CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-00368.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-00368.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-00368.h1

deniedJan 20, 2012· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 43-year-old married U.S. Army veteran was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to approximately $16,000 in delinquent debt. The Statement of Reasons detailed two tax liens from 2003 and 2006, totaling about $13,800, and two outstanding credit card accounts.

The applicant attributed his financial difficulties to a job loss in February 2009. However, the decision noted that the majority of his debt, specifically the tax liens, predated this job loss. Furthermore, the applicant stated he could not afford to pay the tax delinquencies and had no intention of paying the credit card debts, asserting they were non-collectible due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

The denial was based on the applicant's substantial delinquent debt, his lack of plans to resolve these obligations, and his failure to engage in any debt counseling programs. The adjudicator found that the applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to address his financial issues, leading to the denial of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has approximately $16,000 in delinquent debt, primarily tax liens predating his job loss.
Applicant has no plans to pay his tax delinquencies or other debts, asserting they are non-collectible due to the statute of limitations.
Applicant did not participate in any debt counseling programs.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 14, 2011
Answer filedOct 4, 2011Applicant requested decision based on written record.
Hearing held—
Decision dateJan 20, 2012

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Lack of Good-faith Effort to Repay Debts
Insufficient Evidence of Rehabilitation or Debt Resolution Efforts

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 failed to mitigate financial concerns related to delinquent debts totaling approximately $16,000, primarily due to tax liens and credit card debts. The applicant's lack of intention to pay these debts and absence of financial counseling led to a decision against granting security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Approximately $13,800 stems from two tax liens entered against Applicant in 2003 and 2006, respectively. $13,800	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	The remaining two delinquent debts are credit card accounts.	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant contends his financial problems resulted from losing his job in February 2009.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Currently, Applicant cannot afford to pay his tax delinquencies, and he has no intentions of paying the other two debts, asserting that they are non-collectible because of the expiration of the statute of limitations.	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: ) ) ) ISCR Case No. 11-00368 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Tovah Minster, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

January 20, 2012 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concern generated by his delinquent finances. Clearance is denied.

Statement of the Case

On September 14, 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued an SOR to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The action was taken 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 (DoD) on December 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR on October 4, 2011, admitting the allegations and requesting a decision based on the written record rather than a hearing. On October 20, 2011, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Materials (FORM) setting forth the Government’s case. Applicant received the FORM on October 27, 2011 and was given 30 days to file a response. He did not file a response, and on January 3, 2012, the case was assigned to me.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 43-year-old married man with one child, age four. He is a high school graduate and a U.S. Army veteran, having served from 1990 to 1992. He was honorably discharged. (Item 5 at 21) Since September 2009, Applicant has worked for a defense contractor as a facilities technician. His duties include performing various odd jobs such as drywall repair and painting. (Item 6 at 14)

Since 2003, Applicant has accrued approximately $16,000 of delinquent debt. Approximately $13,800 stems from two tax liens entered against Applicant in 2003 and 2006, respectively. (Item 7 at 1) The remaining two delinquent debts are credit card accounts.

Applicant contends his financial problems resulted from losing his job in February 2009. Until his current employer hired him in September 2009, he was underemployed. Moreover, his wife lost her job in 2010 and remains unemployed. (Item 4)

Currently, Applicant cannot afford to pay his tax delinquencies, and he has no intentions of paying the other two debts, asserting that they are non-collectible because of the expiration of the statute of limitations. (Item 4) He has not participated in any debt counseling programs. (Item 6 at 8)

POLICIES

In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are required to be considered 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. 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.”

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 applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable security decision.

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

Under this guideline, “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.” (AG ¶ 18) Applicant’s financial struggles trigger the application of AG ¶¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations.”

The following mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:

(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.

I conclude none of the mitigating conditions apply. Applicant’s tax delinquencies compose nearly 90 percent of his debt, and both predate his 2009 job loss. Moreover, Applicant has no plans to pay either the tax delinquencies nor the other delinquencies. Although the statute of limitations on the period the creditors listed in subparagraphs 1.a and 1.dcan collect the debts under state law may have expired, as Applicant contends, this has little probative value in gauging Applicant’s security clearance worthiness. Allowing a state statute of limitations on debt collection to expire does not constitute a good-faith effort to resolve a debt (ISCR Case No. 08-01122 (App. Bd. February 9, 2008)).

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under the whole-person concept, 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.

Applicant served the country honorably as a member of the U.S. Army. Such evidence of good character, alone, is insufficient to meet the burden of proof. Absent proof that Applicant has either begun paying his debts, or has sought help to resolve them, he cannot prevail. Considering this case in the context of the whole-person concept, I conclude Applicant has failed to mitigate the security concern.

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.d: 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.

MARC E. CURRY Administrative Judge