CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-07197.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-07197.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-07197.h1

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

Summary

A 45-year-old Aircraft Mechanic, employed by a defense contractor, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to financial irresponsibility. The applicant admitted to being indebted to multiple creditors, totaling approximately $16,772. These debts included $1,789 to AFNI-Bloom, $134 for medical services, $7,556 to Palisades Coll, $1,197 to Verizon, $5,862 to Citifinancia, and $234 to CRD PRT ASSO.

The applicant attributed her financial difficulties to a medical condition that caused her to miss work. However, the decision noted that she failed to present a reasonable plan for debt repayment or evidence of financial rehabilitation.

Ultimately, the applicant's financial irresponsibility was deemed to demonstrate poor judgment and unreliability, leading to the denial of her security clearance. Disqualifying conditions 19(a) and 19(c) were raised, while mitigating condition 20(b) was applied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to being financially overextended and indebted to multiple creditors.
The applicant did not present a reasonable plan for debt repayment or evidence of financial rehabilitation.
The applicant's financial irresponsibility demonstrated poor judgment and unreliability.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlAlthough the applicant's medical condition contributed to her financial problems, she did not demonstrate good faith efforts to resolve her debts.

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 issuedFeb 20, 2009
Answer filedMar 20, 2009Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateJul 30, 2009

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Failure to Present a Reasonable Debt Repayment Plan
Lack of Evidence for Financial Rehabilitation

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 multiple debts totaling approximately $16,772, which she admitted were due to financial irresponsibility stemming from medical issues. Despite acknowledging her debts, the applicant failed to present a reasonable plan for repayment or evidence of financial rehabilitation, leading to a decision against her under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	a debt owed to AFNI-Bloom in the amount of $1,789.00 $1,789	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	a debt for medical services in the amount of $134.00 $134	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	a debt to Palisades Coll, in the amount of $7,556.00 $7,556	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	a debt owed to Verizon in the amount $1,197.00 $1,197	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	a debt owed to Citifinancia in the amount of $5,862.00 $5,862	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	a debt owed to CRD PRT ASSO in the amount of $234.00 $234	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. 08-07197 SSN: -------------------- ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Robert E. Coacher, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro Se

July 30, 2009

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

LOKEY ANDERSON, Darlene D., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on January 16, 2008. (Government Exhibit 4). On February 20, 2009, 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 March 20, 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 April 7, 2009. The Applicant was instructed to submit information in rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt. Applicant received the FORM on April 20, 2009, and she submitted no reply. The case was assigned to the undersigned for resolution on June 18, 2009. Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, and exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Applicant is 45 years old. She is employed by a defense contractor as an Aircraft Mechanic 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 all of the allegations in the SOR, namely that she is indebted to six different creditors, incurred over the course of several years, totaling approximately $16,772.00. Credit Reports of the Applicant dated April 3, 2009, June 25, 2008, and February 14, 2008, reflect that the following debts remain owing: a debt owed to AFNI-Bloom in the amount of $1,789.00, a debt for medical services in the amount of $134.00, a debt to Palisades Coll, in the amount of $7,556.00, a debt owed to Verizon in the amount $1,197.00, a debt owed to Citifinancia in the amount of $5,862.00 and a debt owed to CRD PRT ASSO in the amount of $234.00. (Government Exhibits 7, 8 and 9).

Applicant explains that her indebtedness was a result of a degenerative neck condition that required neck surgery and caused her to miss work in 2004. At that time, her paycheck was substantially reduced and her bills became delinquent. Applicant indicates that she plans to pay the debts, but she does not present any reasonable plan as to how she will do so.

In April 2008, when she was interviewed by the DoD, she indicated that she was current with all of her monthly expenses, but had very little money left at the end of the month. At that time, she was also facing another surgery for her neck, which would mean more time off for recovery. She further indicated that when she returned in three or four months from her surgery, she would begin to research her delinquent accounts and begin paying them off. Although she had conferred with two or three debt consolidation companies, she had never signed a contract with one or started the process of financial rehabilitation. (Government Exhibits 5 and 6).

In her answer to the SOR, the Applicant simply admits each of the allegations set forth in paragraph 1, requests an decision without a hearing, and does not present any evidence in mitigation. (Government Exhibit 3).

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;

Condition that could mitigate security concerns:

20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances.

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, 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 her 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 her security clearance eligibility.

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. Under Guideline F (Financial Considerations), Disqualifying Conditions 19.(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts, and 19.(c) a history of not meeting financial obligation apply. Mitigating Condition 20.(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances also applies, but is not controlling in this case.

The Applicant has not shown sufficient good judgment since her medical conditions began in 2004. Admittedly, her medical condition primarily caused the Applicant’s financial demise. Since then, she has experienced additional medical problems and has still not paid her delinquent debts. However, she has failed to present any evidence to show that she has consulted with a financial counselor to assist her with her finances, or that she has set up payment plans or made any other arrangements to get her delinquent debts paid. She has not explained her current circumstances that could be mitigating. Under the circumstances, she has not made a good faith effort to resolve her indebtedness, and there is insufficient evidence of financial rehabilitation. The Applicant has not demonstrated that she can properly handle her financial affairs. Accordingly, I find against 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 under all of the guidelines viewed as a whole, support a whole person assessment of poor judgement, untrustworthiness, unreliability, a lack of candor, an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, and/or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard classified information.

I have considered all of the evidence presented, however, it does not come close to mitigating the negative effects of her financial indebtedness and its impact on her ability to safeguard classified information. On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has failed to overcome the Government's case opposing her 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 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: 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.

DECISION

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

Darlene Lokey Anderson Administrative Judge