CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 12-07981.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 12-07981.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 12-07981.h1

deniedJul 2, 2015· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old applicant was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant unresolved debts. The applicant admitted to multiple past-due debts totaling over $23,000, which he had not addressed. Specifically, he owed approximately $11,707 to Creditor A, $6,723 to Creditor B, $3,526 to Creditor D, and $1,427 to Creditor E. While he had paid in full a debt of about $4,079 to Creditor C, the remaining outstanding obligations were a primary concern.

The applicant attributed his financial difficulties to his wife's alcoholism. However, the government found that he had not resolved his significant past-due debts and failed to respond to the Government's File of Relevant Material. These factors raised doubts about his financial responsibility, reliability, and trustworthiness.

Consequently, the security clearance was denied, citing Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c). The decision emphasized that the applicant's unresolved financial issues posed a risk to his reliability and trustworthiness.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has significant past-due debts that he has not resolved.
The applicant failed to respond to the Government's File of Relevant Material, leaving doubts about his financial responsibility.
The applicant's financial issues raise questions about his reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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

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 issuedNov 21, 2014
Answer filedDec 18, 2014
Hearing held—Applicant represented himself
Decision dateJul 2, 2015

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Impact of Unresolved Debts on Security Clearance Eligibility
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: denied

The judge found significant financial concerns under Guideline F, with four debts against the applicant and only one debt mitigated by full payment. The applicant's failure to address multiple past-due debts led to a denial of eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor A in the amount of about $11,707. He has yet to address this debt; and as such, it is found against Applicant. $11,707	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor B in the amount of about $6,723. He has yet to address this debt; and as such, it is found against Applicant. $6,723	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant has “paid in full” his debt to Creditor C in the amount of about $4,079, as evidenced by correspondence from said creditor. $4,079	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor D in the amount of about $3,526. He has yet to address this debt; and as such, it is found against Applicant. $3,526	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor E in the amount of about $1,427. He has yet to address this debt; and as such, it is found against Applicant. $1,427	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. 12-07981 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

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

July 2, 2015

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted his Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on April 25, 2012. On November 21, 2014, 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 answered the SOR in writing on December 18, 2014, and requested an Administrative Determination by an administrative judge. Department Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on February 24, 2015. Applicant submitted no response to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on May 21, 2015. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In his Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in Paragraphs 1.a., 1.b., 1.d., and 1.e. of the SOR, with explanations. He denied the factual allegations in Paragraph 1.c. of the SOR.

Guideline f - Financial Considerations

Applicant is 38 years old; and attributes his present financial difficulties to his wife’s alcoholism, which caused her to go into treatment “for 30 days . . . on ‘Leave without Pay.’” (Item 2 at page 5, and Answer at page 3.)

1.a. Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor A in the amount of about $11,707. He has yet to address this debt; and as such, it is found against Applicant.

1.b. Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor B in the amount of about $6,723. He has yet to address this debt; and as such, it is found against Applicant.

1.c. Applicant has “paid in full” his debt to Creditor C in the amount of about $4,079, as evidenced by correspondence from said creditor. (Answer at page 4.)

1.d. Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor D in the amount of about $3,526. He has yet to address this debt; and as such, it is found against Applicant.

1.e. Applicant admits that he is indebted to Creditor E in the amount of about $1,427. He has yet to address this debt; and as such, it is found against Applicant.

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. (AG Paragraph 2.) 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. AG Paragraph 2(b) requires that “[a]ny doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of the 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 AG 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.

The guideline notes several conditions that could raise security concerns. Under Subparagraph 19(a), an “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts@ is potentially disqualifying. Similarly under Subparagraph 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations@ may raise security concerns. Applicant has significant admitted past-due debts, many of which he has not yet resolved. I can find no countervailing Mitigating Condition that is applicable here.

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. Under AG 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. The record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to his eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. Applicant has failed to respond to the Government’s FORM; and as such, has failed to address four of his five admitted past-due debts. For this reason, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the whole-person concept 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: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c. For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.e. 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.

Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge