CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-07235.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-07235.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-07235.h1

deniedFeb 28, 2011· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old IT support coordinator for a U.S. defense contractor was denied a public trust position due to significant financial concerns under Guideline F. The applicant admitted to 12 delinquent debts, totaling nearly $53,000, which included four medical debts amounting to $1,342. These debts were identified as individual accounts on his credit report, though a joint mortgage was current, and other joint and authorized user accounts had been paid and closed.

The applicant attributed his financial difficulties to a 2005 divorce and an accident. However, despite disclosing delinquent debts in his August 2009 public trust application and being aware of government concerns since March 2010, he made no effort to resolve these obligations. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) in October 2010 and a subsequent FORM in December 2010 did not prompt him to address the debts or provide a repayment plan.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to provide any evidence of mitigation, extenuation, or rehabilitation efforts. His response to the FORM was a request for more time and an invitation for the government to obtain information he could have submitted. Given the lack of action to resolve the nearly $53,000 in delinquent debts and the absence of a repayment plan or mitigating circumstances, the applicant's public trust position was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to having 12 delinquent debts totaling nearly $53,000.
He made no effort to resolve the debts despite being aware of the government's concerns since March 2010.
There was no evidence of a repayment plan or any mitigating circumstances.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.19(c)raisedA 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 18, 2010
Answer filedTimely
Hearing heldN/ADecision without hearing requested by applicant.
Decision dateFeb 28, 2011

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Significant Delinquent Debt as a Disqualifying Factor
Lack of Evidence for Repayment Plans 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 that the applicant had significant delinquent debts totaling nearly $53,000, which he failed to address despite being aware of the concerns since at least March 2010. The applicant's financial issues were attributed to personal circumstances, but he provided no corroborating evidence or plans for repayment, leading to a denial of eligibility for a public trust position.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has significant delinquent debt that he has done nothing to address, despite knowing since at least March 2010 that the Government viewed the delinquent debts with concern.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	The four delinquent medical debts total $1,342 and may be the amounts due after his health insurance has paid its share. $1,342	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant has not made any effort to resolve the debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant attributes his financial problems to his divorce in 2005 and an accident he was in.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	The record contains no evidence in extenuation, mitigation, or rehabilitation.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	The record also lacks any information upon which to base a 'whole person' analysis.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Applicant's reply to the FORM is a plea for more time and an invitation for the Government to obtain the information Applicant could have submitted, but did not.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Applicant completed his public trust application in August 2009 and disclosed that he had delinquent debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	The October 2010 SOR and the December 2010 FORM triggered no sense of urgency in Applicant to even begin addressing his debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	Applicant's credit report shows that the delinquent debts are his individual accounts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	A joint mortgage is current. Other joint accounts and authorized user accounts have been paid and closed.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	Applicant has three children and two stepchildren.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(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. 10-07235 ) ) Applicant for Public Trust Position )

For Government: D. Michael Lyles, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

February 28, 2011 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:

Based on the record in this case, Applicant’s clearance is denied.

On 18 October 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a decision without hearing. The record in this case closed 24 January 2011, the day Department Counsel registered no objection to Applicant’s response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM). DOHA assigned the case to me 1 February 2011.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations. He is a 44-year-old IT support coordinator employed by a U.S. defense contractor since December 1997. He has not previously had a background investigation. He remarried in May 2009 and has three children and two stepchildren.

The SOR alleges, Government exhibits document, and Applicant admits 12 delinquent debts totaling nearly $53,000. Many of the debts are small: three are less than $500 each; another four are less than $1,000 each. However, Applicant has made no effort to resolve the debts.

Applicant completed his public trust application in August 2009 (Item 1). He disclosed that he had delinquent debts. He discussed these debts with a government investigator in March 2010 (Item 5), and stated his intent to resolve them.

Applicant attributes his financial problems to his divorce in 2005 and an accident he was in. He states that the debts were the result of the divorce settlement allocating the marital debt. However, he provided no corroboration of his claims. His October 2009 credit report (Item 7) shows that the delinquent debts are his individual accounts. A joint mortgage is current. Other joint accounts and authorized user accounts have been paid and closed. The four delinquent medical debts (SOR 1.b-e) total $1,342 and may be the amounts due after his health insurance has paid its share.

Applicant’s reply to the FORM is a plea for more time and an invitation for the Government to obtain the information Applicant could have submitted, but did not. 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, the 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 March 2010 that the Government viewed the delinquent debts with concern. The October 2010 SOR and the December 2010 FORM triggered no sense of urgency in Applicant to even begin addressing his debts. 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-l: 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 1-8 and Applicant’s reply to the FORM (AE A).

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;