CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-02414.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-02414.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-02414.h1

deniedMar 27, 2009· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A pro se applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant and unresolved financial issues. The Statement of Reasons detailed ten specific past due and charged-off debts, including credit card accounts, bank debts, and utility bills, totaling over $20,000. These debts included a charged-off credit card for approximately $5,476, a past due bank debt of about $2,582, and a collection account with a utility company for approximately $6,170, among others.

The applicant acknowledged his financial difficulties and claimed to be negotiating with creditors. However, he failed to provide sufficient evidence of resolution or responsible action to mitigate the security concerns. The judge applied Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c), while considering Mitigating Condition AG ¶ 20(b).

Ultimately, the denial was based on the applicant's admission of multiple past due debts without proof of resolution, and his unsubstantiated claims of negotiation. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial difficulties raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple past due debts totaling over $20,000 without providing evidence of resolution.
The applicant's claims of being in negotiations regarding his debts were unsubstantiated and did not demonstrate responsible action.
The applicant's financial difficulties raised concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial issues were not sufficiently mitigated by his claims of unemployment and reduced pay.

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 31, 2008
Answer filedNov 25, 2008
Hearing held—Pro Se
Decision dateMar 27, 2009

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance Eligibility
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution as a Basis for Clearance Denial

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 multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including several charged off debts and past due accounts. The applicant's claims of being in negotiations for these debts were not substantiated, leading to a decision against the applicant on all allegations.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The first debt is a charged off credit card account in the amount of about $5,476 $5,476	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	The second debt is past due to a bank in the amount of about $2,582 $2,582	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	The third debt is past due to the same bank in the amount of about $1,522 $1,522	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	The fourth debt is a delinquent debt to another bank in the amount of about $468 $468	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	The fifth debt is a charged off gasoline credit card account in the amount of about $1,282 $1,282	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	The sixth debt is a collection account to a third bank in the amount of about $3,204 $3,204	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	The seventh debt is a delinquent debt to a fourth bank in the amount of about $1,764 $1,764	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	The eighth debt is a collection account to a utility company in the amount of about $6,170 $6,170	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	The ninth debt is a collection account for another gasoline credit card account in the amount of about $1,734 $1,734	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.j	The last debt is a collection account to another utility company in the amount of about $347 $347	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	—	—

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. 08-02414 SSN: ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Kathryn D. MacKinnon, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro Se

March 27, 2009

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), on August 27, 2007. On October 31, 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 acknowledged receipt of the SOR soon thereafter. He answered the SOR in writing on November 25, 2008, and requested an Administrative Determination by an Administrative Judge. Department Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on January 8, 2009. The Applicant did not respond to the FORM. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his Answer to the SOR, dated November 25, 2008, Applicant admitted the factual allegations of all the Subparagraphs of the SOR, with explanations.

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

The Applicant was unemployed from March~June of 1999 (Item 3 at page 5). When he was re-employed, his pay was substantially less (Id). This caused him to have financial difficulties (Item 3 at page 5).

The SOR alleges ten past due or charged off debts. They will be addressed in the order they are listed.

1.a. The first debt is a charged off credit card account in the amount of about $5,476 (Item 5 at page 7). The Applicant avers that he is “[i]n 3 party negotiations” regarding this debt, but has provided nothing further (Item 4 at pages 7–8). I find that this debt remains outstanding.

1.b. The second debt is past due to a bank in the amount of about $2,582 (Item 5 at page 5). The Applicant again avers that he is “[i]n 3 party negotiations” regarding this debt, but has provided nothing further (Item 4 at pages 3–4). I find that this debt remains outstanding.

1.c. The third debt is past due to the same bank in the amount of about $1,522 (Item 5 at page 5). The Applicant avers that he is “[i]n 3 party negotiations” regarding this debt, but has provided nothing further (Item 4 at pages 4–5). I find that this debt remains outstanding.

1.d. The fourth debt is a delinquent debt to another bank in the amount of about $468 (Item 5 at page 7). The Applicant avers that he is also “[i]n 3 party negotiations” regarding this debt, but has provided nothing further (Item 4 at pages 5–6). I find that this debt remains outstanding.

1.e. The fifth debt is a charged off gasoline credit card account in the amount of about $1,282 (Item 5 at page 4). The Applicant avers that he is “[i]n 3 party negotiations” regarding this debt, but has provided nothing further (Item 4 at pages 6–7). I find that this debt remains outstanding.

1.f. The sixth debt is a collection account to a third bank in the amount of about $3,204 (Item 5 at page 3). The Applicant avers that he has “acquired a credit consular(sic) to negotiate” this debt, but has provided nothing further (Item 4 at page 2). I find that this debt remains outstanding.

1.g. The seventh debt is a delinquent debt to a fourth bank in the amount of about $1,764 (Item 5 at page 3). The Applicant avers that he is “[i]n 3 party negotiations” regarding this debt, but has provided nothing further (Item 4 at page 6). I find that this debt remains outstanding. 1.h. The eighth debt is a collection account to a utility company in the amount of about $6,170 (Item 5 at page 8). The Applicant avers that he is “[i]nthe process of 3rd party negotiations” regarding this debt, but has provided nothing further (Item 4 at page 3). I find that this debt remains outstanding.

1.i. The ninth debt is a collection account for another gasoline credit card account in the amount of about $1,734 (Item 5 at page 6). The Applicant avers that he is “[i]nthe process of 3 party negotiations” regarding this debt, but has provided nothing further (Item 4 at pages 4). I find that this debt remains outstanding.

1.j. The last debt is a collection account to another utility company in the amount of about $347 (Item 5 at page 3). The Applicant avers that he is “[i]n 3 party negotiations” regarding this debt, but has provided nothing further (Item 4 at page 5). I find that this debt remains outstanding.

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 Paragraph 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 Paragraph 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 Paragraph E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive Paragraph E3.1.15, the Applicant is responsible “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 Paragraph 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 Subparagraph19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise security concerns. Subparagraph 20(b), states that it may be mitigating where “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, . . .), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.@ Here, the Applicant was unemployed in 1999, and was later employed with a substantial cut in pay; but, other than evidenced by his bare averments in response to the Government’s interrogatories, he has done little to address his very substantial past due indebtedness.

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 Subparagraph 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) 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.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For these reasons, I conclude Applicant has failed to mitigate 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

Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.I: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

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

_________________ RICHARD A. CEFOLA Administrative Judge