CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-08445.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-08445.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-08445.h1

deniedJul 1, 2008· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old married woman with five children was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from significant financial delinquencies totaling approximately $9,600, which raised concerns under Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c).

While the applicant had satisfied two of her debts, she failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence of her efforts to resolve the remaining financial obligations. Specifically, she did not offer proof of negotiating payment plans for these outstanding debts.

The Adjudicator determined that the applicant's financial delinquencies indicated an inability or unwillingness to satisfy her debts, thereby raising questions about her reliability and trustworthiness. Without adequate proof of rehabilitation, her financial problems were deemed likely to continue, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not provide documentary evidence to support her claims of negotiating payment plans for her debts.
The applicant's financial delinquencies indicated an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts, raising concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's financial problems were deemed likely to continue without sufficient proof of rehabilitation.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 23, 2008
Answer filedNov 13, 2008
Hearing held—Applicant represented herself.
Decision dateJul 22, 2009

Cite For

Failure to Provide Evidence of Financial Rehabilitation Under Guideline F
Impact of Financial Delinquencies on Security Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of the Whole Person Concept 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: denied

The judge found multiple financial delinquencies against the applicant under Guideline F, concluding that the applicant failed to mitigate the government's security concerns. While some debts were resolved, the applicant's overall financial situation raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a–1.u	21 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (6 against, 15 for the applicant).	Mixed			—	—	—

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. 08-08445 SSN: ---------- ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Nichole Noel, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

July 22, 2009 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed to mitigate the government’s security concerns raised under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Clearance is denied.

On October 23, 2008, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F. 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.

On November 13, 2008, Applicant answered the SOR, denying all of the allegations except SOR subparagraphs 1.sand 1.t, and requested an administrative determination. On February 13, 2009, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Materials (FORM), and DOHA mailed it to Applicant. She received it on February 18, 2009, along with instructions to file any objections or supplementary information within 30 days. Applicant did not respond, and the case was assigned to me on May 15, 2009.

PROCEDURAL RULINGS

SOR subparagraphs 1.gand 1.kfail to identify specific creditors to whom Applicant allegedly is indebted. Although an SOR does not have to satisfy the strict requirements of a criminal indictment, it must still place an applicant on adequate notice of the allegations so that she may have a reasonable opportunity to respond and prepare a defense. Subparagraphs 1.gand 1.k. do not meet this minimum threshold; therefore, I conclude that they are not justiciable.

Evidentiary Rulings

1. The government must produce evidence to establish facts alleged in the SOR that have been controverted (Directive ¶ E3.1.14). Here, the only evidence the government provided to support SOR subparagraphs 1.a, 1.cthrough 1.f, 1.i, 1.j, 1.m, 1.n, 1.p, and 1.hh are credit reports noting that the status of these debts was in dispute (see generally, Items 5 and 6). These documents fail to satisfy the government’s burden of production. Consequently, I have resolved the aforementioned subparagraphs in Applicant’s favor, and will not consider them further in the Decision.

2. SOR subparagraph 1.qalleges a delinquent account for $519. The credit bureau report the government provides lists this debt multiple times. Some of the listings note that Applicant has satisfied it (Compare Item 5 at 3 with Item 6 at 19). The government has not satisfied its initial burden of production. I have resolved SOR subparagraph 1.qin Applicant’s favor.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 41-year-old, married woman with five children ranging in age from 16 to 27. A previous marriage ended in divorce in 2002. She has been married to her current husband since 2008 (Item 4 at 15). Her educational background is unknown from the record. Since at least 2000, she has worked as a professional driver (Item 4 at 5).

As of April 2008, Applicant was indebted to 20 creditors on delinquent accounts totalling approximately $9,600 (Items 5 and 6). By May 2008, Applicant had satisfied SOR subparagraphs 1.s, an automobile loan for approximate $1,000, and 1.t, a $132 medical bill (Item 2 at 5-7). She contends that she has either contacted, or has attempted to contact all of the other creditors, and that her ex-husband accrued many of the debts. As for the debts that are her responsibility, Applicant contends she is negotiating payment plans. She provided no documentary evidence supporting these contentions. In Applicant’s Answer, she alluded to some medical problems (Item 2 at 1). She did not elaborate upon whether these problems contributed to the accrual of her delinquencies.

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.”

The government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR (Directive ¶ E3.1.14, as discussed in the Evidentiary Rulings Section, supra). 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.

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

Under this guideline, “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” (AG ¶ 18). Applicant satisfied SOR subparagraphs 1.sand 1.t. I conclude they no longer represent a security concern. The remaining delinquencies, (SOR subparagraphs 1.b, 1.h, 1.l, 1.o, 1.p, 1.r, 1.u through 1.gg, and 1.ii) however, trigger the application of AG ¶¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations.” Applicant deserves credit for satisfying the two debts she admitted. Her efforts to satisfy or resolve the others, however, appear to have been limited to phone calls. She offered no evidence to support her contention that her ex-husband accrued some of the debts, nor did she offer any evidence to support her contention that she was arranging payment plans for the other SOR debts. Absent any documentation regarding these remaining delinquencies, I conclude that none of the mitigating conditions apply.

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 the 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.”

Absent sufficient proof that Applicant has rehabilitated her finances, the likelihood that her financial problems will continue is unacceptably high. Upon considering this case in the context of the whole person concept, I conclude Applicant’s troubled finances continue to render her a security risk, as she has not shown any significant improvement in her debt problems.

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: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.b: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.c - 1.g: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.h: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.i - 1.k: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.l: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.m -1.n: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.o: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.p - 1.q: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.r: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.s - 1.t: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.u - 1.gg: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.hh: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.ii: 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.

MARC E. CURRY Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

ISCR Case No. 03-07826 (App. Bd. June 17, 2005 at 3).