CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-06909.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-06909.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-06909.h1

grantedJun 16, 2009· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 59-year-old defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant admitted to approximately $18,900 in debts owed to eight creditors.

The Statement of Reasons detailed the status of these debts: two debts, totaling $250 and $96, were paid in full. Another debt of $199 was also paid in full. Payment plans were established for a $4,751 debt, with $50 paid monthly, and an $8,454 debt, with $150 paid monthly. A $1,680 debt was being paid in three consecutive monthly installments of $536. Additionally, a $3,432 debt was consolidated with another.

The judge found that the applicant took full responsibility for her financial obligations, actively working to resolve them. She established payment plans and secured additional employment to expedite repayment. These actions demonstrated financial rehabilitation and a commitment to fiscal responsibility, leading to the decision to grant the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant took full responsibility for her debts and actively worked to resolve them.
She established payment plans with creditors and took on a second job to expedite debt repayment.
The applicant demonstrated evidence of financial rehabilitation and a commitment to fiscal responsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

19.(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
19.(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligation

Mitigating

20.(c)appliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem And/or There Are Clear Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved or Is Under Control
20.(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts

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.”
— Executive Order 10865

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 25, 2008
Answer filedFeb 10, 2009Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Hearing heldN/ANo hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateJun 16, 2009

Cite For

Good Faith Effort to Resolve Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Evidence of Financial Rehabilitation and Responsibility
Application of Mitigating Conditions in Financial 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: granted

The judge found that the applicant had financial concerns due to debts totaling approximately $18,900, but she demonstrated a good faith effort to resolve these debts through payment plans and additional employment. Ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that she had mitigated the financial concerns sufficiently to grant her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits that she was indebted to eight separate creditors totaling approximately $18,900.00	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.b	A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $250.00 has been paid in full. $250	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.c	A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $4,751.00 is being paid on a monthly basis in the amount of $50.00 per month until the debt is paid in full. $4,751	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.d	A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $8,454.00 is being paid on a monthly basis in the amount of $150.00 per month until the debt is paid in full. $8,454	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.e	A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $96.00 has been paid in full. $96	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.f	A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $1,680.00 is being paid in the amount of $536.00 for three consecutive months. $1,680	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.g	A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $3,4321.00 was consolidated with another debt set forth in allegation 1(h). $34,321	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.h	A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $199.00 has been paid in full. $199	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full

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. 08-06909 SSN: ------------------ ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro Se

June 16, 2009

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on October 11, 2007. (Government Exhibit 4). On November 25, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, (as amended) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed 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 clearance should be denied or revoked.

The Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on February 10, 2009, in which she 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 March 27, 2009. The Applicant was instructed to submit information in rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt. Applicant received the FORM on March 31, 2009, and she submitted a reply on April 24, 2009. The case was assigned to the undersigned for resolution on June 11, 2009. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Applicant is 59 years old. She is employed by a defense contractor and is seeking to obtain a security clearance in connection with her 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). 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 clearance because she is financially overextended and at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.

The Applicant admits that she was indebted to eight separate creditors totaling approximately $18,900.00 that are set forth in the SOR under allegations 1(a) through 1(h). Applicant takes full responsibility for her debts. (Applicant’s Response to the FORM). Credit reports of the Applicant dated October 23, 2007 and February 27, 2009, reflect each of these delinquent debts as owing. (Government Exhibits 5 and 7). Since her most recent credit report, the Applicant has been working hard to resolve her debts. She has contacted each of the creditors and has either paid off the debt in full or set up a payment plan that she is following. Her plans are to pay off her debts as soon as possible. She has taken on a part time second job to be able to pay them off sooner, and she plans to incur no new debt.

A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $250.00 has been paid in full. (Applicant’s Response to the FORM, Exhibit A). A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $4,751.00 is being paid on a monthly basis in the amount of $50.00 per month until the debt is paid in full. (Applicant’s Response to the FORM, Exhibit B). A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $8,454.00 is being paid on a monthly basis in the amount of $150.00 per month until the debt is paid in full. (Applicant’s Response to the FORM, Exhibit C). A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $96.00 has been paid in full. (Applicant’s Response to the FORM, Exhibit D). A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $1,680.00 is being paid in the amount of $536.00 for three consecutive months. (Applicant’s Response to the FORM, Exhibit E). The debt will be paid in full on June 25, 2009. A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $3,4321.00 was consolidated with another debt set forth in allegation 1(h). A debt owed to a creditor in the amount of $199.00 has been paid in full. (Applicant’s Response to the FORM, Exhibit F). A debt owed ot a creditor in the amount of $5,817.00 was consolidated with the debt set forth in allegation 1(f) and is being paid in the amount of $150.00 per month until the debt is paid in full. (Applicant’s Response to the FORM, Exhibit G).

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.

Conditions that could raise a security concern:

19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;

19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligation;

Conditions that could mitigate security concerns:

20.(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;

20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.

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, extent, 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 extent to which participation is voluntary f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent 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, the security of classified industrial secrets 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 clearance 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.

Considering all of the evidence, the Applicant has introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the Government's case. The Applicant has made a good faith effort to resolve her past due indebtedness. She has contacted each of the creditors and either paid off the debt or set up a payment plan to do so. She has taken on additional employment in order to pay them off sooner. She does not plan on incurring any new debt. The Government argues that the Applicant’s most recent credit report also reflects an outstanding judgment for $39,119.00. Although this debt is not listed in the SOR, I will assume that the Applicant is also working to resolve it. She understands the importance of paying her bills on time and living within her means. Under the circumstances, she has made a good faith effort to resolve his indebtedness, and there is evidence of financial rehabilitation. The Applicant has demonstrated that she can properly handle her financial affairs and that she is fiscally responsible.

Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligation apply. However, Mitigating Conditions 20.(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control and, 20.(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts also apply. Accordingly, I find for the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

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 above, when viewed under all of the guidelines as a whole, support a whole person assessment of good judgement, trustworthiness, reliability, candor, and a willingness to comply with rules and regulations, and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may properly safeguard classified information.

I have considered all of the evidence presented, and it mitigates the negative effects of her financial indebtedness and the effects that it can have on her ability to safeguard classified information. On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has overcome the Government's case opposing her request for a security clearance. Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding for the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the SOR.

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: For the Applicant. Subpara. 1.a.: For the Applicant. Subpara. 1.b.: For the Applicant. Subpara. 1.c.: For the Applicant. Subpara. 1.d.: For the Applicant. Subpara. 1.e.: For the Applicant. Subpara. 1.f.: For the Applicant. Subpara. 1.g.: For the Applicant. Subpara. 1.h.: For the Applicant.

DECISION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant.

Darlene Lokey Anderson Administrative Judge