CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-03624.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-03624.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-03624.h1

deniedSep 9, 2014· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old single mother was denied a security clearance for an automatic data processing position under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from approximately $12,700 in delinquent medical debt.

The Statement of Reasons alleged that the applicant incurred over $12,000 in outstanding delinquent debt and had not taken any steps to address it. While acknowledging that her financial problems primarily originated from medical bills she could not afford, the decision highlighted her inaction.

Disqualifying conditions under Guideline F were raised, specifically concerning outstanding delinquent debt and a history of not meeting financial obligations. Although a mitigating condition was applied, recognizing that the financial problems were largely beyond her control, the clearance was ultimately denied because the applicant failed to take any responsible steps to resolve her delinquent medical debts.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant failed to take any steps to address her delinquent debts.
The applicant's financial problems were primarily due to medical bills, but she did not act responsibly to resolve them.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlThe applicant's financial problems were partially due to circumstances beyond her control, but she did not take responsible actions to address them.

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 issuedMar 13, 2014
Answer filedMar 25, 2014Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateAug 17, 2014

Cite For

Failure to Address Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Impact of Medical Debt on Financial Responsibility
Whole-person Concept in Evaluating Trustworthiness

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 over $12,000 in delinquent debt primarily due to medical bills, which she failed to address. Despite the circumstances surrounding the debt being partially mitigating, the applicant's lack of action to resolve her financial obligations led to a denial of her eligibility for a position of trust.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has incurred more than $12,000 of delinquent debt, which remains outstanding. $12,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant has not taken any steps to address her delinquent debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant's financial problems stem primarily from medical bills that she could not afford.	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	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: ) ) ) ADP Case No. 12-03624 ) ) Applicant for Position of Trust )

For Government: Pamela Benson, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

09/09/2014 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:

The majority of Applicant’s delinquent difficulties are related to medical issues rather than irresponsible spending. However, she has failed to take any steps to address them. Applicant’s eligibility to occupy an automatic data processing (ADP) position is denied.

Statement of the Case

On March 13, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DODCAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing trustworthiness concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. 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 (Directive) (January 2, 1992), as amended, and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) implemented on September 1, 2006. Applicant answered the SOR on March 25, 2014, admitting the allegations and requesting a decision on the written record. On May 30, 2014, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Materials (FORM). Applicant received the FORM on June 2, 2014, and did not submit a reply. The case was assigned to me on August 17, 2014.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 29-year-old single mother of two children, ages ten and six. She graduated from high school and has received some vocational training over the years. Since 2005, she has worked for an insurance company that supports a DOD agency. (Item 4 at 10)

As of January 2012, Applicant had incurred approximately $12,700 of delinquent debt. Nearly all of it constituted medical bills. (Item 5 at 7-10) When asked about this debt during an interview in February 2012, Applicant explained that because she had no health care insurance, she used her community’s urgent care facility to treat non- emergency health conditions, and was subsequently unable to afford the medical bills. (Item 5 at 6, 23) She further explained that she could not afford to pay the bills, but promised to pay them when she was able. (Item 5 at 22)

As of March 2014, Applicant had not paid any of her debts. (Item 3) She contends that she has no additional funds available to pay her debts and that the debts do not impact her ability to perform her job. (Item 3 at 5)

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s trustworthiness, 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.

These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied together with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. 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.

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 trustworthiness determination.

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

Under this guideline, “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.” (AG ¶ 18) Over the years, Applicant has incurred more than $12,000 of delinquent debt, which remains outstanding. AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” apply.

Applicant’s financial problems did not occur because of her living beyond her means. Instead, they stem primarily from medical bills that she could not afford. Nevertheless, applicants have a responsibility to take concrete steps to address their delinquent debts regardless of how they incurred them. Applicant has not done anything. Consequently, AG ¶ 20(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,” only applies partially, and none of the other mitigating conditions apply.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under the whole-person concept, 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.

The circumstances surrounding Applicant’s accrual of delinquent debts are partially mitigating. However, her failure to meet financial obligations raises questions about her judgment and willingness to abide by rules and regulations. So long as these questions are outstanding, I am unable to conclude that she possesses the requisite reliability and trustworthiness to occupy an ADP position.

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.gg: 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 to occupy an ADP position. Applicant’s eligibility to occupy an ADP position is denied.

MARC E. CURRY Administrative Judge