CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 16-01394.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 16-01394.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 16-01394.h1

deniedSep 20, 2017· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 54-year-old woman with a bachelor's degree was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from her failure to resolve multiple delinquent debts totaling $17,529 and her deliberate omission of a repossessed vehicle from her October 2014 trustworthiness application.

Specifically, the applicant faced allegations regarding a delinquent debt on a repossessed vehicle and several collection debts, all totaling $17,529. One debt was noted as paid. A key disqualifying condition under Personal Conduct was the deliberate failure to list the repossessed vehicle on her application, which undermined her credibility.

The judge determined that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence of resolving her financial issues and failed to provide truthful information on her application. This demonstrated a lack of reliability and good judgment, leading to the denial of her eligibility for access to sensitive information.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to provide evidence of resolving her delinquent debts.
The applicant deliberately omitted a repossessed vehicle from her trustworthiness application, undermining her credibility.
The applicant's financial difficulties were not adequately addressed, showing a lack of reliability and good judgment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1.araisedInability to Satisfy Debts
F.1.craisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E.2.aappliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to sensitive information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 6, 2016
Answer filedSep 26, 2016
Hearing heldApr 10, 2017
Decision dateSep 20, 2017

Cite For

Failure to Disclose Financial Obligations Under Guideline E
Lack of Efforts to Resolve Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Credibility Issues Related to Personal Conduct Disclosures

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 against the applicant on the personal conduct allegations under Guideline E, specifically regarding the deliberate omission of a repossessed vehicle from her trustworthiness application. The applicant's failure to provide truthful information raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to sensitive information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant deliberately failed to list her repossessed vehicle on her October 2014 trustworthiness application.	Against Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseFOUND DELIBERATE	Other	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form	—	—

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 against the applicant on multiple financial allegations, indicating a pattern of unpaid debts and a lack of efforts to resolve them. One subparagraph was found for the applicant, but overall, the financial considerations were deemed insufficiently mitigated, leading to a denial of eligibility for access to sensitive information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Delinquent debt owed on a repossessed vehicle	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Collection debt totaling $17,529 $17,529	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Collection debt totaling $17,529	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Collection debt totaling $17,529	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Collection debt totaling $17,529	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Collection debt totaling $17,529	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Paid debt	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	Collection debt totaling $17,529	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(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: ) ) ) ADP Case No. 16-01394 ) Applicant for Public Trust Position )

For Government: Mary Margaret Foreman, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

09/20/2017 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations or personal conduct trustworthiness concerns. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied.

Statement of the Case

On September 6, 2016, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations and Guideline E, personal conduct. DOD acted under DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG).1

Applicant answered (Ans.) the SOR on September 26, 2016. The case was assigned to me on January 18, 2017. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on March 13, 2017, and the hearing was convened as scheduled on April 10, 2017. The Government offered exhibits (GE) 1 through 4, which were admitted into evidence without objection. Department Counsel’s exhibit list was marked as hearing exhibit (HE) I. Applicant testified and offered exhibit (AE) A, which was admitted without objection. The record was held open until May 12, 2017, for Applicant to submit additional information. Applicant submitted AE B, which was admitted without objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on April 20, 2017.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted some of the SOR allegations with explanations, and denied others. The admissions are incorporated as findings of fact. After a review of the pleadings and evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact.

Applicant is 54 years old. She has been in her current position with a DOD contractor since August 2014. She has a bachelor’s degree. She is twice divorced and once widowed. She has four adult children from her first marriage.2

The SOR alleged a delinquent debt owed on a repossessed vehicle and seven collection debts totaling $17,529. The SOR also alleged Applicant deliberately failed to list her repossessed vehicle on her October 2014 trustworthiness application. All the debts are listed in credit reports from October 2014 and March 2016. She admitted in her hearing testimony that with the exception of SOR ¶ 1.g, all the debts remain unpaid. She provided documentation showing that SOR ¶ 1.gwas paid. She failed to provide any evidence showing that she paid the remaining debts, set up payment plans for any debts, or contacted the respective creditors. She also failed to document any disputed debt.3

Applicant attributed her financial difficulties to experiencing difficult personal circumstances in 2007 when three family members died in the space of 16 months. She also claimed her third husband was not helpful for her financial situation. She owes on her student loans from 1995, but is unsure what the outstanding amount is for those loans. She has not made any payments on the student loans in a number of years. Any federal tax refund destined for her is captured to pay toward her student loan debt. She claims she hired a credit monitoring service to clear up her credit report, but aside from providing a credit report, she did not document the efforts of the service.4

Applicant currently lives from paycheck to paycheck. She admitted just receiving her biweekly paycheck and after paying her bills only having $10 remaining to last for another two weeks until she is paid again. She has no 401K retirement account. Despite these tight financial circumstances, she recently purchased a new motorcycle with a monthly payment of $375. She does not have a monthly budget.5

Applicant denied that she intended to deceive the Government when she failed to list her repossessed vehicle on the trustworthiness application. I did not find Applicant’s denial credible. In her January 2015 trustworthiness interview with a defense investigator, she admitted knowing about the repossessed vehicle as early as March of 2013. She further stated she thought she listed the repossession on her application.6

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a public trust position, the administrative judge must consider the disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the AG. 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(a), 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 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.

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 trustworthiness decision.

A person who seeks access to sensitive 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 sensitive information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard sensitive information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of sensitive information.

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

AG ¶ 18 expresses the trustworthiness concern for financial considerations:

Failure 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 or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling, mental health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse or dependence. An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern insofar as it may result from criminal activity, including espionage.

The guideline notes several conditions that could raise trustworthiness concerns. I have considered all of them under AG ¶ 19 and the following potentially apply:

(a) inability to satisfy debts; and

Applicant has delinquent debts that remain unpaid. I find the above disqualifying conditions are raised.

The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate trustworthiness 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, 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; and

(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.

Applicant failed to show efforts toward resolving her debt. This pattern shows a lack of reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. AG ¶ 20(a) is not applicable.

Applicant’s personal circumstances, including family deaths and her husband’s action, were conditions beyond her control. She did not take responsible actions during the time after these events to deal with her debts. AG ¶ 20(b) is partially applicable.

Other than apparently hiring a credit monitoring service, there is no evidence of Applicant receiving financial counseling. With the exception of one paid debt, the remaining debts remain unaddressed. Applicant’s financial problems are not under control. Evidence of good-faith efforts to pay or resolve her debts is lacking. AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) do not apply, with the exception of SOR ¶ 1.g. She failed to document any disputed debts. AG ¶ 20(e) does not apply.

Guideline E, Personal Conduct

AG ¶ 15 expresses the trustworthiness concern for personal conduct:

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 or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes.

The guideline notes several conditions that could raise trustworthiness concerns. I have considered all of them under AG ¶ 16 and the following potentially applies:

(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 national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities. Applicant failed to list her repossessed car debt on her October 2014 trustworthiness application. She was aware of the debt as early as March 2013. She went into great detail about the debt during her trustworthiness interview in January 2015. I do not find Applicant’s denial of intentionally withholding this information credible. AG ¶ 16 applies.

(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.

Providing truthful information during a trustworthy determination is vital to insure the validity of the process. It is not a minor offense to deliberately provide false information during such a background investigation. AG ¶ 17(c) does not apply.

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(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.

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 relevant facts and circumstances surrounding this case. I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(d) were addressed under that guideline, but some warrant additional comment.

I considered Applicant’s difficult family circumstances. However, I also considered that all but one of her debts remain unpaid. She did not provide truthful information on her trustworthiness application. She has not established a meaningful track record of debt management and her reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment is suspect.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations and the personal conduct trustworthiness 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: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs: 1.a – 1.f: Against Applicant Subparagraph: 1.g: For Applicant Subparagraph: 1.h: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph: 2.a: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances, it is not clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for access to sensitive information. Eligibility for access to sensitive information is denied.

________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 I decided this case using the AG implemented by DOD on June 8, 2017. However, I also considered this case under the previous version of the AG implemented on September 1, 2006, and my conclusions are the same using either set of AG. 2 Tr. at 5, 18-19; GE 1.

3 Tr. at 25-26, 28, 30, 32-34; GE 3-4; AE B.

4 Tr. at 19-21, 36, 39, 43; AE A. Since her delinquent student loans were not alleged in the SOR, I will only use this information in assessing the applicability of any mitigating conditions and weighing the whole-person factors. 5 Tr. at 36-37, 44.

6 Tr. at 26; GE 2.