CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-00191.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-00191.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-00191.h1

deniedSep 16, 2011· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old truck driver for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 18 delinquent debts totaling approximately $37,900. The Statement of Reasons specifically cited a $43 medical debt and an $18,987 deficiency balance from a voluntarily repossessed pickup truck. Disqualifying conditions F.1.a and F.1.c were raised, while mitigating conditions F.2.b and F.2.c were considered.

Despite the applicant acknowledging his financial issues and planning to file for bankruptcy, the decision highlighted that no payments had been made on the alleged delinquent debts. The applicant's financial problems were deemed recent and ongoing, raising concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Ultimately, the plan to file for bankruptcy was not considered sufficient to mitigate the existing financial concerns. The applicant failed to demonstrate a consistent track record of financial responsibility, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has not made any payments on the delinquent debts alleged in the SOR.
The applicant's financial issues are recent and ongoing, casting doubt on his reliability and trustworthiness.
The applicant's plan to file for bankruptcy does not mitigate the current financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

F.2.bappliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial problems were related to his failed trucking business.
F.2.cappliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the ProblemThe applicant consulted with a debt reduction company and plans to file for bankruptcy.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”
— AG ¶ 2(b)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 15, 2011
Answer filedMay 2, 2011
Hearing heldSep 16, 2011via video teleconference
Decision dateSep 16, 2011

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Impact of Recent Financial Issues on Security Clearance Eligibility
Consideration of Bankruptcy Plans in Security 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 that the applicant has not mitigated financial considerations security concerns, primarily due to a history of delinquent debts totaling approximately $37,900. Despite the applicant's acknowledgment of his financial issues and plans to file for bankruptcy, the judge determined that these concerns remain unresolved and continue to cast doubt on his reliability and trustworthiness.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $43 for medical services. $43	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant has a delinquent debt of $18,987 for the deficiency on a loan after his pickup truck was voluntarily repossessed. $18,987	Against Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c–1.r	16 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. 11-00191 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Gregg Cervi, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

September 16, 2011 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge:

Applicant has not mitigated financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

On April 15, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 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 answered the SOR on May 2, 2011, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on August 1, 2011. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on August 10, 2011, scheduling the hearing for September 1, 2011, by video teleconference. The hearing date was changed at Applicant’s request to September 2, 2011. An amended notice of hearing was issued on August 19, 2011. The hearing was convened as scheduled. The Government offered exhibits (GE) 1 through 4, which were admitted without objection. Applicant testified, but he did not submit any documentary evidence. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on September 12, 2011.

PROCEDURAL RULINGS

I advised Applicant of his right under ¶ E3.1.8 of the Directive to 15 days notice before the hearing. Applicant affirmatively waived his right to 15 days notice.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 40-year-old truck driver for a defense contractor. He has worked for his current employer since July 2010. He is applying for a security clearance for the first time. He is a high school graduate. He has never been married, but he is in a committed relationship. He does not have children.1

Applicant was the driver/owner operator of a trucking business that he started in 2004. Applicant’s truck had multiple mechanical problems requiring costly repairs. He had difficulty paying all his bills, and a number of debts became delinquent. Applicant closed the business in 2006 and returned to driving for other companies.2

The SOR alleges 18 delinquent debts totaling about $37,900. The debts range from a $43 medical debt to $18,987 for the deficiency on a loan after Applicant’s pickup truck was voluntarily repossessed. Applicant admitted owing all the debts.

Applicant has not made any payments on any of the delinquent debts alleged in the SOR. He paid several debts that were not alleged. His net income is only slightly more than his monthly expenses, and he has been unable to pay anything other than his normal bills. He consulted with a debt reduction company and an attorney. They told him that his financial situation could best be resolved by filing bankruptcy. Applicant was referred to a bankruptcy attorney. Applicant plans to retain the attorney and file a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition. He will receive a substantial increase in income if he is granted a security clearance.3

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 to be used in evaluating an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information.

1 Tr. at 22-23; GE 1. 2 Tr. at 15; GE 2. 3 Tr. at 16-23; GE 1-4. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, administrative judges apply the guidelines 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, the applicant is responsible for presenting “witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel.” The applicant 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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.

Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that adverse 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

The security concern for financial considerations 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.

The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns under AG ¶ 19. Two are potentially applicable in this case:

(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and

Applicant accumulated a number of delinquent debts and was unable or unwilling to pay his financial obligations. The evidence is sufficient to raise the above disqualifying conditions.

Conditions that could mitigate financial considerations security concerns are provided under AG ¶ 20. The following are potentially applicable:

(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.

Applicant’s financial problems were related to his failed trucking business. That qualifies as a condition that was outside his control. To be fully applicable, AG ¶ 20(b) also requires that the individual act responsibly under the circumstances. Applicant paid some debts that were not alleged in the SOR. He has not made any payments on any of the debts alleged in the SOR. His monthly net income is only slightly more than his monthly expenses, and he has not been able to pay any of his older debts. His plan is to resolve his debts through bankruptcy. He has not yet retained his bankruptcy attorney. Applicant hopes to be granted a security clearance and receive the additional salary that will come with his clearance. In the meantime, he is unable to pay more than his monthly expenses.

Applicant appears to be sincere in his desire to address his financial problems. However, he does not have a track record of financial responsibility. I find that Applicant’s finances are not yet under control. His financial issues are recent and ongoing. I am unable to determine that they are unlikely to recur. They continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. AG ¶¶ 20(a) and 20(d) are not applicable. AG ¶¶ 20(b) and 20(c) are partially applicable. I find that financial concerns remain despite the presence of some mitigation.

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 relevant 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. 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 has not made any payments toward the delinquent debts alleged in the SOR. His plan is to discharge his debts through bankruptcy and obtain a security clearance, which will enable him to earn a greater salary and become more financially secure. If he can establish a track record of financial responsibility, he should be given that opportunity. While I believe that Applicant can arrive at that position, he is not there yet. Under AG ¶ 2(b), I am required to resolve my doubt in favor of national security.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. I conclude Applicant has not mitigated financial considerations security concerns.

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.r: 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.

________________________ Edward W. Loughran Administrative Judge