CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-01472.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-01472.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-01472.h1

grantedJul 1, 2014· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 54-year-old defense contractor was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The Statement of Reasons cited two specific consumer debts: one for $12,334 and another for $8,800. These debts raised disqualifying conditions related to financial irresponsibility and an inability to meet financial obligations.

The applicant successfully mitigated these concerns by demonstrating a proactive approach to resolving his financial issues. He established a settlement payment plan for one of the debts and has consistently made payments. The second debt was fully resolved through a completed settlement in December 2014.

Furthermore, the applicant demonstrated current financial stability, evidenced by a disposable income of approximately $1,638 and no other delinquent debts. These actions satisfied the mitigating conditions, leading to the granting of his security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant established a settlement payment plan for one debt and has made consistent payments.
The second debt was resolved through a settlement completed in December 2014.
Applicant demonstrated financial stability with a disposable income of approximately $1,638 and no evidence of other delinquent debts.

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(a)appliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Resulting in Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedReceived Counseling for the Problem And/or Indications That the Problem Is Being Resolved
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedInitiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance adjudication is not a debt collection procedure. It is a procedure designed to evaluate an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 3, 2014
Answer filedOct 25, 2014
Hearing held—Decided on the written record.
Decision date—Decision issued on August 7, 2015.

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating a Plan to Resolve Debts
Consideration of Personal Circumstances in Security Clearance Decisions

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 mitigated the financial considerations security concerns under Guideline F. The applicant demonstrated good-faith efforts to resolve his debts, which were either paid or under control, leading to a decision to grant eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Consumer debt $12,334 $12,334	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full Documented Payment Plan with Creditor
1.b	Consumer debt $8,800 $8,800	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full

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. 14-01472 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

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

08/07/2015 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concern. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

Statement of the Case

On October 3, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The 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) effective within the DOD on September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR on October 25, 2014. He elected to have his case decided on the written record. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on May 19, 2015. The FORM was mailed to Applicant who received it on June 11, 2015. As evidence, the Government offered Items 1 through 7, which were admitted without objection. Applicant was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He submitted Item 8.1 through 8.11, which was admitted into the record without objection. The case was assigned to me on July 15, 2015.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he admitted both allegations. His 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 54 years old. He has been married since January 1997, but has no children. He has worked for his current employer, a defense contractor, since December 2008. He received an associate’s degree in 1990.1

The SOR lists two collection debts in the amounts of $12,334 and $8,800 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a and 1.b). These debts are supported by credit reports from August 2012, November 2013, and February 2015.2

Applicant’s financial difficulties began in approximately 2007 when he and his wife helped out his brother-in-law financially when he was experiencing some problems. They provided the brother-in-law with approximately $1,000 per month for rent for about one year. Additionally, his wife lost her fulltime job in 2008, reducing their income by about $40,000 per year. In 2010, Applicant experienced a work-related transfer to another state. He owned a home in the old state and could not sell it because he owed more than it was worth. Consequently, he rented an apartment in the new state while still paying the mortgage on his home. Eventually, he was able to rent his home, but the amount of rent did not cover his mortgage. The status of the debts is as follows:3

SOR ¶ 1.a (Consumer debt $12,334):

Applicant established a settlement payment plan with the creditor. He has consistently made his monthly payments ($538) starting in October 2014 through May 2015 and provided documentation of the same. This debt is being resolved.4 SOR ¶ 1.d (Consumer debt $8,800):

Applicant provided documentation showing that a settlement was reached on this account and that he has completed all required payments. The account was resolved in December 2014.5

Applicant’s personal financial statement shows that he has monthly disposable income of approximately $1,638. Currently, there is no evidence of other delinquent debts.6

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 accumulated delinquent debts over an extended period of time. 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 has resolved one collection debt and is resolving the other by making regular monthly payments. His efforts to repair his financial position make it reasonable to conclude that these types of debts will not recur, nor do they cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. AG ¶ 20(a) applies.

Applicant accumulated delinquent debt when he gave financial assistance to a family member, his wife lost her job, and he incurred additional expenses resulting from a job relocation. These were conditions beyond his control. He eventually sought out the creditors and negotiated settlements for the two SOR debts. His actions, although delayed, were responsible. AG ¶ 20(b) applies.

There are clear indications that both debts are resolved or under control. Applicant made good-faith efforts to resolve the debts listed on the SOR. He supplied documentary evidence showing the payments were made and the debts were either paid or are being paid. AG ¶ 20(c) and ¶ 20(d) apply.

A security clearance adjudication is not a debt collection procedure. It is a procedure designed to evaluate an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. See ISCR Case No. 09-02160 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010). An applicant is not required, as a matter of law, to establish resolution of every debt alleged in the SOR. An applicant need only establish a plan to resolve the financial problems and take significant actions to implement the plan. There is no requirement that an applicant make payments on all delinquent debts simultaneously, nor is there a requirement that the debts alleged in the SOR be paid first. See ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008). There is also no requirement that an applicant pay every debt listed in the SOR, only that he remove concerns about his reliability and trustworthiness raised by those debts. See ISCR Case No. 14-00504 at 3 (App. Bd. August 4, 2014). Applicant has taken significant action to resolve his 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 personal circumstances. The evidence supports his showing that he is again financially stable and that he resolved or is resolving the debts. The record contains sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant mitigated 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: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.b: 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.

_____________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Item 3. 2 Items 5-7. 3 Item 4. 4 Item 8.1, 8.2, 8.4 through 8.11. 5 Items 2, 8.1, 8.3. 6 Item 4.