CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-09606.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-09606.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-09606.h1

deniedApr 3, 2013· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A security clearance was denied under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) for an applicant who had been gainfully employed since 2002. The denial stemmed from multiple past-due debts totaling over $13,000, which raised concerns about the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness.

The Statement of Reasons detailed nine specific debts, including approximately $1,646 owed to Creditor A, $2,558 to Creditor B, $155 to Creditor C, $374 to Creditor D, $850 to Creditor E, $220 to Creditor F, $120 to Creditor G, $7,917 to Creditor H, and $128 to Creditor I. These financial obligations triggered disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c).

Despite admitting to all allegations, the applicant did not provide evidence of addressing these financial obligations. Furthermore, the applicant failed to respond to the File of Relevant Material, which limited the opportunity to mitigate the financial concerns. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant admitted to multiple past-due debts totaling over $13,000 without providing evidence of resolution.
The applicant failed to respond to the File of Relevant Material, limiting the ability to mitigate concerns.

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 26, 2012
Answer filedOct 17, 2012
Hearing held—Applicant appeared pro se
Decision dateApr 3, 2013

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Providing Evidence to Mitigate Disqualifying Conditions

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 multiple past-due debts totaling approximately $13,000, which she admitted but did not address or mitigate. As a result, the judge ruled against the applicant on all financial allegations under Guideline F, concluding that the applicant's financial issues raised significant security concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant is indebted to Creditor A in the amount of about $1,646. $1,646	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant is indebted to Creditor B in the amount of about $2,558. $2,558	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant is indebted to Creditor C in the amount of about $155. $155	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant is indebted to Creditor D in the amount of about $374. $374	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Applicant is indebted to Creditor E in the amount of about $850. $850	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant is indebted to Creditor F in the amount of about $220. $220	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Applicant is indebted to Creditor G in the amount of about $120. $120	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Applicant is indebted to Creditor H in the amount of about $7,917. $7,917	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Applicant is indebted to Creditor I in the amount of about $128. $128	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. 11-09606 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

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

April 3, 2013

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on February 8, 2011. On September 26, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for Applicant. 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), effective within the Department of Defense after September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR in writing on October 17, 2012, and requested an Administrative Determination by an administrative judge. Department Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on January 14, 2013. Applicant failed to respond to the FORM. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In her Answer to the SOR, dated October 17, 2012, Applicant admitted all the factual allegations in the Paragraphs of the SOR, without explanations.

Guideline F - Financial Considerations

Applicant has been gainfully employed since April of 2002. (Item 5 at pages 16–18.) The SOR alleges nine past-due debts, all of which are supported by fairly recent credit reports, the last one of which is from January of 2013. (Items 7–9.)

1.a. Applicant is indebted to Creditor A in the amount of about $1,646. (Item 7 at page 1.) She admits this past due-debt, but has submitted nothing further in this regard. I find that this debt remains unpaid.

1.b. Applicant is indebted to Creditor B in the amount of about $2,558. (Item 7 at page 1.) She also admits this past due-debt, but has submitted nothing further in this regard. I find that this debt remains unpaid.

1.c. Applicant is indebted to Creditor C in the amount of about $155. (Item 7 at page 1.) She again admits this past due-debt, but has submitted nothing further in this regard. I find that this debt remains unpaid.

1.d. Applicant is indebted to Creditor D in the amount of about $374. (Item 7 at page 1.) She admits this past due-debt, but has submitted nothing further in this regard. I find that this debt remains unpaid.

1.e. Applicant is indebted to Creditor E in the amount of about $850. (Item 7 at page 1.) She admits this past due-debt, but has submitted nothing further in this regard. I find that this debt remains unpaid.

1.f. Applicant is indebted to Creditor F in the amount of about $220. (Item 7 at page 1.) She admits this past due-debt, but has submitted nothing further in this regard. I find that this debt remains unpaid.

1.g. Applicant is indebted to Creditor G in the amount of about $120. (Item 7 at page 1.) She admits this past due-debt, but has submitted nothing further in this regard. I find that this debt remains unpaid.

1.h. Applicant is indebted to Creditor H in the amount of about $7,917. (Item 8 at page 1.) She admits this past-due debt, but has submitted nothing further in this regard. I find that this debt remains unpaid.

1.i. Applicant is indebted to Creditor I in the amount of about $128. (Item 9 at page 14.) She admits this past due-debt, but has submitted nothing further in this regard. I find that this debt remains unpaid.

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are useful 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 AG ¶ 2(a) describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s over-arching 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. Likewise, I have avoided drawing inferences grounded on mere speculation or conjecture.

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 as to obtaining a favorable clearance 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 protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.

Section 7 of Executive Order 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 relating to the guideline for Financial Considerations is set out in Paragraph 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 Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise security concerns. Applicant had significant past-due debts that she has failed to demonstrate she has addressed. I can find no countervailing Mitigating Condition that is applicable here. She has been gainfully employed since 2002, but has yet to address her debts.

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 Applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. Under Paragraph 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.

The Administrative Judge should also consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG Paragraph 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.

I considered all of the evidence, including the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions surrounding this case. The record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For this reason, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from her 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.i. 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.

Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge