CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 08-09308.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 08-09308.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 08-09308.h1

deniedDec 31, 2009· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old facilities representative for a U.S. defense contractor was denied a security clearance due to significant and ongoing financial difficulties under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had 27 delinquent debts totaling nearly $9,000, which became delinquent after a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in May 2000. Additionally, the applicant was $5,800 past due on one mortgage and nearly $12,000 past due on another.

The applicant had a history of attempting to resolve these issues through multiple Chapter 13 wage earner plans filed in May 2002, January 2003, and February 2006, all of which were dismissed. While the applicant claimed some debts were included in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy or were duplicates, these claims were not corroborated.

The judge determined that the applicant had an extensive and ongoing history of financial difficulties, had been unable to live within his means, and lacked a viable repayment plan. Consequently, the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns, and the security clearance was DENIED.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has an extensive history of financial difficulties, which are ongoing.
Applicant did not provide evidence of a plan for repayment or the possibility of a plan for repayment.
The applicant's claims regarding financial issues were not corroborated and did not mitigate the concerns.

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 issuedMay 18, 2009
Answer filedApr 16, 2009Applicant requested a decision without hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing was conducted.
Decision dateDec 31, 2009

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Ongoing Financial Difficulties Under Guideline F
Lack of Corroborated Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Importance of a Repayment Plan 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 applicant has 27 delinquent debts totaling nearly $9,000, which have accumulated since a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in May 2000. The judge found that the applicant's financial difficulties were ongoing and not mitigated, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	27 delinquent debts totaling nearly $9,000, falling delinquent since his Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in May 2000. $9,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	$5,800 past due on a $39,000 mortgage. $5,800	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	nearly $12,000 past due on a nearly $155,000 mortgage. $12,000	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge of over $26,000 in May 2000. $26,000	Against Applicant	Bankruptcy Filing	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Applicant has attempted to resolve these delinquent debts through Chapter 13 wage earner plans filed in May 2002, January 2003, and February 2006, each of which was dismissed.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant claims that some of the alleged debts were included in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing and that other debts are duplicates.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied with Explanation	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	Claimed Other

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. 08-09308 SSN: ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

December 31, 2009 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:

On 18 May 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 16 April 2009, and requested a decision without hearing. DOHA assigned the case to me 8 October 2009. The record in this case closed 19 September 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. He is a 43-year-old facilities representative employed by a U.S. defense contractor since January 2003. He appears to have previously held a clearance in 1996, but does not appear to hold one currently.

The SOR alleges, government exhibits substantiate, and Applicant admits 27 delinquent debts totaling nearly $9,000, falling delinquent since his Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge in May 2000. Applicant also admits being $5,800 past due on a $39,000 mortgage. Although not alleged in the SOR (and thus not part of my analysis on the merits of this case), he appears to be nearly $12,000 past due on a nearly $155,000 mortgage.

Applicant received a Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge of over $26,000 in May 2000. Since that new start, Applicant has acquired delinquent debt as noted above. He has attempted to resolve these delinquent debts through Chapter 13 wage earner plans filed in May 2002, January 2003, and February 2006. Each of these plans has eventually been dismissed because of Applicant’s failure to maintain required payments, although the plan dismissed in May 2008 appears to have disbursed some funds to Applicant’s creditors. Applicant intends to satisfy his debts, and provided a personal financial statement in February 2009 that shows $265 monthly positive cash flow. However, Applicant is not currently making payments on any of his delinquent accounts.

Applicant claims, without corroboration, that some of the alleged debts were included in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing and that other debts are duplicates. He attributes his financial problems to his wife’s job loss in 2002 and medical expenses for his son’s surgery in 2007. However, he acknowledges that he and his wife have been unable to live within their means for several years.

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 little evidence in extenuation, mitigation, or rehabilitation. Consequently, none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations fully apply. Applicant has been unable to live within his means since before 1999. His wife’s unemployment and his son’s surgery may have contributed to the pre-existing problems, but they cannot fully mitigate them. Further, there is no evidence of a plan for repayment or the possibility of a plan for repayment. The record also 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

Subparagraphs a-ff: 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 (DoD) 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), and the Revised Adjudicative Guidelines (RAG) effective within DoD on 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;