CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-07572.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-07572.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-07572.h1

deniedAug 18, 2009· Hon. Mary E. Henry· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old document production supervisor for a Department of State contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple unpaid debts totaling $20,669. The Statement of Reasons cited the applicant's failure to pay most of these obligations, demonstrate an ability or willingness to pay, or provide documentation of payments.

Further concerns arose from the applicant's inability to provide a budget showing monthly expenses or a copy of his monthly earnings statement. While he denied one $614 debt and asserted a $100 balance on another $223 debt, he did not provide evidence of continued payment on his proposed plan or efforts to resolve his older debts.

Ultimately, the denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide evidence of payments or a resolution plan, explain how the debts occurred, or provide supporting documentation for his claims. These financial issues raised significant concerns regarding his reliability and trustworthiness, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to provide evidence of payments on his debts or a plan to resolve them.
He did not explain how his debts occurred or provide documentation to support his claims.
The applicant's financial issues raised significant concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

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 protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 3, 2009
Answer filedFeb 19, 2009Requested decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateAug 18, 2009

Cite For

Failure to Provide Evidence of Debt Resolution Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Financial Responsibility for Security Clearance
Impact of Financial Issues on Reliability and Trustworthiness Assessments

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 significant delinquent debts totaling $20,669 and failed to demonstrate an ability or willingness to pay these debts. As a result, the judge ruled against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline F, concluding that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns related to his financial situation.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has multiple unpaid debts totaling $20,669. $20,669	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant has not paid most of these obligations and has not shown an ability or willingness to pay these debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	Applicant did not provide documentation which shows his payments on these debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant did not prepare a budget, which would show his monthly expenses, nor did he provide a copy of his monthly earnings statement.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant denies owing the $614 debt in allegation 1.e. $614	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant did not provide evidence that he continued with his plan to pay his debts or that he paid this debt.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant has not established any facts which show he has mitigated the government’s security concerns.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant asserts a balance of $100 for the $223 debt in allegation 1.h. $223	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied with Explanation	—	—	—
1.i	Applicant indicated he anticipated paying the debt in allegation 1.e in full by November 2008.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.j	Applicant has not provided any favorable evidence to support his request for a security clearance.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.k	The record lacks evidence which shows Applicant’s efforts to resolve his old debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.l	Applicant has not shown that his finances are under control.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	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. 08-07572 SSN: ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Julie R. Mendez, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro Se

August 18, 2009 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

HENRY, Mary E., Administrative Judge:

Based upon a review of the case file, pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, I conclude that Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on December 23, 2007. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F on February 3, 2009. 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 February 17, 2009. He answered the SOR in writing on February 19, 2009, and requested a decision on the written record in lieu of a hearing.

Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) and mailed Applicant a complete copy on April 29, 2009. Applicant received the FORM on May 4, 2009. He had 30 days from receipt of the FORM to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He did not submit a response. DOHA assigned this case to me on August 6, 2009. The government submitted nine exhibits, which have been marked as Item 1-9 and admitted into the record. Applicant’s response to the SOR has been marked and admitted as Item 3.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all the factual allegations in ¶¶ 1.a to 1.dand 1.fto 1.lof the SOR, with explanations. He denied the factual allegations in ¶ 1.e of the SOR.1

Applicant, who is 29 years old, works as a document production supervisor for a Department of State contractor. He began this position in November 2007.2

Applicant graduated from high school in 1998 and from a community college in 2001 with an Associate of Fine Arts degree in graphic design. Applicant worked in retail stores from 1999 until 2007. Applicant married two years ago. He has a daughter, age 5, and a son, age 5.3

The SOR alleges multiple unpaid debts, totaling $20,669. Appellant denies owing the $614 debt in allegation 1.e and asserts a balance of $100 for the $223 debt in allegation 1.h. He has not provided documentation which shows his payments on these debts. He has not provided any documentation to show that he has made payments on any of the other debts listed in the SOR or to indicate he has developed a payment plan. He has not explained how his debt problems occurred.

Applicant stated that when he met with the security investigator in May 2008, he proposed paying $200 a month towards his unpaid debts, one creditor at a time. He submitted no evidence which shows that he has actually made any payments as he proposed. Applicant did not prepare a budget, which would show his monthly expenses, nor did he provide a copy of his monthly earnings statement. The record lacks evidence which shows Applicant’s efforts to resolve his old debts.4

Applicant responded to interrogatories about specific debts on September 25, 2008. In his answers, he indicated he had significantly reduced the balance in one account and did not owe any back child support. Neither of these debts are listed in the SOR. He also indicated he anticipated paying the debt in allegation 1.e in full by November 2008. He further stated that he would pay the smaller debts, one at a time. As previously mentioned, he did not provide any evidence that he continued with his plan to pay his debts or that he paid this debt.

All three credit reports in the record contain information which indicate a possible problem with his credit information. The credit reports dated October 1, 2008 and January 9, 2009 contain the notation “fraud victim”. The credit report dated January 9, 2008 is marked “security alert” and makes reference to address problems. Applicant did not discuss a problem with fraud and his debts. He has not explained this issue. Applicant did not provide any favorable evidence to support his request for a security clearance.6

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 overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense 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 AG ¶ 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 AG ¶ 19(a), an Ainability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶ 19(c), Aa history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise security concerns. The evidence of record reflects that Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt over a period of time. He has not paid most these obligations and has not shown an ability or willingness to pay these debts. The evidence is sufficient to raise these potentially disqualifying conditions, requiring a closer examination.

The guideline also includes examples of conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(a), the disqualifying condition may be mitigated where Athe behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.@ This potentially mitigating condition is not applicable because the record contains no evidence as to how these debts occurred.

Under AG ¶ 20(b), it may be mitigating where Athe 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.@ Evidence that Athe 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@ is potentially mitigating under AG ¶ 20(c). Similarly, AG ¶ 20(d) applies where the evidence shows Athe individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” The record contains no evidence which would raise the application of these mitigating conditions. Applicant has not established any facts which show he has mitigated the government’s security concerns.

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 an 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) the 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. The decision to grant or deny a security clearance requires a careful weighing of all relevant factors, both favorable and unfavorable. In so doing, an administrative judge must review all the evidence of record, not a single item in isolation, to determine if a security concern is established and then whether it is mitigated. A determination of an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance should not be made as punishment for specific past conduct, but on a reasonable and careful evaluation of all the evidence of record to decide if a nexus exists between established facts and a legitimate security concern.

In reaching a conclusion, I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant completed an associates degree in 2001. He has always worked and supported his family. He has not provided any explanation as to how he incurred the debts listed in the SOR. He has not submitted evidence which showed his debts are resolved or are being paid. Likewise, he has not shown that his finances are under control. The record lacked any evidence which would indicate Applicant has mitigated the government’s security concerns.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not 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: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.c: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.d: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.e: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.g: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.i: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.j: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.k: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.l: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

MARY E. HENRY Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

W hen SOR allegations are controverted, the government bears the burden of producing evidence sufficient to prove controverted allegations. Directive, ¶ E3.1.14. That burden has two components. First, the government must establish by substantial evidence that the facts and events alleged in the SOR indeed took place. Second, the government must establish a nexus between the existence of the established facts and events and a legitimate security concern. See ISCR Case No. 07-18525 (App. Bd. Feb. 18, 2009), (concurring and dissenting, in part).

Item 4 (e-QIP).

Id. Item 9.

Item 10.

Item 5; Item 6; Item 7. AG ¶¶ 20(e) and 20 (f) are not applicable in this case.