CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-10232.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-10232.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-10232.h1

deniedAug 22, 2013· Hon. Martin H. Mogul· hearing

Summary

A 41-year-old security officer was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The Statement of Reasons (SOR) cited multiple overdue debts totaling approximately $12,000. These included a judgment entered in August 2008 for $7,701, along with ten other debts ranging from $90 to $2,134.

The applicant admitted to these debts but failed to provide evidence of their resolution or any good-faith efforts to repay creditors. While the applicant offered an explanation related to her father's death, this did not sufficiently mitigate the financial concerns, as the debts were incurred before this event.

The decision raised Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c), while applying Mitigating Conditions AG ¶ 20(b) and AG ¶ 20(d). Ultimately, the applicant's failure to resolve the outstanding debts or demonstrate mitigation efforts led to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple overdue debts totaling approximately $12,000, which remained unresolved.
The applicant did not demonstrate a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or resolve debts.
The applicant's explanation regarding her father's death did not sufficiently mitigate the financial concerns, as the debts were incurred prior to this event.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant did not provide evidence that debts were incurred due to her father's death.
AG ¶ 20(d)rejectedGood-faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsThe applicant did not initiate any efforts to resolve her debts.

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 issuedDec 3, 2012
Answer filedN/AApplicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing heldN/ANo hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateAug 22, 2013

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Application of Disqualifying Conditions Under Guideline F
Rejection of Mitigating Conditions Related to Financial Difficulties

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 significant financial concerns under Guideline F due to the applicant's numerous overdue debts totaling approximately $12,000, which were not resolved or reduced. The applicant's explanations for her financial difficulties were not sufficient to mitigate the security concerns, leading to a decision against her.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for an overdue account in the amount of $7,701 for a judgement that was entered against her in August 2008. $7,701	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $343. $343	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $135. $135	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $261. $261	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $234. $234	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $215. $215	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $90. $90	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $228. $228	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $360. $360	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $147. $147	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,134. $2,134	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $93. $93	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. 11-10232 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Eric H. Borgstrom, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

August 22, 2013

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

MOGUL, Martin H., Administrative Judge:

On December 3, 2012, in accordance with Department of Defense (DoD) Directive 5220.6, the DoD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing the security concerns under Guideline F for Applicant. (Item 1.) The action was taken under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; 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 Department of Defense after September 1, 2006.

Applicant replied to the SOR (RSOR) in writing, and she requested that her case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. (Item 2.) On May 2, 2013, Department Counsel issued the Department's written case. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant. In the FORM, Department Counsel offered seven documentary exhibits. (Items 1-7.) Applicant was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. A response was due on June 21, 2013. Applicant did not submit a response. The case was assigned to this Administrative Judge on July 29, 2013. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, including Applicant's RSOR, and the FORM, and upon due consideration of that evidence, I make the following findings of fact:

Applicant is 41 years old. She is not married and has one daughter. Applicant graduated from high school in 1990. From November 1996 to April 2006, Applicant was employed full-time as a security officer for a private company. From April 2006 to the present, she has been employed full-time as a Security Officer by a defense contractor, and she seeks a DoD security clearance in connection with her employment in the defense sector.

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

The SOR lists 12 allegations (1.a. through 1.l.) regarding financial difficulties, specifically overdue debts, under Adjudicative Guideline F. The allegations will be discussed below in the same order as they were listed on the SOR:

1.a. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR for an overdue account in the amount of $7,701 for a judgement that was entered against her in August 2008. Applicant admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR. (Item 2.) I do not find that this debt has been resolved or reduced.

1.b. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $343. Applicant admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR. (Item 2.) I find that this debt is still due and owing and has not been resolved or reduced in any manner.

1.c. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $135. Applicant admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR. (Item 2.) I find that this debt is still due and owing and has not been resolved or reduced in any manner.

1.d. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $261. Applicant admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR. (Item 2.) I find that this debt is still due and owing and has not been resolved or reduced in any manner.

1.e. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $234. Applicant admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR. (Item 2.) I find that this debt is still due and owing and has not been resolved or reduced in any manner.

1.f. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $215. Applicant admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR. (Item 2.) I find that this debt is still due and owing and has not been resolved or reduced in any manner. 1.g. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $90. Applicant admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR. (Item 2.) I find that this debt is still due and owing and has not been resolved or reduced in any manner.

1.h. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $228. Applicant admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR. (Item 2.) I find that this debt is still due and owing and has not been resolved or reduced in any manner.

1.i. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $360. Applicant admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR. (Item 2.) I find that this debt is still due and owing and has not been resolved or reduced in any manner.

1.j. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $147. Applicant admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR. (Item 2.) I find that this debt is still due and owing and has not been resolved or reduced in any manner.

1.k. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $2,134. Applicant admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR, but wrote, “Insurance should have paid.” (Item 2.) I find that this debt is still due and owing and has not been resolved or reduced in any manner.

1.l. This overdue debt is cited in the SOR in the amount of $93. Applicant admitted this SOR allegation in her RSOR. (Item 2.) I find that this debt is still due and owing and has not been resolved or reduced in any manner.

Applicant wrote in her RSOR that because of “the death of her father, [she] was unable to proceed with credit counseling to correct [her] debts at the time.” She also indicated that she was responsible for the cost of his funeral. (Item 2.) Applicant provided no date for her father’s death, but she indicated in her Security Clearance Application that her father was not deceased as of June 11, 2011. (Item 3.) Since all of her overdue debts listed on the SOR, totaling approximately $12,000, were incurred between 2006 and 2010, the debts had to have been incurred before her father’s death.

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 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 applicant or proven by Department Counsel. . . .” The Applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining 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 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 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 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 and could potentially apply in this case. Under AG ¶ 19(a), “an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations” may raise security concerns. I find that both of these disqualifying conditions apply to Applicant in this case. The evidence has established that Applicant accumulated significant delinquent debt.

AG ¶ 20 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns from financial difficulties. Under AG ¶ 20(b), it may be mitigating where, “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.” Applicant’s explanation of the death of her father as part the reason for her financial difficulties could potentially make this mitigation condition applicable, although no evidence was submitted to establish specifically what debts could be attributed to this event, since all of the debts seemed to have become overdue prior to her father’s death.

According to Item 3, Applicant has worked full-time and continuously from 1996 until the present, yet no evidence was introduced to establish that Applicant has resolved, reduced, or even attempted to resolve any of her debts, even those smaller debts, four of which were listed as less than $150. Therefore, I do not find that Applicant has acted responsibly, and this mitigating condition is not applicable in this case.

Additionally, I do not find that AG ¶ 20(d) is applicable, since Applicant has not “initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts,” Finally, I do not find that any other mitigating condition applies to this case. Therefore, I find Guideline F against Applicant.

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. Based on the lack of evidence to establish that Applicant has made any attempt to resolve the past-due debts listed on the SOR, I find that the record evidence leaves me with significant questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance under the whole- person concept. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the whole-person concept.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a. - 1.l.: 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.

Martin H. Mogul Administrative Judge