CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-07296.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-07296.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-07296.h1

deniedAug 12, 2009· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old supply technician, employed by a U.S. defense contractor, was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from an extensive history of financial difficulties, specifically 43 delinquent debts totaling over $57,000.

The applicant admitted to most of these debts but failed to provide any corroborating evidence of efforts to resolve them. The record contained no evidence of extenuation, mitigation, or rehabilitation, and none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations were found to apply.

Consequently, the applicant's ongoing financial issues and lack of demonstrated resolution efforts led to the conclusion that granting a security clearance was not consistent with national interest, resulting in the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has an extensive history of financial difficulties that are ongoing.
The record contains no evidence of extenuation, mitigation, or rehabilitation.
None of the mitigating factors for financial considerations apply.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Key Rule Quoted

“The government has a compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 18, 2009
Answer filedMar 4, 2009Requested decision without hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing held.
Decision dateAug 12, 2009

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance Eligibility
Lack of Mitigating Evidence in Financial Consideration 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: denied

The judge found that the applicant had an extensive history of financial difficulties, with 43 delinquent debts totaling over $57,000. The applicant admitted to 35 debts exceeding $53,000 but failed to provide evidence of mitigation or resolution, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	43 delinquent debts totaling over $57,000 $57,000	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: ) ) XXXXXXX, Xxxxx Xxxxxxxx ) ISCR Case No. 08-07296 SSN: XXX-XX-XXXX ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: John Bayard Glendon, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

August 12, 2009 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:

On 18 February 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F. Applicant answered the SOR 4 March 2009, and requested a decision without hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me 6 August 2009. The record in this case closed 13 May 2009, the day Applicant’s response to the government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) was due. Applicant provided no additional information for evaluation.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations except SOR 1.b., d., e., I., s., hh., kk., and pp. He is a 42-year-old supply technician employed by a U.S. defense contractor since February 2006. He appears to have not previously held a clearance. He retired from the U.S. Navy in December 2004, with a partial medical disability, after 20 years service.

The SOR alleges and government exhibits substantiate, 43 delinquent debts totaling over $57,000. Applicant admits 35 debts over $53,000; he denies eight debts of $4,000, seven as paid, one as not being his debt. He corroborates none of his claims, including claimed regular payments on the debt at SOR 1.c. The record is devoid of explanations for the debt or efforts to resolve them. His personal financial statement (PFS)(Item 6) shows $1,500 positive monthly cash flow.

POLICIES

The Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (RAG) list factors to be considered in evaluating an Applicant’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative Judges must assess both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and circumstances presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair and impartial common sense consideration of the factors listed in RAG ¶ 2(a). The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or against Applicant. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant, applicable, adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an Applicant’s security clearance. The government must prove, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does so, it establishes a prima facie case against access to classified information. Applicant must then refute, extenuate, or mitigate the government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the Applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.

Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship with the government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the government has a compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.2

ANALYSIS

The government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has an extensive history of financial difficulties, which are ongoing. The record contains no evidence in extenuation, mitigation, or rehabilitation. Consequently, none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations apply. The record lacks any information upon which to base a “whole person” analysis. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph a-qq: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

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 Applicant. Clearance denied.

JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1990), 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 (RAG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within the Department of Defense for SORs issued after September 1, 2006. See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). ¶19 (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;