Loading case…

ISCR 11-00472.h1: Guideline F security clearance hearing, denied (2012) · CASE

ISCR Case 11-00472.h1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-00472.h1

deniedFeb 14, 2012· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 49-year-old production control officer for a U.S. defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from significant financial issues, including a $21,422 IRS lien entered in June 2010 and multiple delinquent debts totaling nearly $32,000, which accrued between July 2006 and December 2007.

The judge determined that the applicant had an extensive and ongoing history of financial difficulties that were unlikely to be resolved soon. Disqualifying conditions F.1.a and F.1.c were raised, indicating a history of not meeting financial obligations and an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts.

The applicant failed to provide corroborating evidence for his claims of financial hardship and did not demonstrate responsible efforts to address his debts. Specifically, he did not seek credit or financial counseling and presented no budget or financial plan. Consequently, the judge concluded that granting a clearance was not consistent with national interest, and the application was DENIED.

Why the applicant was denied

Applicant has an extensive history of financial difficulties that are ongoing and unlikely to be resolved soon.
Applicant did not corroborate any claimed circumstances contributing to his financial problems.
Applicant has not sought credit or financial counseling and presented no budget or financial plan.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

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

Key rule quoted

“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.”
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedAug 16, 2011
Answer filed—Applicant requested a decision without hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing was held.
Decision dateFeb 14, 2012

Cite for

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Failure to Provide Corroborating Evidence for Financial Claims
Lack of Responsible Efforts to Address Debts as a Basis for Disqualification

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

From the decision

Facts this decision states, each with the exact sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.

Age at decision: 49: “He is a 49-year-old production control officer employed by a U.S. defense contractor since June 2010.”
Tenure: ~2 years: “He is a 49-year-old production control officer employed by a U.S. defense contractor since June 2010.”
Held a clearance before: Yes: “He served in the U.S. military from March 1986 to March 1990, during which time he held a clearance.”
Delinquent debt cited: $32,000 (on a payment plan): “The SOR alleges, Government exhibits (Items 9-11) substantiate, and Applicant admits nine delinquent accounts totaling nearly $32,000.”

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 multiple delinquent accounts totaling nearly $32,000, including a significant IRS tax lien. The applicant's financial difficulties were deemed ongoing and unresolved, leading to a denial of the security clearance under Guideline F.

The sub-allegation breakdown is part of the Professional plan. See what it includes.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. 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. 11-00472 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Ray T. Blank, Jr., Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

February 14, 2012 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:

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

On 16 August 2011, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) listing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a decision without hearing. The record in this case closed 7 January 2012, the day Applicant’s response to the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) was due. He submitted no response. DOHA assigned the case to me 7 February 2012.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted the SOR financial allegations. He is a 49-year-old production control officer employed by a U.S. defense contractor since June 2010. He has not previously held an industrial clearance. He served in the U.S. military from March 1986 to March 1990, during which time he held a clearance.

The SOR alleges, Government exhibits (Items 9-11) substantiate, and Applicant admits nine delinquent accounts totaling nearly $32,000. The bulk of the debt consists of a $21,422 Internal Revenue Service (IRS) lien entered against Applicant in June 2010. The remaining delinquent debt accrued between July 2006 and December 2007. Applicant disclosed most of his financial problems in his July 2010 clearance application (Item 6). Applicant states, without corroboration, that he has been negotiating with the IRS for 18 months without result. He does not intend to address any of the remaining debt until he has resolved his IRS issues.

Applicant attributes his financial problems to a variety of circumstances, which he has neither corroborated nor adequately explained. In his September 2010 interview with a Government investigator (Item 7), Applicant explained that his father died in 2001 and Applicant inherited his estate, for which Applicant served as executor. Applicant claims that some of the debt to the IRS is due to the sale of some of his father’s assets.3 The rest of the debt to the IRS is due to taxes and penalties from Applicant prematurely selling shares of his retirement account.

Applicant also attributes his financial problems to legal expenses incurred and increased child-support ordered in August 2007, when the mother of his now 19-year- old daughter sued for increased support. Finally, he states that he recently went through a divorce and was ordered to pay attorneys fees for both parties, pay all the credit card accounts, and pay child support.4

Applicant has not sought credit or financial counseling. He presented no personal financial statement or budget. He presented no work or character references.

POLICIES

The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability for access to classified 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. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. 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 a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.

Persons with access to classified 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 interest” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.5

ANALYSIS

The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has an extensive history of financial difficulties, which are ongoing, and seem unlikely to be resolved any time soon.6

Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations. His financial difficulties are both recent and multiple, and the immediate causes of his problems are recurring. Applicant has not corroborated any of the claimed circumstances beyond his control, or shown how those circumstances contributed to his financial problems. As he has not corroborated any of his claimed contacts with the IRS, or taken any action regarding the other debts, he has not responsibly addressed his debts. Applicant has received no financial or credit counseling, and has presented no budget. Applicant has either not been in contact with his creditors or has failed to corroborate any of his claimed contacts. None of the debts are likely to be paid, much less in a timely, good-faith effort. Applicant has not even attempted to deal with any of the smaller debts, evidence enough that he is a long way from resolving his financial problems. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs a-i: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance denied.

JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

Consisting of the FORM, Items 1-11.

DOHA acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; 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 the DoD on 1 September 2006. W ithout documentation, it is difficult to see how this can be so. As executor of the estate, Applicant would not be personally liable for any of the debts of the estate. It is unlikely that the estate was large enough to be subject to estate tax, and if it was, Applicant would not be personally liable for any amounts due. Sale of estate assets would not generate taxable income unless they had appreciated between the time of his father’s death and the sale of the assets. Applicant does not disclose when the assets were sold, so it is impossible to assess if the assets could have appreciated enough to generate a $21,000 tax lien.

Again, without documentation, it is difficult to see how this can be so. Applicant’s July 2010 clearance application shows that he married in August 2007, but had never been married before. The clearance application also shows that Applicant had two stepchildren, but does not show—and Applicant nowhere claims—that he adopted the two children. In his September 2010 subject interview, Applicant stated that he had just recently gone through a divorce. But there is no indication in his clearance application that any divorce was contemplated or pending. Further, the delinquent debts alleged in the SOR are Applicant’s individual accounts. 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;

¶20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur . . . ¶20 (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

¶20 (c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;

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