CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 10-07951.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 10-07951.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 10-07951.h1

deniedJul 1, 2010· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 45-year-old single male apprentice technician was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant unresolved financial issues. The Statement of Reasons detailed 24 state tax liens totaling $21,335, consumer debts amounting to $845, and a past-due mortgage payment of $896. These conditions raised concerns under Disqualifying Conditions F.1.a and F.1.c.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to provide evidence of payment or resolution for any of the delinquent debts. Specifically, no documentation was presented to support claims of disputing the tax liens or resolving other outstanding obligations.

Ultimately, the applicant did not demonstrate financial stability or a good-faith effort to address his financial responsibilities, nor did he provide evidence of financial counseling. This led the judge to conclude that the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness were in question, resulting in the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to provide evidence of payment or resolution for delinquent debts.
No documentation was presented to support claims of disputing tax liens or resolving other debts.
The applicant did not demonstrate financial stability or a good-faith effort to address financial obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 19, 2010
Answer filedDec 17, 2010Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateMar 18, 2011

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Lack of Evidence for Debt Resolution
Importance of Demonstrating Financial Stability for Security Clearance Eligibility

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 unresolved financial issues, including 24 state tax liens totaling $21,335, consumer debts totaling $845, and a past due mortgage payment of $896. The applicant failed to provide evidence of payment or resolution of these debts, leading to a denial of security clearance under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	24 state tax liens totaling $21,335 $21,335	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	consumer debts totaling $845 $845	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	past due mortgage payment in the amount of $896 $896	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home 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: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 10-07951 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Paul M. DeLaney, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

April 22, 2011 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance is denied.

Statement of the Case

On November 19, 2010, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. 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), effective within the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR on December 17, 2010, and elected to have his case decided on the written record. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on January 11, 2011. The FORM was mailed to Applicant and he received it on January 24, 2011. Applicant was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant did not provide additional information. The case was assigned to me on March 18, 2011.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he failed to specifically admit or deny the allegations; therefore, I will treat his responses as denials. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings and exhibits submitted, I make the following findings of fact.

Applicant is 45 years old. He is single, has never been married, and has no children. He has worked for his current employer, a defense contractor, since December 2009. He is an apprentice technician. He is a high school graduate. He has no history of military service.1

The debts listed in the SOR are supported by a credit reports dated November 10, 2010, and July 9, 2010. The debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.a - 1.xare 24 state tax liens totaling $21,335. The debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.y – 1.aa and 1.cc are consumer debts totaling $845. The debt alleged in SOR ¶ 1.bb is a past due mortgage payment in the amount of $896. Applicant presented no proof of payment for any of these debts. These debts remain unresolved.2

Prior to working for his current employer, Applicant operated his own business starting in January 1992. He closed the business in December 2007. No further facts are provided concerning the business. Applicant states that he is “working with”, and has been “in contact with” the Department of Revenue about the tax liens. Additionally, he believes that many of the liens are based upon estimated taxes for which he is not liable. He failed to supply any documentation for his position or any other information concerning the status of the tax liens.3

Applicant claims that non-tax lien debts have been resolved. However, he does not provide any documentary evidence to support his claim. Additionally, the record contains no information about Applicant’s current income and expenses or any other current financial information including whether he sought any financial counseling.4

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are used 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. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. 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.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record.

Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, an “applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion to obtain a favorable security decision.”

A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants access to classified information. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk that an 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.

Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides that decisions shall be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information).

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

AG ¶ 18 expresses the security concern for financial considerations:

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.

The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. I have considered all of them under AG ¶ 19 and especially considered the following:

(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and

Applicant has delinquent debts that remain unpaid or unresolved. I find both disqualifying conditions are raised.

The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties. I have considered all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 and especially considered the following:

(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;

(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;

(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; and

(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and (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.

Applicant provided no evidence that he paid or resolved his delinquent debts. Therefore, his behavior is recent and remains a concern. I find mitigating condition AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply because Applicant’s debts remain unresolved. Applicant provided no explanation for the cause of his financial troubles, other than he once owned a business. I find AG ¶ 20(b) does not apply. Applicant failed to present evidence of financial counseling and there is no clear evidence that Applicant’s financial problems are being resolved or under control. There was no documented evidence that he has made a good-faith effort to pay or has attempted to resolve any of the debts. I find AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) do not apply. No documentary evidence was presented to support Applicant’s disputed tax lien liability or his claim that all the non-tax lien debts have been paid. I find AG ¶ 20(e) does not 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.

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.

I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all the facts and circumstances surrounding this case. He has not shown a track record of financial stability. The record lacks any evidence that Applicant has made any type of good-faith effort to resolve his debts. Therefore, he failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns.

Overall the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline F, Financial Considerations.

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.cc: 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.

_____________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Item 5. 2 Items 4, 6, 7. 3 Item 4. 4 Id.