CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 13-01071.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 13-01071.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 13-01071.h1

deniedMay 22, 2014· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old unmarried mother of three was denied a U.S. security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from 22 unresolved debts totaling approximately $30,659.

Despite experiencing periods of unemployment, which contributed to her financial difficulties, the applicant failed to demonstrate responsible behavior or make efforts to resolve these outstanding obligations. No evidence of payments or established payment plans for any of the debts was provided.

Consequently, the Adjudicator determined that the applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised by her financial situation, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has unresolved debts totaling approximately $30,659.
No evidence of payments or payment plans for the debts was provided.
Applicant did not demonstrate responsible behavior regarding her financial obligations.

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)appliedConditions That Resulted in the Financial Problem Were Largely Beyond the Person's ControlApplicant's unemployment contributed to her financial problems, but she did not demonstrate responsible behavior.

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedNov 5, 2013
Answer filedNov 27, 2013
Hearing held—Decided on the written record.
Decision dateMay 22, 2014

Cite For

Failure to Demonstrate Responsible Financial Behavior Under Guideline F
Impact of Unemployment on Financial Obligations
Lack of Evidence for Mitigating Financial Conditions

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 failed to mitigate financial concerns under Guideline F, with multiple debts remaining unpaid and no evidence of a good-faith effort to resolve them. As a result, the applicant's eligibility for a security clearance was denied.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a–1.v	22 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant).	Against Applicant			—	—	—

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. 13-01071 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

05/22/2014 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance is denied.

Statement of the Case

On November 5, 2013, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The DOD acted 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 DOD on September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR on November 27, 2013, and January 6, 2014. She elected to have her case decided on the written record. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on March 12, 2014. The FORM was mailed to Applicant and she received it on March 24, 2014. Applicant was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. She did not submit any additional information. The case was assigned to me on May 14, 2014.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, she admitted all the allegations in the SOR, except for ¶¶ 1.a, 1.f, and 1.k. The 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. She is unmarried and has three children. She has worked for her current employer, a defense contractor, since November 2012. She has had past periods of unemployment including: March 2012 to November 2012 and July 2008 to February 2009. She has taken some college courses. She has no military service, and has not held a security clearance in the past.1

The debts listed in the SOR are supported by credit reports from May 2013 and October 2013. The SOR sets out 22 debts amounting to about $30,659. Applicant’s finances became a concern because of her periods of unemployment described above. She explained that her long period of unemployment (July 2008 to February 2009) was caused by a high-risk pregnancy that resulted in her being laid off her job. Even though she has been employed since that time, she has not caught up on her debts. In her answer she disputed three debts without further explanation, and she failed to provide any documentary evidence supporting any disputes. There is no evidence showing payments on any debts or the establishment of payment plans. There is also no evidence to indicate what her overall financial picture is at this time (e.g. budget), nor is there any evidence that she has participated in financial counseling.2

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;

(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and

(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue.

All of Applicant’s debts remain unresolved. She did not provide evidence to show that the debts are unlikely to recur. I find mitigating condition AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply. Applicant provided evidence of her unemployment, which contributed to her financial problems. However, in order for mitigating condition AG ¶ 20(b) to fully apply, Applicant must demonstrate responsible behavior in light of the circumstances. She provided no evidence to show she acted on any of the debts. Her inaction is not responsible behavior under these circumstances. I find AG ¶ 20(b) partially applies. 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. There is no evidence that she has made a good-faith effort to pay the debts. I find AG ¶¶ 20(c) and 20(d) do not apply. Applicant failed to document her dispute concerning SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.f, and 1.k, therefore, AG ¶ 20(e) does not apply to those debts.

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 considered Applicant’s unemployment and how it contributed to her debt problems. However, she has not shown a track record of financial stability. The record lacks evidence that Applicant has made an overall good-faith effort to resolve her debts.

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.v: 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