or she relied on a legally available option (such as bankruptcy) in order to claim the benefit of [the “good faith” mitigating condition].

(internal citation and footnote omitted) ISCR Case No. 02-30304 at 3 (App. Bd. Apr. 20, 2004) (quoting ISCR Case No. 99-9020 at 5-6 (App. Bd. June 4, 2001)).

Guideline E – Personal Conduct

The security concern relating to the guideline for Personal Conduct is set out in AG ¶15:

Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.

The following disqualifying condition potentially applies to Applicant’s case:

AG ¶ 16(a) (deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities).

I cannot conclude Applicant deliberately omitted her delinquent accounts in response to section 26 on her e-QIP application dated January 13, 2015. She relied on the answers provided by her husband when completing the questions regarding their finances because he handles the household finances. She did not intentionally falsify her response to section 26 of her security clearance application. She cooperated fully with the government once she learned of the delinquent accounts. The personal conduct concern is found for Applicant.

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 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 considered Applicant’s favorable awards and her over 30 years of service holding a security clearance and working for a federal contractor. I considered that she had no control over her husband’s employment situation. I also considered that Applicant, as a security clearance holder, should have been aware of her duty to be financially responsible. Ignoring her financial situation does not make her any less responsible for the delinquent debts and the tax debts. Those debts remain unresolved and there is no indication that they will be resolved in the near future.

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: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a -1.c, 1.e: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

_________________ ERIN C. HOGAN Administrative Judge