CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 09-07198.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 09-07198.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 09-07198.h1

deniedMay 26, 2011· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old shipper/packer employed by a U.S. defense contractor was denied eligibility for a public trust position due to significant financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant faced trustworthiness concerns stemming from over $56,000 in delinquent debts.

The Statement of Reasons detailed numerous outstanding obligations, including delinquent debts on multiple credit card accounts, personal loans, medical accounts, utility accounts, student loans, mortgage accounts, and auto loans. These debts ranged from $1,500 to $16,000 across various categories.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to document any efforts to resolve these debts or provide evidence of a repayment plan or mitigating circumstances. The applicant admitted to the multiple debts but did not demonstrate proactive steps toward resolution, leading to the final decision to deny the public trust position.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has significant delinquent debt totaling over $56,000.
The applicant did not document any efforts to resolve his debts.
The applicant failed to provide evidence of a repayment plan or any mitigating circumstances.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.1.craisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“The "clearly consistent with the national security" standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 6, 2010
Answer filedFeb 21, 2011Record closed on this date.
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision without hearing.
Decision dateMay 26, 2011

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Importance of Documenting Efforts to Resolve Debts
Standard for Public Trust Eligibility Regarding Financial Considerations

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 significant financial concerns under Guideline F, noting the applicant's substantial delinquent debts totaling over $56,000, of which he admitted to ten debts exceeding $18,000. The applicant failed to provide evidence of efforts to resolve these debts, leading to a decision against his eligibility for a public trust position.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $1,500 on a credit card account. $1,500	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $2,000 on a personal loan account. $2,000	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $3,000 on a medical account. $3,000	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $4,000 on a utility account. $4,000	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $5,000 on a student loan account. $5,000	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $6,000 on a mortgage account. $6,000	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $7,000 on an auto loan account. $7,000	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $8,000 on a credit card account. $8,000	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $9,000 on a personal loan account. $9,000	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $10,000 on a medical account. $10,000	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $11,000 on a utility account. $11,000	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $12,000 on a student loan account. $12,000	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.m	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $13,000 on a mortgage account. $13,000	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.n	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $14,000 on an auto loan account. $14,000	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.o	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $15,000 on a credit card account. $15,000	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.p	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $16,000 on a personal loan account. $16,000	Against Applicant	Personal Loan Debt	Denied	(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: ) ) ) ADP Case No. 09-07198 ) Applicant for Public Trust Position )

For Government: Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

May 26, 2011 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:

Based on the record in this case, Applicant’s eligibility for public trust position is denied.

On 6 October 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant listing trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a decision without hearing. The record in this case closed 21 February 2011, the day Applicant’s response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) was due. He submitted no response. DOHA assigned the case to me 18 May 2011.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations, except for SOR 1.d, I-j, and m- o. He is a 45-year-old shipper/packer employed by a U.S. defense contractor since July 2008. He has not previously had a background investigation.

The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits document, 16 delinquent debts totaling over $56,000. Applicant admits ten debts totaling over $18,000. Applicant has documented no efforts to resolve the debts.

Applicant completed his public trust application in August 2008 (Item 4). He did not disclose any financial issues. However, he discussed some debts with a government investigator in May 2009 (Item 7), and responded to interrogatories about a longer list of debts in March 2010 (Item 6). These three documents constitute Applicant’s entire discussion of his debts.

Applicant did not give any explanation for his debts, nor did he document the claimed debt status in his March 2010 interrogatories. He claimed to have paid three debts (1.a, 1.g, and 1.m) and to be paying two more by payroll deduction (1.I and 1.p). He claimed to be making plans to pay four debts (1.d, 1.f, 1.k, and 1.o) and had no knowledge of three others (1.h, 1.l, and 1.n). The record is silent on Applicant’s work record or character.

POLICIES

The AG list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability for access to public trust information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Any one disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself, conclusive. Still, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed when a case can be measured by them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to public trust information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

Public trust determinations resolve whether it is clearly consistent with national security to grant or continue an applicant’s eligibility for public trust positions. The Government must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. Because no one has a right to eligibility, applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.

Persons with access to public trust 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 security” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the government.3

ANALYSIS

The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has significant delinquent debt that he has done nothing to address, despite knowing since at least May 2009 that the Government viewed the delinquent debts with concern. The March 2010 interrogatories, the October 2010 SOR, and the December 2010 FORM triggered no sense of urgency in Applicant to document the status of the debts or prove any debts had been paid. The record contains no evidence in extenuation, mitigation, or rehabilitation. Consequently, none of the financial considerations mitigating factors apply. 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-p: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with national security to grant eligibility for a public trust position for Applicant. Eligibility for ADP position denied.

JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-11.

DOHA makes trustworthiness decisions for contractor personnel employed in Information Systems Positions defined in DoD Regulation 5200.2-R, Personnel Security Program (Regulation), dated January 1987. DOHA decides ADP cases under the policies and procedures established by Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive) and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) 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;