CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 07-15983.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 07-15983.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 07-15983.h1

deniedSep 9, 2008· Hon. Mary E. Henry· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old distribution clerk for a Department of Defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to unresolved financial issues. The applicant had two judgments against him, which he subsequently paid. However, the Statement of Reasons also cited additional debts incurred since a bankruptcy discharge, totaling $11,044. These debts included $5,693 for medical bills, $2,484 for credit cards, and $902 for telephone bills.

The denial was based on the applicant's unresolved debts, which raised concerns about financial reliability. Despite having paid the two judgments, the applicant failed to provide documentation of current income, expenses, or a repayment plan for the outstanding $11,044 in debts.

The decision highlighted that the applicant's history of financial difficulties post-bankruptcy indicated a lack of judgment and self-control, ultimately leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has unresolved debts totaling $11,044, which raises concerns about financial reliability.
The applicant did not provide documentation of current income, expenses, or a repayment plan for outstanding debts.
The applicant's history of financial difficulties post-bankruptcy indicates a lack of judgment and self-control.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 30, 2008
Answer filedApr 2, 2008Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateSep 9, 2008

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Impact of Financial Instability on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Providing Evidence of Financial Responsibility in 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 had significant financial concerns, including unpaid debts totaling $11,044, which raised questions about his reliability and trustworthiness. While the applicant had paid two judgments, he failed to provide documentation for other debts or a repayment plan, leading to a decision against him on most allegations under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has two judgments against him, which he has paid.	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant has two judgments against him, which he has paid.	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant has incurred additional debts since his bankruptcy discharge, totaling $11,044, including $5,693 for medical bills, $2,484 for credit cards, and $902 for telephone bills. $11,044	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d–1.l	9 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	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: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 07-15983 SSN: ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Tom Coale, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro Se

September 9, 2008 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:

Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I conclude that Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information must be denied.

Applicant submitted his Security Clearance Application (SF 86), on October 17, 2006. On January 30, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for Applicant. 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 revised adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. Applicant received the SOR On March 31, 2008. He submitted a notarized, written response to the SOR allegations dated April 2, 2008, and requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing.

Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) and mailed Applicant a complete copy on May 14, 2008. Applicant received the FORM on June 9, 2008. He had 30 days from receipt of the FORM to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He did not submit a response and additional evidence. DOHA assigned this case to me on August 15, 2008. The government submitted eight exhibits, which have been marked as Items 1-8 and admitted into the record.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his Answer to the SOR, dated April 2, 2008, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.c-1.l. He denied the remaining allegations. He also provided additional information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance.1

Applicant is 42 years old. He works for a Department of Defense contractor as a distribution clerk. He is divorced.2

In November 2000, Applicant filed a Chapter 7 Petition for Bankruptcy. The court discharged his debts in April 2002. Since his bankruptcy discharge, he has incurred additional debts, including two judgments against him by a utility company and a car dealer. His unpaid bills total $11,044, of which $5,693 is for medical bills, $2,484 is for credit cards, and $902 is for telephone bills.

Applicant provided documentation which verifies that he paid the two judgments against him. He paid the utility judgment in 2007 and the car dealer judgment in 2006. He has not provided any documentation reflecting payment of his other debts or a repayment plan for these debts. He has not provided any documentation showing his current income and expenses, nor offered an explanation as to how these debts occurred.4

POLICIES

When evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the revised adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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 over-arching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial and common sense 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. 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 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 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

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 conditions that could raise security concerns. Under AG ¶ 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶ 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise security concerns. Applicant accumulated more delinquent debt after his bankruptcy discharge, which he has been unable to pay for a period of time. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions, requiring a closer examination.

I have reviewed the mitigating conditions in AG¶ 20(a)-(f) and concluded that none are applicable in this case as to the debts he admits owing. Applicant has established he paid the two judgments, He paid the car dealer judgment through garnishment and the utility judgment after being contacted by a collection attorney. Thus, allegations 1.a and 1.bare found in favor of 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 common sense 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 as well as the above whole person factors. Since this record contains little evidence, I have no information to provide a good whole person analysis. His debts remain unpaid. He has not provided a reason for these debts nor has he provided any information on his current financial circumstances. I find that Applicant has not presented evidence which mitigates the government’s security concerns.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from his 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: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a-1.b: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.c-1.l: 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 eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

MARY E. HENRY Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

Item 4 (Applicant’s response to the SOR), at 1-2; Attachments to rebuttal. Item 5 (Applicant’s security clearance, dated October 17, 2006) at 1, 2, 4. Item 1 (Statement of Reasons) at 1-2; Item 6 (Credit Report, dated October 17, 2006); Item 7 (Credit Report, dated January 2, 2008); Item 8 (Credit Report, dated April 22, 2008). Item 4, supra note 1, at 4-5.