CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-02682.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-02682.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-02682.h1

deniedMar 30, 2009· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 33-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to significant financial issues under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant was indebted to sixteen creditors, totaling approximately $32,666.00. He admitted to these debts and acknowledged that he had not made payments on any of them. While he claimed some accounts belonged to his ex-wife, he provided no documentation to substantiate this or to show any efforts toward resolving his financial obligations.

The applicant failed to respond to the Statement of Reasons (SOR) with any mitigating evidence, a budget, or a payment plan for his delinquent debts. He did not demonstrate a track record of financial responsibility or provide evidence of financial rehabilitation. His financial problems were deemed current, ongoing, and not isolated, indicating poor judgment and unreliability.

Ultimately, the applicant was denied clearance because he was financially overextended, admitted to all allegations, and provided no evidence of debt resolution or financial management. He also failed to submit any mitigating evidence or a plan to address his debts, leading to the conclusion that his financial problems remained unresolved.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant is financially overextended, with debts totaling approximately $32,666.00.
He admitted to all allegations in the SOR and provided no evidence of debt resolution or financial management.
The applicant failed to submit any mitigating evidence or a plan to address his debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

19(a)appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 7, 2008
Answer filedDec 3, 2008Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateMar 30, 2009

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Failure to Provide Mitigating Evidence
Impact of Financial Issues on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 was financially overextended, with debts totaling approximately $32,666.00, and failed to provide sufficient evidence of financial responsibility or mitigation. All allegations under Guideline F were ruled against the applicant, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant is indebted to sixteen separate creditors totaling approximately $32,666.00. $32,666	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	The Applicant has not paid any of his debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	The Applicant states that about eight of the debts are not mine, indicating that some of the accounts belong to his ex-wife.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	The Applicant has not provided any documentation to show that any of his debts have been paid or are being paid off.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	The Applicant has failed to reply to the FORM or submit any mitigating evidence.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	The Applicant has not provided a budget or payment plan to explain how his delinquent debts will be paid.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	The Applicant has not shown why any of the mitigating conditions should apply.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	The Applicant has not introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the Government's case.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	The Applicant's financial problems remain current and they are not isolated.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	The Applicant has not initiated a prompt, good faith effort to repay his overdue creditors or otherwise resolve his debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	The Applicant has not provided any documentation to show that he can make his regular monthly payments in addition to making payments on his delinquent debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	The Applicant's promise to take remedial measures in the future is not evidence of reform and rehabilitation.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.m	The Applicant has not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a track record of financial responsibility or that he has resolved his financial indebtedness.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.n	The Applicant's financial irresponsibility demonstrates poor judgment or unreliability.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.o	The Applicant has not provided evidence of financial rehabilitation at this time.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.p	The Applicant's financial problems are ongoing and have not been resolved.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(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: ) ) -------------------------- ) ISCR Case No. 08-02682 SSN: ------------------ ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro Se

March 30, 2009 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) dated September 10, 2007. On November 7, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 (as amended), and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed the reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be denied or revoked.

The Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on December 3, 2008, in which he elected to have the case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) to the Applicant on January 26, 2009. The Applicant was instructed to submit information in rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt. Applicant received the FORM on January 29, 2009, and he submitted no reply. The case was assigned to the undersigned for resolution on March 26, 2009.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following Findings of Fact are based on the Applicant’s Answer to the SOR, the FORM and the exhibits. The Applicant is 33 years old. He is employed by a defense contractor and is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with he employment.

The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same, the following findings of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR:

Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations) The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for a security clearance because he is financially overextended and at risk to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.

The Applicant admits each of the allegations set forth in the SOR under this guideline. (Government Exhibit 3). He is indebted to sixteen separate creditors totaling approximately $32,666.00. Credit Reports of the Applicant dated September 27, 2007, March 14, 2008 and June 20, 2008, reflect that each of the debts remain owing. (Government Exhibits 5, 6 and 8). He has not paid any of his debts.

Although the Applicant admits all of the debts in his answer to the SOR, he states in his Interrogatory Response that “about eight of the debts are not mine” indicating that some of the accounts belong his ex-wife. (Government Exhibit 7). He also provides some documentation that certain debts have been removed from his credit report. These debts, however, were not alleged in the SOR as outstanding.

Applicant attributes most of his financial problems to his ex-wife. He states that she opened accounts that he was not aware of and refused to pay. He has not been able to work with a credit repair company because of the money he has had to spend on attorney fees to get custody of his three children. He now has custody of his three children and plans to resolve his delinquent debts as soon as possible. (Government Exhibit 7).

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into "Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors." The following Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case:

Guideline F (Financial Considerations)

18. The Concern. 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. Compulsive gambling is a concern as it may lead to financial crimes including espionage. Affluence that cannot be explained by known sources of income is also a security concern. It may indicate proceeds from financially profitable criminal acts.

Conditions that could raise a security concern:

19(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;

19(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.

Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:

None.

In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 16-17, in evaluating the relevance of an individual’s conduct, the Administrative Judge should consider the following general factors:

a. The nature and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances

b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation

c. The frequency and recency of the conduct

d. The individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct

e. The voluntariness of participation

f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavior changes

g. The motivation for the conduct

h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress

i. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal characteristics and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question, posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is “clearly consistent with the national interest” to grant an Applicant’s request for access to classified information.

The DoD Directive states, “The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person’s life to make an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk. Eligibility for access to classified information is predicted upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines. The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept. Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination.” The Administrative Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record. The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature. Finally, as emphasized by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, “Any determination under this order . . . shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the Applicant concerned.”

CONCLUSION

In the defense industry, a security clearance is entrusted to civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week. The Government is therefore appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for such access may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility which demonstrates poor judgment or unreliability.

It is the Government’s responsibility to present substantial evidence to support the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant’s conduct and the holding of a security clearance. If such a case has been established, the burden then shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation, which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government’s case. The Applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him a security clearance.

In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the Applicant has been financially irresponsible (Guideline F). This evidence indicates poor judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant. Because of the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or connection with his security clearance eligibility.

With respect to his finances, the Applicant remains excessively indebted in the amount of $32,666.00. Applicant states that his ex-wife caused most of his financial problems but has provided no documentation, either of his efforts to resolve the debts, or from the creditors stating that he is not responsible for the debts. He has therefore, not shown why any of the mitigating conditions should apply. Applicant has not provided any documentation to show that any of his debts, even the small ones have been paid or are being paid off. Nor has he fully set forth the reasons to lay blame for his financial problems on his wife.

Applicant failed to reply to the FORM or submit any mitigating evidence. He has failed to provide a budget or payment plan to explain how his delinquent debts will be paid. It is unclear from the record whether he understands the importance of financial management. A promise to take remedial measures in the future is not evidence of reform and rehabilitation. There is no evidence in the record to demonstrate that he can make his regular monthly payments in addition to making payments on his delinquent debts. At the present time, he has not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate a track record of financial responsibility or that he has resolved his financial indebtedness. Considering all of the evidence, the Applicant has not introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the Government's case.

I have also considered the “whole person concept” in evaluating the Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. Under the particular facts of this case, the totality of the conduct set forth under all of the guidelines viewed as a whole, support a whole person assessment of questionable judgement, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard classified information.

There is no evidence of financial rehabilitation at this time. Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts and, 19(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations apply. None of the mitigating conditions apply. His financial problems remain current and they are not isolated. The Applicant has not initiated a prompt, good faith effort to repay his overdue creditors or otherwise resolve his debts. Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has failed to overcome the Government's case opposing his request for a security clearance. Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the Government's Statement of Reasons.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:

Paragraph 1: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.a.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.b.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.c.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.d.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.e.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.f.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.g.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.h.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.i.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.j.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.k.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.l.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.m.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.n.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.o.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.p.: Against the Applicant.

DECISION

In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interests to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant.

Darlene Lokey Anderson Administrative Judge