CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-11000.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-11000.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-11000.h1

deniedJun 25, 2013· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 32-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant intentionally falsified educational credentials on resumes submitted in 2003, 2005, and 2010, on her 2008 SF 85P, and during an OPM interview in 2008. Her denials regarding the intentional falsification were deemed not credible.

Further personal conduct issues included losing a government agency job in 2007 for falsifying timecards and receiving unemployment compensation for approximately two and a half weeks in 2008 while employed, without notifying the compensation office. These actions demonstrated poor judgment and an unwillingness to comply with rules, creating a vulnerability to exploitation.

Financially, the applicant had eight past-due student loans totaling about $28,000, a charged-off credit union debt of $4,787, and a mortgage loan with a $149,000 balance that was $9,774 past due. The judge found that the applicant did not mitigate these personal conduct and financial concerns, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant intentionally provided false information about her education on multiple resumes and during the security clearance process.
The applicant has unresolved financial problems, including delinquent debts and a history of not meeting financial obligations.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 16(b)appliedDeliberately Providing False or Misleading Information
AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 8, 2013
Answer filedApr 8, 2013
Hearing heldJun 11, 2013
Decision dateJun 25, 2013

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Falsification of Educational Credentials
Ongoing Financial Issues Impacting Security Clearance Eligibility
Lack of Credibility in Applicant's Testimony Regarding Personal Conduct

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on all allegations under Guideline E, citing intentional falsification of education information and a pattern of dishonesty. The applicant's denials were deemed not credible, and no mitigating conditions were applicable.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant intentionally provided false information about her education on resumes submitted in 2003, 2005, and 2010; on her 2008 SF 85P; and during her OPM interview in 2008.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Education or Credentials	Denied	(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification on a security form (b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official	—	—
2.b	Applicant lost her job with a government agency in 2007 for falsifying her timecards.	Against Applicant	Falsification of Employment or Other RecordsFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.c	In 2008, she did not notify the unemployment compensation office that she was working, and she continued to receive unemployment compensation for about two and a half weeks.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at WorkplaceFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.d	Her conduct showed poor judgment and an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations.	Against Applicant	Questionable Judgment General	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.e	It also created a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, and duress.	Against Applicant	Concealment Creating Coercion Vulnerability	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.f	Applicant's denials that she intentionally provided false information about her education were not credible.	Against Applicant	Lack of Candor in InterviewFOUND DELIBERATE	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.g	There are no applicable mitigating conditions.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—
2.h	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Personal Conduct	—	Denied	(b) deliberately providing false information to an investigator or official (c) credible adverse information across areas supporting a whole-person concern	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

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 unresolved financial issues, including delinquent debts and a history of not meeting financial obligations, which raised security concerns under Guideline F. Although some debts were in deferment, the applicant's financial situation was deemed ongoing and not under control, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Eight past-due student loans with balances totaling about $28,000. $28,000	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Charged-off credit union debt of $4,787. $4,787	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Mortgage loan that was $9,774 past due with a $149,000 balance. $9,774	Against Applicant	Mortgage or Home Loan Debt	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d–1.j	7 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. 11-11000 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

06/25/2013 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge:

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

Statement of the Case

On February 8, 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines E, personal conduct and F, financial considerations. The action was taken under Executive Order (EO) 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) implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006.

Applicant submitted a notarized response to the SOR on April 8, 2013, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on May 23, 2013. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on May 23, 2013, scheduling the hearing for June 11, 2013. The hearing was convened as scheduled. Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 16 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A through C, which were admitted without objection. The record was held open for Applicant to submit additional information. She submitted documents that were marked AE D through H and admitted without objection. Correspondence about the additional exhibits is marked Hearing Exhibit (HE) I. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on June 17, 2013.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 32-year-old employee of a defense contractor. She seeks to retain her security clearance. She is married with two children, and she is pregnant expecting her third child. She also has three stepchildren.1

Applicant graduated from high school in 1999. She then attended a community college until about 2001, but she did not obtain a degree. Since 2007, she has attended on-line classes through three different colleges, but she has not obtained a degree from any of them.2

Applicant submitted resumes for employment in the U.S. Government in about 2003 and 2005. In both resumes, she listed that she attended a university that she has never attended (X University). In her 2003 resume, she wrote: “Graduation date 2004 of Bachelor of Arts.” In her 2005 resume, she wrote: “Graduation date December 2005 of Bachelor of Arts.”3

In 2007, Applicant lost her job with a government agency for falsifying her timecards. Applicant testified that she was a probationary employee. She stated that she actually worked the hours, but during a different pay period.4

Applicant was unemployed for a period in 2008, and she received unemployment compensation. She went back to work in April 2008. She did not notify the unemployment compensation office that she was working, and she continued to receive unemployment compensation for about two and a half weeks. The overpayments were discovered in an audit in May 2012. She was overpaid $954, which was recovered through a recoupment of $120 and an offset of $834. Applicant stated that she did not understand the process, and she did not know when she had to notify the unemployment compensation office that she had returned to work.5 Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for Public Trust Positions (SF 85P) in April 2008. Under education, she listed her high school and that she attended X University from 1999 until May 2007. She also listed that she received a “Degree” in May 2007.6

Applicant was interviewed for her background investigation by an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator on June 10, 2008. A signed statement was not taken, but the interview was summarized in a report of investigation (ROI). She told the investigator that she did not graduate from X University in May 2007. She stated that she thought she was going to graduate. However, a university director told her in April 2006 that she needed three additional courses to graduate. The OPM investigator contacted Applicant by telephone on June 26, 2008. She admitted that she had never attended X University. She told the investigator that X University accepted her for enrollment in August 2007, but she did not attend the college because she found out that she would lose credits if she enrolled there.7

Applicant submitted at least two resumes to her former employer in about 2010. Her former employer reformatted the resumes and made the resumes available to subcontractors who chose to utilize Applicant’s services. In one resume, Applicant stated that she attended X University and received a “B.A. 05/2008.” In the second resume, she stated that she attended one of the on-line universities that she actually has attended, but she again stated that she received a “B.A. 05/2008.”8

Applicant denied intentionally providing false information about her education on her resumes and during the security clearance process. She stated that she attended X University because that is where she intended to attend. She stated she listed that she obtained a bachelor’s degree because that is when she anticipated that she would graduate. She also indicated that she was undergoing stress from some medical procedures, and she did not look as carefully at the forms as she should have.9 I did not find Applicant’s testimony credible. I find that she intentionally provided false information about her education on resumes submitted in 2003, 2005, and 2010; on her 2008 SF 85P; and during her OPM interview in 2008.

Applicant was asked if she listed on her resume for her current employer that she had a degree and if her current employer believes she has a degree. She answered she “probably” did list a degree and her employer “probably” believes she has a degree.10

10 Tr. at 65-68. Any false statement that was not alleged in the SOR will not be used for disqualification Applicant has had financial problems for several years. Her husband has been unemployed since December 2011.11

The SOR alleges eight past-due student loans with balances totaling about $28,000, a charged-off credit union debt ($4,787) and a mortgage loan that was $9,774 past due with a $149,000 balance. All of the debts appear on at least one credit report.

Applicant admitted owing the student loans, but they are deferred because she is attending college. She submitted a document establishing that she has 12 student loans in deferment until October 2015. The balance of the 12 loans is $45,820.12

Applicant admitted owing the $4,787 charged-off credit union debt. On May 14, 2013, she agreed to pay $100 per month on the account. She paid $100 on June 10, 2013.13

Applicant bought a house for about $156,000 in 2008. The house was financed with a mortgage loan in her name. Applicant and her family moved to a larger house that was purchased by her husband in about 2011. She attempted to sell the first house, but it had depreciated in value, and she was unable to sell it for what was owed on the mortgage loan. She attempted to rent the property, but did not have tenants who paid the rent on time. She has not paid the mortgage loan in almost two years. She is seeking a loan modification of the mortgage.14

Applicant has not received formal financial counseling. She indicated that her finances are tight, but she is able to pay her bills.15

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.

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.”

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 her 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 caused or aggravated by her husband’s unemployment. That is beyond her control. To be fully applicable, AG ¶ 20(b) also requires that the individual act responsibly under the circumstances.

In about 2011, Applicant and her family moved to a larger house before she sold the house she bought in 2008. She is seeking a loan modification, but she has not paid the mortgage loan in almost two years. Her student loans of about $45,000 are in deferment until 2015. She has made one $100 payment towards the $4,787 charged-off credit union debt.

Applicant’s student loans are temporarily resolved. However, I am unable to find that she acted responsibly under the circumstances or that she made a good-faith effort to pay her debts. Her finances are not yet under control. Her financial issues are recent and ongoing. I am unable to determine that they are unlikely to recur. They continue to cast doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. AG ¶¶ 20(a) and 20(d) are not applicable. AG ¶ 20(b) is partially applicable. AG ¶ 20(c) is applicable to the deferred student loans. It is not applicable to the other debts. I find that financial concerns remain despite the presence of some mitigation. Guideline E, Personal Conduct

The security concern for personal conduct is set out in AG ¶ 15, as follows:

Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.

AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. The following disqualifying conditions are potentially applicable:

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities;

(b) deliberately providing false or misleading information concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical authority, or other official government representative;

(c) credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which, when considered as a whole, supports a whole- person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information;

(d) credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but which, when combined with all available information supports a whole-person assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the person may not properly safeguard protected information. This includes but is not limited to consideration of: . . . (3) a pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and

(e) personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s conduct, that creates a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress, such as . . . engaging in activities which, if known, may affect the person’s personal, professional, or community standing. Applicant intentionally provided false information about her education on resumes submitted in 2003, 2005, and 2010; on her 2008 SF 85P; and during her OPM interview in 2008. AG ¶¶ 16(a) and 16(b) are applicable.

Applicant lost her job with a government agency in 2007 for falsifying her timecards. In 2008, she did not notify the unemployment compensation office that she was working, and she continued to receive unemployment compensation for about two and a half weeks. Her conduct showed poor judgment and an unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. It also created a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, and duress. AG ¶¶ 16(b), 16(c), 16(d), and 16(e) are applicable.

AG ¶ 17 provides conditions that could mitigate security concerns. The following are potentially applicable:

(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;

(b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by improper or inadequate advice of authorized personnel or legal counsel advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning the security clearance process. Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;

(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur; and

(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress.

Applicant’s denials that she intentionally provided false information about her education were not credible. She admitted that she “probably” listed on her resume for her current employer that she had a degree and that her employer “probably” believes she has a degree. There are no applicable mitigating conditions.

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 Guidelines E and F in my whole-person analysis. Some of the factors in AG ¶ 2(a) were addressed under those guidelines, but some warrant additional comment.

Applicant has unresolved financial problems, and she has been consistently untruthful about her education since 2003.

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 personal conduct and 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.h: For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.i-1.j: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline E: Against Applicant

Subparagraphs 2.a-2.h: 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 continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

________________________ Edward W. Loughran Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Tr. at 48-49, 52, 63-64; GE 1, 2. 2 Tr. at 22-26, 32, 44-45, 55; GE 2: AE F-H. 3 Tr. at 34-35, 54, 64; GE 9, 10; AE C. 4 Tr. at 37-38, 55-58; Applicant’s response to SOR; GE 1, 2. 5 Tr. at 38-39, 58-62; GE 2, 11; AE C. 6 GE 12. 7 Tr. at 39-40; GE 2. 8 Tr. at 64-65, 81; GE 2, 13-15; AE C. 9 Tr. at 32-36, 40, 66-68, 83; AE C. purposes. It may be considered when assessing Applicant’s credibility, in the application of mitigating conditions, and in analyzing the “whole person.” 11 Tr. at 23-24, 48, 53-54. 12 Tr. at 22-25, 41-45; GE 3-5; AE C, E. 13 Tr. at 22-23, 45-46; Applicant’s response to SOR; GE 3-6; AE C. 14 Tr. at 26-31, 46-50; Applicant’s response to SOR; GE 3-6; AE A, B. 15 Tr. at 54, 62-63.