CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-04487.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-04487.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-04487.h1

deniedJul 1, 2012· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old defense contractor with a high school diploma was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from 20 delinquent debts totaling $15,284. These debts included 11 medical debts amounting to $11,248, as well as various consumer, credit card, and telecommunications debts.

The applicant acknowledged his financial difficulties, attributing them to periods of unemployment and a firing related to a DUI. However, he failed to provide evidence of responsible financial behavior or efforts to resolve the outstanding debts. Specifically, he did not submit proof of payment plans or participation in financial counseling.

The decision cited the applicant's numerous unpaid delinquent debts and his inability to demonstrate responsible debt management as the primary reasons for the denial. The outcome was a denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has 20 delinquent debts totaling $15,284, primarily medical debts, which remain unpaid.
He did not provide evidence of payment plans or financial counseling.
Applicant's financial difficulties were exacerbated by periods of unemployment and a DUI-related firing, but he did not demonstrate responsible behavior in managing his debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMar 3, 2014
Answer filednullApplicant submitted an undated response.
Hearing heldnullCase decided on the written record.
Decision datenullDecision issued on an unspecified date.

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Impact of Unresolved Delinquent Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Demonstrating Responsible Financial Behavior in Security Clearance Cases

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 multiple unresolved financial debts totaling $15,284, primarily consisting of medical debts. The applicant's financial difficulties were attributed to periods of unemployment and poor financial management, leading to a denial of his security clearance due to failure to mitigate the financial concerns.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including medical debts (11 debts totaling $11,248). $11,248	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.k	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.l	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.m	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.n	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.o	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.p	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.q	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.r	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.s	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.t	Delinquent debts totaling $15,284, including consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts.	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. 12-04487 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

09/19/2014 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations security concern. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

On March 3, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudication Facility (DOD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (EO) 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).

Applicant answered the SOR with an undated response, and elected to have his case decided on the written record. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on April 28, 2014. The FORM was mailed to Applicant who received it on May 7, 2014. Applicant was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He did not submit any further information. The case was assigned to me on September 11, 2014.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he admitted all the allegations. Those admissions are adopted as findings of fact. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings and evidence submitted, I make the following additional findings of fact.

Applicant is 28 years old. He is married and has two stepchildren. He has worked for his current employer, a defense contractor, since December 2011. He possesses a high school diploma. He has no military service. He had periods of unemployment from December 2002 to December 2004 and from April 2008 to December 2008.1

The SOR lists 20 delinquent debts totaling $15,284, the majority of which consist of medical debts (11 debts totaling $11,248). The remaining obligations are consumer debts, credit card debts, and telecommunications debts. These debts are supported by credit reports from February 2012 and September 2013. Applicant did not provide any documentation supporting payment of the debts or establishing any payment plans. He did provide evidence that he paid a judgment against him that resulted in a satisfaction of judgment in March 2013. The judgment was not alleged in the SOR.2

Applicant’s financial difficulties resulted from being laid off a job in April 2008 and being fired from a job in December 2006 because of a driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI) arrest. He lost insurance medical insurance coverage and incurred the listed medical bills during this time. He also admitted that he incurred some of the remaining debt by living beyond his means. He has contacted the source of the medical debts and has been offered a payment plan, but Applicant stated he cannot afford the plan. He has not sought financial counseling. His personal financial statement indicated he has a $694 net monthly remainder after his expenses.3

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 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, these guidelines are applied 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.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record.

Under 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 applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and 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 that an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about 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

AG ¶ 18 expresses the security concern for financial considerations:

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. I have considered all of them under AG ¶ 19 and the following potentially apply:

(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and

Applicant has delinquent debts that remain unpaid or unresolved. I find both disqualifying conditions are raised.

The guideline also includes conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial difficulties. I have considered all of the mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 and the following potentially apply:

(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 debts are recent and remain unresolved. He did not provide sufficient evidence to show that the debts are unlikely to recur. AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply. Applicant provided evidence that he experienced two periods of unemployment, one due to a layoff and the other due to his misconduct that resulted in his firing, which contributed to his financial problems. However, in order for this mitigating condition to fully apply, Applicant must demonstrate responsible behavior in light of the circumstances. He presented no such evidence of responsible behavior. I find AG ¶ 20(b) does not apply. Applicant presented no evidence of financial counseling and there is no clear evidence that Applicant’s financial problems are being resolved or under control because the debts remain unpaid. Although he did satisfy a non-SOR-related judgment, there is insufficient evidence showing that he made a good-faith effort to pay the SOR debts. I find AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) do not apply.

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 guideline 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 also considered Applicant’s personal situation. However, he has not shown a track record of financial stability.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns arising under Guideline F, 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: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.t: 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.

_____________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Item 4. 2 Items 1, 3, 5-8. 3 Item 3, 5-6.