CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 11-12585.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 11-12585.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 11-12585.h1

grantedMay 7, 2013· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A security clearance was granted to an applicant who faced concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The primary allegation was an outstanding medical debt of approximately $20,709. This raised disqualifying conditions F.19.a and F.19.c.

However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns by demonstrating that the alleged debt was disputed. He provided evidence of insurance coverage for the medical expenses and noted that the debt did not appear on his most recent credit report, suggesting it might not be valid. Furthermore, the applicant expressed a willingness to pay any legitimate deductible amounts owed.

Based on these mitigating factors, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant disputed the alleged medical debt and provided evidence of insurance coverage for the expenses.
The debt did not appear on the most recent credit report, indicating it may not be valid.
The applicant was willing to pay any legitimate deductible amounts owed.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.19.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.19.craisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

F.20appliedThe Individual Has Acted Responsibly and Has a Plan to Resolve Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedDec 18, 2012
Answer filedJan 2, 2013
Hearing heldApr 11, 2013
Decision dateMay 7, 2013

Cite For

Disputed Medical Debt Under Guideline F
Evidence of Insurance Coverage Mitigating Financial Concerns
Whole-person Concept in Security Clearance Evaluations

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant had a medical debt of approximately $20,709, which he disputed and appealed with his insurance company. The judge ruled in favor of the applicant, concluding that the applicant had mitigated the financial concerns related to this debt.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to a medical provider in the amount of about $20,709. $20,709	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Denied	—	—	Claimed Debt Disputed with Creditor

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. 11-12585 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Alan K. Hahn, Esquire

May 7, 2013

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on June 28, 2011. On December 18, 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 acknowledged receipt of the SOR on December 21, 2012. He answered the SOR in writing on January 2, 2013, and requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge. DOHA received the request on February 8, 2013, and I received the case assignment that same day. DOHA issued a notice of hearing on March 19, 2013, and I convened the hearing as scheduled on April 11, 2013. The Government offered Exhibits (GXs) 1 through 7, which were received without objection. Applicant testified on his own behalf and submitted Exhibits (AppXs) A through J, which were received without objection. DOHA received the transcript of the hearing (TR) on April 22, 2013. The record closed on April 22, 2013. Based upon a review of the pleadings, exhibits, and testimony, eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant denied the factual allegations in Subparagraph 1.a., with explanation. He also provided additional information to support his request for eligibility for a security clearance.

Guideline F - Financial Considerations

1.a. It is alleged that Applicant is indebted to a medical provided in the amount of about $20,709. (GX 6 at page.) Applicant denies the amount of this claimed debt; which he has formally appealed with the insurance company, and it does not appear on the Government’s most recent April 2013 credit report. (AppXs F, J, and GX 7.)

Applicant was involved in a motorcycle accident in April of 2006. (TR at page 33 line 17 to page 34 line 11.) He was hospitalized; and a result, should have been covered by his health insurance. (Id, TR at page 34 lines 16–20, at page 35 line 10 to page 36 line 17, and AppX I.) Applicant has submitted documentation showing that his emergency room expenses were, in fact, paid by his health insurance. (TR at page 43 line 19 to page 46 line 13, and AppXs B and C.) However, when the hospital submitted a bill for additional expenses; for some inexplicable reason, his health insurance provider stated, in error, “that this ins[urance was] termed [terminated] on 01/01/06.” (TR at page 48 line 19 to page 51 line 17, and AppX D.)

Applicant was unaware of this outstanding claim until 2010, when he “went to purchase a truck.” (TR at page 41 lines 4–22.) The hospital resubmitted its claim to his health insurance company in December of 2012. However, it was denied; not because he was not covered, but because “this claim is past timely filing period.” (TR at page 51 line 18 to page 52 line 15.) As noted above, Applicant has formally appealed this improper denial of medical care coverage, and is willing to pay any deductible amount he may owe. (TR at page 55 lines 9–14, and AppX G.)

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 Paragraph 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. Paragraph 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 Paragraph E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive Paragraph 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 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.

I find no Disqualifying Conditions that are applicable here. Under Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying. Applicant is willing to pay what deductible medical expenses he may owe. Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise security concerns. Applicant has no such history, and appears to be the victim of the malfeasance of his health insurance company.

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. Those who know Applicant speak most highly of him as evidenced by 13 letters of recommendation. (AppX H.) The record evidence leaves me without questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For this reason, I conclude Applicant has mitigated the security concerns arising from his 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: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a. For Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge