CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-05535.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-05535.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-05535.h1

deniedJul 23, 2012· Hon. LeRoy F. Foreman· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old mission controller was denied a security clearance due to significant financial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant faced allegations related to numerous delinquent debts, including multiple medical bills, credit card debts, collection accounts, utility bills, and judgments for a credit card and car repossession. Other debts included a payday loan, bad checks, and various service and retail accounts, totaling over $35,000.

Disqualifying conditions were raised concerning a history of not meeting financial obligations, an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts, and a pattern of financial irresponsibility. While some mitigating conditions were considered, such as the debts not being recent and the applicant having received a pay raise, these were not sufficient to overcome the concerns.

The denial was based on the applicant's numerous ongoing delinquent debts and the finding that meaningful steps to control the financial situation were not taken until after receiving the Statement of Reasons. Ultimately, the judge found insufficient evidence of responsible financial management and a lack of clear indications that the financial problems were being resolved.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has numerous ongoing delinquent debts totaling over $35,000.
The applicant did not take meaningful steps to control his financial situation until after receiving the SOR.
There were no clear indications that the financial problems were being resolved.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(e)appliedConsistent Spending Beyond One’s Means

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)raisedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant faced unemployment and marital discord.
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsSome debts were resolved before the SOR was issued.
AG ¶ 20(e)appliedReasonable Basis to Dispute Legitimacy of DebtsThe applicant provided plausible reasons for disputing several debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the AG.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 4, 2012
Answer filedMay 2, 2012
Hearing heldJun 21, 2012
Decision dateJul 23, 2012

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of the Whole-person Concept in Clearance Decisions

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 concerns under Guideline F, including numerous delinquent debts totaling over $35,000, with some dating back to 2003. While some debts were admitted and resolved, the judge ruled against the applicant on several key debts, indicating ongoing financial irresponsibility and a lack of meaningful steps to address the issues until the SOR was issued.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Credit card (judgment) $2,822	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.b	Car repossession (judgment) $12,305	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.c	Medical $1,700	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations (e) consistent spending beyond one’s means / irresponsible spending	—	—
1.d	Collection $351	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.e	Medical $30	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Medical $100	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	Internet service $330	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.h	Medical $62	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	Medical $62	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.j	Medical $140	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.k	Utilities $836	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.l	Cell phone $1,127	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.m	Optical $97	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.n	Payday loan $1,220	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.o	Medical $370	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.p	Medical $100	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.q	Medical $100	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.r	Medical $100	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.s	Medical $100	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.t	Credit card $529	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.u	Car insurance $165	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.v	Cable service $869	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.w	Cable service $573	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.x	Medical $1,382	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.y	Bad check $123	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.z	Bad check $100	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.aa	Credit card $466	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.bb	Telephone $199	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.cc	Collection $360	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.dd	Loan $335	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.ee	Medical $76	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.ff	Medical $593	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.gg	Health club $336	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.hh	Collection $406	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.ii	Medical $280	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.jj	Collection $123	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.kk	Judgment $583	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.ll	Cell phone $541	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.mm	Medical $179	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.nn	Pizzeria $67	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.oo	Medical $44	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.pp	Collection $83	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.qq	Credit card $784	For Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.rr	Medical $520	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.ss	Credit card $529	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Denied	—	—	—
1.tt	Music club (low confidence) $27	Unknown	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.uu	Medical (low confidence) $555	Unknown	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.vv	Medical (low confidence) $280	Unknown	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.ww	Video games $78	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.xx	Cell phone $250	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.yy	Collection $73	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.zz	Collection $126	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.aaa	Collection $908	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.bbb	Collection $480	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.ccc	Collection $80	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.ddd	Trailer rental $318	For 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: ) ) [Redacted] ) ISCR Case No. 10-05535 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

07/23/2012 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

FOREMAN, LeRoy F., Administrative Judge:

This case involves security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

Applicant submitted a security clearance application on February 17, 2010. On April 4, 2012, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) notified him that it was unable to find that it was clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him access to classified information, and it recommended that his case be submitted to an administrative judge for a determination whether to grant or deny his application. DOHA set forth the basis for its action in a Statement of Reasons (SOR), citing security concerns under Guideline F. DOHA acted 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 adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented by the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006. Applicant received the SOR on April 13, 2012; answered it on May 2, 2012; and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. DOHA received the request on May 3, 2012. Department Counsel was ready to proceed on May 21, 2012, and the case was assigned to me on May 29, 2012. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on June 1, 2012, scheduling it for June 21, 2012. I convened the hearing as scheduled. Government Exhibits (GX) 1 through 6 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified, presented the testimony of one witness, and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AX) A through C, which were admitted without objection. I kept the record open until July 9, 2012, to enable Applicant to submit additional documentary evidence. He timely submitted AX D and E. Department Counsel’s comments concerning AX D and E are attached to the record as Hearing Exhibit I. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) on June 29, 2012.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the allegations in SOR ¶¶ 1.a-1.c, 1.e, 1.f, 1.h-1.k, 1.n-1.u, 1.w, 1.y-1.dd, 1.hh, 1.kk-1.rr, 1.ww-1.yy, 1.bbb, 1.ddd, and 1.eee. He did not respond to SOR ¶¶ 1.tt-1.vv. He denied SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.g, 1.l, 1.m, 1.v, 1.x, 1.ee-1.gg, 1.ii-1.jj, 1.ss, 1.zz, 1.aaa, and 1.ccc. His admissions in his answer and at the hearing are incorporated in my findings of fact.

Applicant is a 36-year-old mission controller employed by a federal contractor since May 2009. He served in the U.S. Air Force from November 1995 to September 2000, and he held a security clearance and eligibility for access to sensitive compartmented information during his military service. During his first enlistment, he received outstanding performance reports and received a Good Conduct Medal and Air Force Achievement Medal. (GX 3 at 8-12.) He reenlisted and received a $15,000 reenlistment bonus. He was reassigned and began having conflicts with his new chain of command, which began when his dress uniform was lost during the move and he wore the wrong uniform at the ceremony during which he was given the Air Force Achievement Medal for his previous service. After several other conflicts with authority, he was discharged before completing his enlistment, and he received a general discharge under honorable conditions. (GX 3 at 22-26; Tr. 37-39.) Because he did not complete his enlistment, he was required to pay back about $6,000 of his reenlistment bonus. He did not have sufficient funds to repay the bonus, and it eventually was collected by seizing his federal income tax refunds. (GX 3 at 6-7.)

Applicant was unemployed from September to December 2000. He worked in a fast-food restaurant from January 2001 to January 2006, when he was laid off. He worked as a part-time security officer for a night club from February to November 2006 and a part-time rural mail carrier for the U.S. Postal Service from June to November 2006. He was a full-time mail carrier from November 2006 to July 2008. He was injured in September 2007 and placed on administrative leave at reduced pay while the circumstances of his injury were investigated. (GX 3 at 21-22.) He worked as a network controller for a federal contractor from March 2008 until May 2009, when he began his current job as a mission controller. Applicant married in March 1999. His wife had two children when they met. (Tr. 82.) Those children are now ages 16 and 14. They had two more children together, now ages 12 and 8. Applicant’s niece, age 18, also resides with them. (Tr. 34.) Applicant and his wife had custody of his two younger brothers until one joined the Air Force and the other went to college. (Tr. 84.)

Around June 2001, he and his wife began to have serious marital problems due to her alcohol and drug abuse. There were several domestic disturbances and mutual accusations of marital infidelity. Applicant was jailed once for violating a restraining order. They separated in April 2004. In late 2004, Applicant’s wife entered a drug treatment program and received psychiatric care for a bipolar condition. Applicant and his wife began seeing each other again in early 2004 and have been living together since September 2005. (GX 2 at 15-20.) Applicant’s wife does not work outside the home.

The SOR alleges 57 delinquent debts totaling more than $35,000. Some date back to 2003, but most became delinquent between 2006 and early 2010. In response to DOHA interrogatories in December 2011, he submitted evidence that the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.ll was resolved in February 2010. (GX 3 at 13.) In his response to the SOR, Applicant submitted evidence that the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.aa and 1.kk were resolved before the SOR was issued and the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.e was resolved after issuance of the SOR.

In mid-April 2012, after receiving the SOR, Applicant enrolled in a debt management program. A debt counselor reviewed his current income, expenses, assets, and liabilities, and prepared a customized budget and an action plan for resolving delinquent debts. (AX C.) Applicant decided not to proceed with this debt management plan because it required monthly payments of over $600 and did not provide for missed payments. (Tr. 47-48.) Instead, he formulated his own budget and payment plan. They had not been reduced to writing as of the date of the hearing. (Tr. 48-49.

After the hearing, Applicant reduced his budget to writing and submitted it. It reflects a monthly remainder of $491 that is available to resolve his delinquent debts. (AX D at 2-3.) He had previously submitted a personal financial statement in response to DOHA interrogatories, reflecting a net monthly remainder of about $112. (GX 3 at 62.) His new budget reflects a pay raise, an increase in his military disability pay, and reduced expenses due to the payoff of his car loan. (Tr. 68-70.)

After the hearing, Applicant also reduced to writing and submitted a plan providing for monthly payoffs of selected debts beginning in July 2012 and ending in April 2016. (AX D at 3-13; AX E.) The payment plan includes all debts alleged in the SOR, except those that have been resolved or disputed. Applicant did not present any evidence that his creditors have agreed to the payment plan. In late April 2012, Applicant retained an attorney to determine the validity of the unsatisfied judgments alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.band 1.kk, even though he apparently had satisfied the judgment alleged in SOR ¶ 1.kk in February 2008. (Answer to SOR; AX A.) On June 23, 2012, two days after the hearing, Applicant sent letters to all three credit bureaus, disputing the debts alleged in SOR ¶ 1.g, 1.l, 1.m, 1.v, 1.tt, 1.zz, and 1.ccc on the ground that he has never had accounts with those creditors. He disputed the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.ss because it is a duplicate of the debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.t. (GX 4 at 2; GX 6 at 7.) He disputed the medical debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.xon the ground that this debt should have been covered by Workmen’s Compensation. He disputed the medical debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.ee, 1.ff, 1.ii, 1.jj, 1.uu, and 1.vv. He testified that these medical debts were incurred at a location where he has not lived since childhood, and he believes that they are his father’s debts. He and his father have the same name, except for the “Junior” in Applicant’s name. (Tr. 56-57.) He disputed the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.kk, and 1.nn, on the ground that he contacted the creditors and was informed that they have no unpaid accounts in his name. (AX D at 9-13.) As of the date the record closed, the credit bureaus had not responded to his dispute letters.

The table below summarizes the evidence concerning the debts alleged in the SOR. Applicant’s most recent performance report rated his performance as 3.67 on a 4-point scale. A score of 3.00 is for employees meeting job requirements and a 4.00 is for employees exceeding job requirements. (AX B.) His supervisor, who has known him for five years, describes him as a person with high integrity, responsibility, and attention to detail. He considers Applicant a dependable person with good judgment and a mature outlook. (Attachment to Answer).

Applicant’s wife described him as someone who “will never shut his door to a family member or someone in need.” She testified that he is “a man of his word” and “a good guy.” (Tr. 84-87.) Applicant was involved in a car accident in February 2012, in which the other party was determined to be at fault. He expects to receive a settlement in a month or two, which he intends to use to resolve his debts. At the hearing, he testified that he does not know how much he will receive. (Tr. 32, 66.) However, in his post-hearing submission, he estimated that he will receive more than $35,000 (AX D at 13.)

Applicant has no savings. At the time of the hearing, he had about $700 in his checking account. He opened a retirement account in November 2011, but he did not testify regarding the amount he had accumulated in this account. (Tr. 71-72.)

POLICIES

“[N]o one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to “control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicants eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.

Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the AG. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, an administrative judge applies these guidelines in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable.

The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.

Clearance decisions must be made “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. Thus, a decision to deny a security clearance is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance.

Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 92-1106 at 3, 1993 WL 545051 at *3 (App. Bd. Oct. 7, 1993).

Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant has the burden of proving a mitigating condition, and the burden of disproving it never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02- 31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005).

An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue his security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b).

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

The concern under this guideline 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.

This concern is broader than the possibility that an applicant might knowingly compromise classified information in order to raise money. It encompasses concerns about an applicant’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified information. An individual who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012).

Applicant’s credit reports, his admissions in response to the LOI, and his testimony at the hearing establish the following disqualifying conditions under this guideline:

AG ¶ 19(a): inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;

AG ¶ 19(c): a history of not meeting financial obligations; and AG ¶ 19(e): consistent spending beyond one’s means, which may be indicated by excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-income ratio, and/or other financial analysis.

Security concerns based on financial considerations may be mitigated by any of the following conditions:

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;

AG ¶ 20(b): the 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;

AG ¶ 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;

AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; or

AG ¶ 20(e): the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue.

AG ¶ 20(a) is not established. Applicant’s delinquent debts are ongoing, numerous, and not the result of circumstances making them unlikely to recur.

The first prong of AG ¶ 20(b) is established, because Applicant encountered several conditions beyond his control: his unemployment and underemployment after being discharged from the Air Force, his wife’s alcohol and drug abuse and the marital discord and breakup that resulted from it, the expense of maintaining two households while they were separated, and the numerous medical debts incurred by him and his family. However, the second prong of AG ¶ 20(b), requiring responsible conduct, is not established, because Applicant did not take meaningful steps to gain control of his financial situation until he received the SOR.

The first prong of AG ¶ 20(c) is established, because Applicant received counseling from the debt management program and advice from his attorney. However, the second prong is not established, because there are not yet “clear indications” that the problem is being resolved. Although Applicant has devised a plan for resolving his debts, he has not shown that his creditors will agree to the plan and he had not made any payments under the plan as of the date the record closed.

AG ¶ 20(d) is established for the debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.aa, 1.kk, and 1.ww, which were resolved before issuance of the SOR, but not for the remaining debts alleged in the SOR. Good faith means acting in a way that shows reasonableness, prudence, honesty, and adherence to duty or obligation. ISCR Case No. 99-0201, 1999 WL 1442346 at *4 (App. Bd. Oct. 12, 1999). Evidence of past irresponsibility is not mitigated by payment of debts motivated primarily by the pressure of qualifying for a security clearance. Applicant did not contact the debt management company and consult with an attorney until after he received the SOR. The evidence indicates that his belated actions were not motivated by a sense of duty to his creditors, but by the realization that he could not obtain a security clearance until he resolved his financial problems.

AG ¶ 20(e) is established for the disputed debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.d, 1.g, 1.l- 1.m, 1.v, 1.x, 1.ee-1.ff, 1.ii-1.jj, 1.nn, 1.ss-1.vv, 1.zz, and 1.ccc. Applicant’s reasons for disputing these debts are plausible, reasonable, and credible. The requirement for documentation of his actions to resolve the disputes is satisfied by copies of his letters sent to the three credit bureaus.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

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. In applying the whole- person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all relevant circumstances. An 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.

I have incorporated my comments under Guideline F in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) were addressed under that guideline, but some warrant additional comment.

Applicant is a compassionate man who has taken family members into his home even though he was struggling financially. He served in the Air Force for almost five years, where he held a security clearance, apparently without incident. He was candid, sincere, and credible at the hearing. On the other hand, he has a long track record of neglecting his financial responsibilities. Although he has been employed continuously since November 2006 and has worked for his current employer since May 2009, he took virtually no action to gain control of his financial situation until he received the SOR. He has devised a realistic payment plan, but his creditors have not yet agreed to it, and he has not established a track record of financial responsibility.

After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guideline F, and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns based on financial considerations. Accordingly, I conclude he has not carried his burden of showing that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant him eligibility for access to classified information.

FORMAL FINDINGS

I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR:

Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a-1.c: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.d-1.e: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.f: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.g: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.h-1.k: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.l-1.m: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.n-1.u: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.v: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.w: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.x: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.y-1.z: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.aa: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.bb-1.dd: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.ee-1.ff: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.gg-1.hh: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.ii-1.ll: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.mm: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.nn: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.oo-1.rr: Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.ss-1.ww: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.xx-1.yy: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.zz: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.aaa-1.bbb: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.ccc: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.ddd-1.eee: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

I conclude that 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.

LeRoy F. Foreman Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

SOR Debt Amount Answer Status Evidence to SOR 1.a Credit card $2,822 Admit Payment plan AX E (judgment) 1.b Car repossession $12,305 Admit Payment plan AX E (judgment) 1.c Medical $1,700 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.d Collection $351 Deny Disputed, no account with creditor AX D 1.e Medical $30 Admit Paid, 4-24-12 Answer 1.f Medical $100 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.g Internet service $330 Deny Disputed, no account with creditor AX D 1.h Medical $62 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.i Medical $62 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.j Medical $140 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.k Utilities $836 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.l Cell phone $1,127 Deny Disputed, no account with creditor AX D 1.m Optical $97 Deny Disputed, no account with creditor AX D 1.n Payday loan $1,220 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.o Medical $370 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.p Medical $100 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.q Medical $100 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.r Medical $100 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.s Medical $100 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.t Credit card $529 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.u Car insurance $165 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.v Cable service $869 Deny Disputed, no account with creditor AX E 1.w Cable service $573 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.x Medical $1,382 Deny Disputed, covered by Workmen’s AX E Compensation 1.y Bad check $123 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.z Bad check $100 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.aa Credit card $466 Admit Paid, 3-15-12 Answer 1.bb Telephone $199 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.cc Collection $360 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.dd Loan $335 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.ee Medical $76 Deny Disputed, requested verification AX D 1.ff Medical $593 Deny Disputed, requested verification AX D 1.gg Health club $336 Deny Unresolved, no dispute filed Answer 1.hh Collection $406 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.ii Medical $280 Deny Disputed, requested verification AX D 1.jj Collection $123 Deny Disputed, requested verification AX D 1.kk Judgment $583 Admit Paid 2-13-08; creditor’s records do Answer; not reflect an unpaid debt AX D 1.ll Cell phone $541 Admit Resolved 2-26-10 GX 3 at

1.mm Medical $179 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.nn Pizzeria $67 Deny Disputed, creditor’s records to not AX D reflect an unpaid debt 1.oo Medical $44 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.pp Collection $83 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.qq Credit card $784 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.rr Medical $520 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.ss Credit card $529 Deny Disputed, duplicate of ¶ SOR ¶ 1.t AX D 1.tt Music club $27 No Disputed, no account with creditor AX D response 1.uu Medical $555 No Disputed, requested verification AX D response 1.vv Medical $280 No Disputed, requested verification AX D response 1.ww Video games $78 Admit Paid, 11-12-08 and 11-26-08 Answer 1.xx Cell phone $250 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.yy Collection $73 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.zz Collection $126 Deny Disputed, no account with creditor AX D 1.aaa Collection $908 Deny Unresolved Answer 1.bbb Collection $480 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.ccc Collection $80 Deny Disputed, no account with creditor AX D 1.ddd Trailer rental $318 Admit Payment plan AX E 1.ccc Trash service $66 Admit Payment plan AX E