CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-02040.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-02040.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-02040.h1

deniedFeb 3, 2016· Hon. David M. White· hearing

Summary

A 29-year-old applicant with no prior military or federal service was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved delinquent debts exceeding $16,000. The Statement of Reasons detailed three specific allegations.

These included an unpaid balance of $13,300 from a $15,500 court-ordered restitution, issued in June 2010 as part of a criminal sentence for vandalism and conspiracy to commit vandalism. Additionally, the applicant had a $1,284 debt placed for collection in December 2008 by a major Southwestern city, and a $1,788 debt placed for collection by a towing company in September 2008.

The denial was based on the applicant's failure to demonstrate any efforts to resolve these debts, which had been incurred since 2008. He also provided no evidence of financial responsibility or counseling, leading to the determination that the security concerns were not mitigated.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant incurred three delinquent debts totaling over $16,000 since 2008.
He demonstrated no efforts to resolve any of the debts.
He provided no evidence of financial responsibility or counseling.

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 issuedOct 10, 2014
Answer filedMar 6, 2015Applicant requested decision on written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case decided on written record.
Decision dateFeb 3, 2016

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Lack of Evidence for Mitigating Financial Concerns
Failure to Demonstrate Financial Responsibility

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 three unresolved delinquent debts totaling over $16,000, which raised significant security concerns under Guideline F. The applicant failed to demonstrate any efforts to resolve these debts or provide evidence of financial responsibility, leading to a decision against granting security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	the unpaid $13,300 balance due on a court’s $15,500 restitution order issued in June 2010 as part of his criminal sentence after he pled guilty to vandalism and conspiracy to commit vandalism $13,300	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	the $1,284 debt placed for collection in December 2008 by a major Southwestern city $1,284	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	a $1,788 debt placed for collection by a towing company in September 2008 $1,788	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. 14-02040 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

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

02/03/2016 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

WHITE, David M., Administrative Judge:

Applicant admitted that he incurred three delinquent debts since 2008, totaling more than $16,000. He demonstrated neither sufficient means nor efforts toward resolving any of them. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated. Based on a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF-86) on February 14, 2013. On October 10, 2014, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DoD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, detailing security 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 (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines that came into effect in the Department of Defense on September 1, 2006.

Applicant submitted a written response to the SOR on March 6, 2015, and requested that his case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on September 28, 2015. A complete copy of that File of Relevant Material (FORM) was received by Applicant on October 13, 2015, and he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. Applicant submitted no additional material in response to the FORM, and did not request additional time to do so. I received the case assignment on December 18, 2015.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is 29 years old. He graduated from high school in May 2005, and took courses at a community college from April 2006 to May 2008. He has never married and has no children. He has no previous military service or Federal employment, and has never held a security clearance. He worked for a major defense contractor through a temporary staffing service from February through October 2010, and has worked as a direct employee of that defense contractor since November 2010. He seeks a security clearance in connection with that employment.

In his written response, Applicant admitted the truth of the three SOR allegations concerning his delinquent debts, totaling $16,372. The first of these debts is the unpaid $13,300 balance due on a court’s $15,500 restitution order issued in June 2010 as part of his criminal sentence after he pled guilty to vandalism and conspiracy to commit vandalism. The second is the $1,284 debt placed for collection in December 2008 by a major Southwestern city. The third is a $1,788 debt placed for collection by a towing company in September 2008.6

Applicant provided no evidence of any action to repay or otherwise resolve any of the SOR-listed debts. He submitted no explanation concerning the circumstances under which any of the debts arose, or why he has taken no apparent action to resolve them during the past seven years. He provided no information concerning his current income or household budget, and offered no evidence of financial counseling, savings or retirement investments, or other indicators of financial responsibility. He also did not provide any evidence concerning his character, the quality of his professional performance, the level of responsibility his duties entail, or his track record with respect to handling sensitive information and observation of security procedures. I was unable to evaluate his credibility, demeanor, or character in person since he elected to have his case decided without a hearing.

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 (DCs) and mitigating conditions (MCs), which are to be 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 AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.

According to AG ¶¶ 2(a) and 2(c), the entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context 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 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 ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “[t]he applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.” Section 7 of Executive Order 10865 provides: “[a]ny determination under this order adverse to an applicant shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.”

A person applying for access to classified information seeks to enter 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.

Security clearance eligibility 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.

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

The security concerns under the guideline for financial considerations are set out in AG ¶ 18, which reads in pertinent part:

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.

Department Counsel asserted, and the record evidence established, security concerns under two Guideline F DCs, as set forth in AG ¶ 19:

(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and

Applicant admittedly has three unresolved delinquent debts, totaling more than $16,000 that arose over the past seven years. The largest involves a court-ordered restitution payment resulting from his conviction for vandalism. He demonstrated no effort to resolve these debts despite being continuously employed working for a major defense contractor since February 2010. His ongoing inability or unwillingness to pay these lawful debts raises security concerns under DCs 19(a) and (c), and shifts the burden to Applicant to rebut, extenuate, or mitigate those concerns.

The guideline includes five conditions in AG ¶ 20 that could mitigate security concerns arising from Applicant’s financial difficulties:

(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.

Applicant incurred substantial delinquent debts, which remain unresolved to date. He offered no evidence of any progress in addressing them. He failed to demonstrate that conditions beyond his control contributed to his financial problems, or that he acted responsibly under the circumstances. The largest debt arose from his conviction for criminal conspiracy and vandalism. He submitted no documented proof to substantiate the basis of a dispute concerning his debts, and admitted owing all of the debts alleged in the SOR. Accordingly, the record is insufficient to establish mitigation under any of the foregoing conditions.

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 relevant 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 guidelines and the whole-person concept. I considered the potentially disqualifying and mitigating conditions in light of all pertinent facts and circumstances surrounding this case. Applicant is an accountable adult, who is responsible for the voluntary choices and conduct that caused the financial problems underlying the security concerns expressed in the SOR. His delinquent debts arose over the past seven years, and remain unresolved despite his continuous employment working for a major defense contractor since February 2010. He offered no evidence of financial counseling, rehabilitation, better judgment, or responsible conduct in other areas of his life to offset resulting security concerns. The potential for pressure, coercion, and duress from his financial situation remains undiminished. Overall, the record evidence creates substantial doubt as to Applicant’s present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. He did not meet his burden to mitigate the security concerns arising from his financial considerations.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings for or against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by ¶ E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are:

Paragraph 1, Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a through 1.c: 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.

DAVID M. WHITE Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

Item 3. Item 1. Item 2. Department Counsel submitted four Items in support of the SOR allegations. Item 3; AE A. Item 2; Item 3; Item 4. Item 2.