ISCR Case No. 14-02270.h1

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXX ) ISCR Case No. 14-02270 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se 09/30/2015 __________

__________

TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge:

Applicant mitigated security concerns regarding Guideline F (financial considerations). Clearance is granted.

Statement of the Case

On March 7, 2013, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86). On January 26, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended; and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) promulgated by the President on December 29, 2005, and effective within DOD for SORs issued after September 1, 2006.

The SOR alleged security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations). The SOR detailed reasons why DOD was unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to continue a security clearance for Applicant, and it recommended that his case be submitted to an administrative judge for a determination whether his clearance should be continued.

Applicant answered the SOR on February 20, 2015, and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM), dated June 3, 2015, was provided to him by letter dated June 12, 2015. Applicant received the FORM on June 23, 2015. He was afforded a period of 30 days to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant submitted additional information after receipt of the FORM, which was received without objection from Department Counsel.1 DOHA assigned the case to me on September 10, 2015.

In his answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted all of the allegations. His admissions are incorporated in my findings of fact.

Background Information

Applicant is a 58-year-old electronic technician employed continuously by the same defense contractor since 1996, apart from a two-year gap from 2008 to 2010, as a result of a contract change. Applicant seeks to retain his security clearance as a condition of his continued employment. (Item 2, Item 3) He reports that he has successfully held a security clearance for 19 years. (Item 2)

Applicant graduated from high school in May 1974. He attended college for one year after graduating from high school, but did not graduate. (Item 3) Applicant married in 1978, and has three adult children. Applicant did not serve in the armed forces. (Item 4)

Financial Considerations

Applicant’s SOR contains four separate debt allegations: (1) a collection account for $1,906; (2) a charged-off account for $2,562; (3) a charged-off account for $13,625; and (4) a charged-off account for $5,019. (SOR ¶¶ 1.a - 1.d)

There is substantial evidence to support the SOR allegations through Applicant’s admissions and credit reports dated March 30, 2013, and March 24, 2014. (Item 2, Item 4, Item 5) Applicant encountered financial difficulties when his mother-in-law had a stroke in 2012, causing his wife to quit her job to care for her. (Item 2)

Applicant submitted documentation showing that he enrolled all four debts in a debt consolidation plan dated July 8, 2015. His plan requires him to make $378 monthly payments for 44 months. Those payments are made by split draft of $189 beginning on July 10, 2015, by direct debit. The estimated final payment is December 7, 2018. Applicant’s monthly budget reflects that he leads a modest lifestyle and lives within his means. His monthly disposable income is $1,100. (FORM response)

The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security emphasizing, “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended.

Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable.

The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the 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. Clearance decisions must be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. See also Executive Order 12968 (Aug. 2, 1995), § 3.1. Thus, nothing in this Decision should be construed to suggest that I have based this decision, in whole or in part, on any express or implied determination about applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism. It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance.

Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996). Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue her security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b).

Financial Considerations

AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concern relating to financial problems:

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.

AG ¶ 19 provides two disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;” and “(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.”

The evidence establishes the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c), requiring additional inquiry about the possible applicability of mitigating conditions.

Five mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable:

(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’s conduct does not warrant full application of AG ¶ 20(a) because there is more than one delinquent debt and his financial problems are not isolated. His debt is a “continuing course of conduct” under the Appeal Board’s jurisprudence. See ISCR Case No. 07-11814 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 29, 2008) (citing ISCR Case No. 01-03695 (App. Bd. Oct. 16, 2002)). Nevertheless, he receives partial credit under AG ¶ 20(a) because the debts occurred under circumstances that are unlikely to recur and his behavior does not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.

Full application of AG ¶ 20(b) is warranted. Applicant’s wife was required to quit her job to care for her mother after she had a stroke. This event could not have been anticipated. Applicant remained in contact with his creditors; however, was unable to remain current on his accounts because he simply did not have the money to pay them.

AG ¶¶ 20(c) is partially applicable and 20(d) is fully applicable. Although he did not receive formal financial counseling, his debts are being resolved and there are clear indications that his financial problems are resolved or under control. Applicant has made a concerted effort to repay his creditors through a debt consolidation plan and is making monthly payments by direct debit. Given Applicant’s resources, he is approaching his debts in a responsible and measured way.2 AG ¶ 20(e) is not relevant.

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.

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. AG ¶ 2(c). The discussion in the Analysis section under Guideline F is incorporated in this whole-person section. However, further comments are warranted.

Applicant’s 19 years of employment with a defense contractor while holding a security clearance weigh heavily in his favor. He is a law-abiding citizen and a productive member of society. He is current on his day-to-day expenses, lives within his means, and his SOR debts are being resolved. The Appeal Board has addressed a key element in the whole-person analysis in financial cases stating:

In evaluating F cases, the Board has previously noted that the concept of “‘meaningful track record’” necessarily includes evidence of actual debt reduction through payment of debts.” However, an applicant is not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and every debt listed in the SOR. All that is required is that an applicant demonstrate that he has “. . . established a plan to resolve his financial problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.” The Judge can reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for the reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. See Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (“Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination.”) There is no requirement that a plan provide for payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such debts one at a time. Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the SOR. ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations omitted).

Due to circumstances beyond his control, his debts became delinquent. Despite his financial setback, it is clear from Applicant’s actions that he is on the road to a full financial recovery. These factors show responsibility, rehabilitation, and mitigation.

Both the mitigating conditions under Guideline F and the whole-person analysis support a favorable decision. I specifically considered Applicant’s years of financial responsibility before falling into debt, the circumstances that led to his financial difficulties, his financial recovery, the steps he has taken to resolve his financial situation, his potential for future service as a defense contractor, and the mature and responsible manner in which he dealt with his situation. After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions, and all the facts and circumstances, in the context of the whole person, I conclude he has mitigated the financial considerations security concerns.

I take this position based on the law, as set forth in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), my careful consideration of the whole-person factors and supporting evidence, my application of the pertinent factors under the adjudicative process, and my interpretation of my responsibilities under the adjudicative guidelines.

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 to 1.d: For Applicant

In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Clearance is granted.

____________________________ Robert J. Tuider Administrative Judge

1 The additional information by Applicant will be referenced as “FORM response.” 2“Even if Applicant’s financial difficulties initially arose, in whole or in part, due to circumstances outside his [or her] control, the Judge could still consider whether Applicant has since acted in a reasonable manner when dealing with those financial difficulties.” ISCR Case No. 05-11366 at 4 n.9 (App. Bd. Jan. 12, 2007) (citing ISCR Case No. 99-0462 at 4 (App. Bd. May 25, 2000); ISCR Case No. 99-0012 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 1999); ISCR Case No. 03-13096 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2005)). A component is whether he maintained contact with his creditors and attempted to negotiate partial payments to keep his debts current.