CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-02457.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-02457.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-02457.h1

grantedDec 15, 2008· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

This case concerns an applicant whose security clearance was granted despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons detailed several financial issues, including $197 in past due medical bills, which were subsequently paid in full. Additionally, the applicant settled a $10,434 credit card debt for $5,300 and fully paid another credit card debt totaling $1,251.

Disqualifying conditions related to financial irresponsibility were initially raised. However, the judge applied mitigating conditions, acknowledging that the applicant's financial difficulties were largely due to circumstances beyond her control, specifically job loss.

The decision to grant the clearance was based on the applicant's proactive efforts to resolve all past due debts. She demonstrated a positive monthly cash flow and accumulated approximately $8,500 in savings, indicating a return to financial stability. These actions and the context of her financial challenges led to the favorable outcome.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant addressed all past due debts and demonstrated a positive monthly cash flow.
She has approximately $8,500 in savings, indicating financial stability.
The financial difficulties were largely due to circumstances beyond her control, such as job loss.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person’s Control
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 25, 2008
Answer filedJul 19, 2008
Hearing heldSep 19, 2008
Decision dateDec 15, 2008

Cite For

Mitigating Conditions for Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Impact of Circumstances Beyond Control on Financial Issues
Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts as a Mitigating Factor

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant had addressed all past due debts and demonstrated financial responsibility, leading to a favorable decision regarding financial considerations under Guideline F. All allegations were ruled in favor of the applicant, indicating that the financial concerns were mitigated.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	a total of $197 in past due medical bills. These have been “PAID IN FULL,” as is evidenced by receipts from the two creditors’ collection service $197	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	specific text not stated in this decision	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.c	settled and paid a $10,434 credit card debt for $5,300 $5,300	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	paid in full a $1,251 credit card debt $1,251	For Applicant	Credit Card 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. 08-02457 SSN: ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Jennifer I. Goldstein, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Samuel L. Hart, Esquire

December 15, 2008

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP), on May 3, 2007. On June 25, 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 on July 9, 2008. She answered the SOR in writing on July 19, 2008, and requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. DOHA received the request soon thereafter, and I received the case assignment on August 12, 2008. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on August 19, 2008, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on September 19, 2008. The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 8, which were received without objection. Applicant testified on her own behalf and submitted Exhibits (AppXs) A through F, without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on September 29, 2008. The record closed on September 19, 2008, the date of the hearing. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the factual allegations of the SOR, without explanations.

Guideline F - Financial Considerations

Due to a business downturn in the aerospace industry, the Applicant lost her job in 1999 (TR at page 26 lines 2–9, at page 27 line 7 to page 29 line 11, at page 35 line 17 to page 37 line 17, and AppX E). As a result, she was unemployed or underemployed until she acquired her present full time employment in 2005 (Id). She has now addressed all of her alleged past due debts, has a positive monthly cash flow, and about $8,500 in savings (TR at page 39 line 7 to page 41 line 4).

1.a. and 1.b. During her period of unemployed or underemployed, Applicant “obtained independent [medical] insurance” (TR at page 41 line 5 to page 43 line 4). It did not pay all of her medical claims; and as a result; she had a total of $197 in past due medical bills (Id). These have been “PAID IN FULL,” as is evidenced by receipts from the two creditors’ collection service (TR at page 30 line 18 to page 32 line 13, and AppXs A and B).

1.c. The Applicant has settled and paid a $10,434 credit card debt for $5,300 (TR at page 32 line 24 to page 34 line 2). This is evidenced by a letter from the successor creditor to this debt, and by a “trust check” drawn to that successor creditor (AppX D).

1.d. The Applicant has paid in full a $1,251 credit card debt, as is evidenced by a letter from the successor creditor to this debt (TR at page 32 lines 14–23, and AppX D).

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 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 Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise security concerns. During her extended period of unemployment or underemployment, the Applicant accumulated her delinquent debt. These are clearly countered by the Mitigating Conditions found in Subparagraphs 20(b) and 20 (d). Under Subparagraph 20(b), 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.@ Furthermore, Subparagraph 20(d) applies where the evidence shows “the individual initiated a good- faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.@ Here, the Applicant has addressed all of the alleged past due debt.

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) 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. Here, she has the unqualified support of her manager (AppX E).

I considered all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions surrounding this case. Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant 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: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with national security to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge