CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-12536.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-12536.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-12536.h1

deniedDec 3, 2013· Hon. Philip S. Howe· hearing

Summary

A 36-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to 18 delinquent debts totaling $47,513. The Statement of Reasons specifically cited these unresolved financial obligations. Disqualifying conditions F.1.a (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and F.1.c (irresponsible financial conduct) were raised.

While mitigating condition F.2.b (the condition was not recent, was isolated, or was due to circumstances beyond the person's control) was considered, it was ultimately not sufficient to overcome the concerns. The applicant claimed some debts belonged to his wife or were misattributed, but failed to provide adequate evidence of responsible action or mitigation efforts.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to resolve or demonstrate efforts to pay the 18 delinquent debts. The judge concluded that this inaction left the applicant vulnerable to pressure or coercion, indicating a lack of good judgment and responsible financial behavior.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has 18 delinquent debts totaling $47,513 that remain unpaid or unresolved.
Applicant failed to provide evidence of efforts to resolve his debts or demonstrate responsible financial behavior.
The judge found that the applicant's inaction left him vulnerable to pressure or coercion.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Mitigating

F.2.brejectedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlApplicant did not demonstrate that his unemployment substantially affected his ability to repay debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 15, 2013
Answer filedJun 5, 2013Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision based on written record.
Decision dateDec 3, 2013

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Responsible Financial Behavior in Security Clearance Cases
Application of the Whole-person Concept in Evaluating Security Clearance Eligibility.

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 against the applicant on financial considerations due to 18 delinquent debts totaling $47,513, which the applicant failed to resolve or demonstrate efforts to pay. The applicant's claims of financial hardship were not substantiated with evidence, leading to a denial of security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has 18 delinquent debts totaling $47,513. $47,513	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. 11-12536 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Richard Stevens, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

12/03/2013 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

HOWE, Philip S., Administrative Judge:

On June 29, 2011, Applicant submitted his electronic version of the Security Clearance Application (SF 86) (e-QIP). On May 15, 2013, the Department of Defense issued to Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F. 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 on September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR in writing on June 5, 2013. Applicant admitted 12 allegations and denied 6 allegations in the SOR. Applicant requested his case be decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. On September 16, 2013, Department Counsel submitted the Department's written case. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant on September 18, 2013. He was given the opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant received the file on September 24, 2013. Applicant did not file a Response to the FORM within the 30 day time allowed that would have expired on October 24, 2013. I received the case assignment on November 7, 2013. Based upon a review of the complete case file, pleadings, and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant denied the six allegations in Subparagraphs 1.cand 1.kto 1.o, and admitted the other 12 allegations. (Items 2-6)

Applicant is 36 years old and works for a defense contractor. He is married and has two children. Applicant was unemployed from June 2009 to March 2011 after being laid off from work when his previous employer closed the plant. (Items 4-7)

Applicant has 18 delinquent debts totaling $47,513. He claims some of the debts resulted from his term of unemployment. Other debts were incurred by his wife who has promised to arrange payment. There is no proof she paid the debts. The medical debts he asserts were created when his twin sought medical care. His twin brother has almost the same first name as Applicant does. Applicant did not know these debts were on his credit report. He did not submit proof he attempted to collect money to pay the debts from his twin brother or otherwise dispute the medical debts. His delinquent debts date from 2008. The debts remain unresolved. (Items 4-9)

Applicant’s interrogatory answers on January 7, 2013, and his interview by the government investigator in August 2011 show promise of repayment action on his debts. However, his SOR Answer does not include any documents or other proof that he is paying his delinquent debts or has resolved them in some other manner. The two credit reports from July 2011 and November 2012 contained in the file show the accounts listed in the SOR as unpaid, charged off, but not paid in full or otherwise resolved. (Items 1, 4-9)

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, the administrative judge applies the guidelines in conjunction with the factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing 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 Awhole-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[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.

According to Directive & E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive & E3.1.15, an “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, and 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. 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 at AG ¶ 19 contains nine disqualifying conditions that could raise security concerns. From these nine conditions, two conditions are applicable to the facts found in this case:

(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and

From at least 2008 to the present, Applicant accumulated 18 delinquent debts, totaling $47,513 that remain unpaid or unresolved.

The guideline in AG ¶ 20 contains six conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties. Only one mitigating condition might have partial applicability.

(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.

AG ¶ 20 (b) would apply if the loss of employment were shown by Applicant to have a substantial effect on his ability to repay his debts. In the past 12 years, Applicant has been unemployed 21 months after he lost his job in the private sector. He did not demonstrate by any evidence that the debts were caused or aggravated by that lack of work. He admits his wife incurred certain debts that she was supposed to pay and that his twin brother with nearly the same name caused some of the debts to be added to Applicant’s credit report. But he does not show any of these debts were paid or that any of the other listed debts were resolved. He failed to meet his burden of proof on that issue.

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 facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant was an adult when he incurred the debts. He has not documented any action to resolve his delinquent debts. This inaction leaves him vulnerable to pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress based on the magnitude of his financial obligation. His lack of action continues to this day, and is obviously voluntary. His inaction will likely continue based on his past performance. Applicant displayed a lack of good judgment incurring the debts. Next, he exhibited a continued lack of appropriate judgment by failing to make payments on any of his delinquent debts during the past three years, at least, if not since 2008.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions or substantial doubts as to Applicant's eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns arising under the guideline for Financial Considerations. I conclude the whole-person concept against Applicant.

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

Subparagraph 1.a to 1.r: 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.

_________________ PHILIP S. HOWE Administrative Judge