CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-00837.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-00837.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-00837.h1

deniedJul 1, 2009· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 27-year-old single man with a high school education was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to approximately $9,500 in delinquent debt owed to 14 creditors. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailed various outstanding debts, including utility bills, bank debts, and department store credit cards.

While the applicant successfully refuted one allegation (1.k) by providing documentary evidence that he had satisfied a $415 debt to a furniture store by June 2006, this was insufficient to mitigate the overall financial concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's substantial delinquent debt and his failure to provide adequate evidence of efforts to organize his finances or repay his overdue creditors. The applicant did not claim that unemployment contributed to his financial delinquencies.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has approximately $9,500 in delinquent debt owed to 14 creditors.
He provided scant evidence of efforts to organize his finances or repay overdue creditors.
The applicant did not assert that his unemployment contributed to his delinquencies.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)rejectedBehavior Happened Long Ago or InfrequentlyThe applicant's delinquencies remain outstanding.
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not assert that his unemployment contributed to his delinquencies.
AG ¶ 20(c)rejectedReceived Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant provided no evidence of counseling.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant produced negligible evidence demonstrating that he is resolving his 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."”
— AG ¶ 18

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 16, 2009
Answer filedMay 13, 2009Applicant admitted all allegations except two.
Hearing held—Applicant represented himself.
Decision dateOct 1, 2009

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Importance of Providing Evidence of Financial Responsibility
Impact of Unemployment on Financial Obligations

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 outstanding debts totaling approximately $9,500, which raised significant financial concerns under Guideline F. Although one debt was resolved in the applicant's favor, the majority of the debts remained unpaid, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant owes 14 creditors approximately $9,500 in delinquent debt, including utility bills	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant owes 14 creditors approximately $9,500 in delinquent debt, including debts owed to banks	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant owes 14 creditors approximately $9,500 in delinquent debt, including debts owed to banks	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant owes 14 creditors approximately $9,500 in delinquent debt, including utility bills	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Applicant owes 14 creditors approximately $9,500 in delinquent debt, including debts owed to banks	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant owes 14 creditors approximately $9,500 in delinquent debt, including department store credit cards $575	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Applicant owes 14 creditors approximately $9,500 in delinquent debt, including utility bills	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Applicant owes 14 creditors approximately $9,500 in delinquent debt, including department store credit cards	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Applicant owes 14 creditors approximately $9,500 in delinquent debt, including debts owed to banks	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	Applicant owes 14 creditors approximately $9,500 in delinquent debt, including debts owed to banks	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	Applicant denied SOR subparagraph 1.k, a delinquency allegedly owed to a furniture store for $415, but provided documentary evidence supporting his contention that he had satisfied it by June 2006 $415	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.l	Applicant owes 14 creditors approximately $9,500 in delinquent debt, including utility bills	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.m–1.n	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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. 09-00837 SSN: ----------- ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Allison O’Connell, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

September 30, 2009 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed to mitigate the government’s financial considerations security concern. Clearance is denied.

On April 16, 2009, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. 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 answered the SOR on May 13, 2009, admitting all of the allegations except subparagraphs 1.fand 1.k. He requested an administrative determination. On June 11, 2009, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM). DOHA mailed a copy of the FORM to Applicant on June 12, 2009. He received it on June 25, 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 September 4, 2009.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 27-year-old single man with no children. He has a high school education, and is currently taking college courses (Item 5 at 11). Since 2006, he has worked as a security guard.

Applicant owes 14 creditors approximately $9,500 in delinquent debt, including, among other things, utility bills (SOR subparagraphs 1.a, 1.d, 1.g, and 1.l), debts owed to banks (SOR subparagraphs 1.c, 1.e, 1.i, and 1.j), and department store credit cards (SOR subparagraphs 1.fand 1.h). He denies the debt alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.f, in the amount of $575. The government’s contention that he owes this debt is supported by page 12 of Item 6. Applicant provided no documentary evidence supporting his denial. Consequently, I included this delinquency in calculating his total delinquent debt.

Applicant also denied SOR subparagraph 1.k, a delinquency allegedly owed to a furniture store for $415. He provided documentary evidence supporting his contention that he had satisfied it by June 2006 (Exhibit 6 at 6). Applicant contends he has been making payments to satisfy SOR subparagraphs 1.gand 1.l. He provided no supporting documentary evidence.

Applicant was unemployed for approximately a year and a half, from January 2002 through July 2003 (Item 5 at 20). At or about this time, four of the debts listed in the SOR (subparagraphs 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, and 1.k) grew delinquent (see generally, Item 8). There is no record evidence of the circumstances surrounding the unemployment.

In response to interrogatories that the government propounded, Applicant provided a budget. Although it indicates that Applicant has $40 of after-expense monthly income, it includes neither the purported monthly payments toward the debts listed in SOR subparagraphs 1.gand 1.l, nor payments toward the satisfaction of any other SOR debt.

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. 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.”

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.

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’s history of financial problems triggers the application of AG ¶¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations.”

Applicant satisfied the debt listed in SOR subparagraph 1.k, therefore, I resolve it in his favor. The remainder of his delinquencies, however, remain outstanding rendering AG ¶ 20(a), “the 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,” inapplicable. Although several of Applicant’s delinquencies coincide with a lengthy period of unemployment, he did not assert that his unemployment contributed to his delinquencies. Also, he produced scant evidence of efforts to organize his finances or to repay overdue creditors. Neither AG ¶¶ 20(b), “the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, or a death, divorce, or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances,” 20(c), “the 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,” nor AG 20(d), “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” 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.

Applicant’s finances remain delinquent, and he has produced negligible evidence demonstrating that he is resolving them. Also, he did not produce any evidence addressing his bout of unemployment, and how it contributed to his financial problems. Moreover, it is unclear how Applicant would be able to incorporate an effective debt repayment plan into his budget given the dearth of after-expense income. Upon considering this case in the context of the whole person concept, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the financial considerations security concern. Clearance is denied.

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

Subparagraphs 1.a - 1.j: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.k: For Applicant

Subparagraphs 1.l - 1.n: 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