CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-03032.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-03032.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-03032.h1

deniedMay 19, 2015· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 48-year-old technician for a government contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant past-due debts. The applicant admitted to ten separate past-due debts totaling over $17,000, including amounts such as $4,165 to Creditor A, $786 to Creditor B, $5,241 to Creditor C, $3,229 to Creditor D, $89 to Creditor E, $535 to Creditor F, $123 to Creditor G, $123 to Creditor H, $2,157 to Creditor I, and $1,036 to Creditor J.

The Statement of Reasons specifically cited these admitted debts as disqualifying conditions. Despite acknowledging the financial obligations, the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating resolution or mitigation of these concerns.

Ultimately, the applicant's inability to address the financial issues adequately led to questions regarding her reliability and trustworthiness. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant admitted to ten past-due debts totaling over $17,000.
Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns.
The applicant's financial issues raised questions about her reliability and trustworthiness.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedHistory 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 issuedAug 12, 2014
Answer filedAug 29, 2014
Hearing held—Applicant represented herself
Decision dateMay 19, 2015

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Debt Resolution as a Basis for Denial
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance Eligibility

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 multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, with the applicant admitting to ten past-due debts totaling over $17,000. All allegations were ruled against the applicant due to a lack of resolution of these debts and insufficient mitigating evidence.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor A, in the amount of about $4,165. $4,165	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor B, in the amount of about $786. $786	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor C, in the amount of about $5,241. $5,241	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor D, in the amount of about $3,229. $3,229	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor E, in the amount of about $89. $89	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor F, in the amount of about $535. $535	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor G, in the amount of about $123. $123	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor H, in the amount of about $123. $123	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor I, in the amount of about $2,157. $2,157	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor J, in the amount of about $1,036. $1,036	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. 14-03032 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Chris Morin, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

May 19, 2015

______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CEFOLA, Richard A., Administrative Judge:

Applicant submitted her Electronic Questionnaires for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) on March 11, 2014. On August 12, 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 acknowledged receipt of the SOR on August 14, 2014. She answered the SOR in writing on August 29, 2014, and requested an Administrative Determination by an administrative judge. Department Counsel issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) on January 26, 2015. Applicant did not respond to the FORM. The case was assigned to me on April 27, 2015. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In her Answer to the SOR, Applicant admitted the factual allegations in all the Paragraphs of the SOR, with explanations.

Guideline F - Financial Considerations

Applicant is 48 years old, and is employed as a “Technician” for a Government contractor. (Item 5 at pages 5 and 11–12.) She admits to ten past-due debts, which are supported by a March 2014 credit report.

1.a. Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor A, in the amount of about $4,165. She gives no further explanation. This allegation is found against Applicant.

1.b. Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor B, in the amount of about $786. She avers “it is on my credit [report] but it’s in [the] process of being removed;” but gives no further explanation as to why, and has not submitted a more recent credit report to support her averment. This allegation is found against Applicant.

1.c. Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor C, in the amount of about $5,241. She avers “This is a joint account,” but gives no explanation as to what this averment means. This allegation is found against Applicant.

1.d. Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor D, in the amount of about $3,229. She again avers to “a joint account,” but gives no explanation as to what this averment means. This allegation is found against Applicant.

1.e. Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor E, in the amount of about $89. She again avers “it’s in [the] process of being removed;” but gives no further explanation as to why, and has not submitted a more recent credit report to support her averment. This allegation is found against Applicant.

1.f. Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor F, in the amount of about $535. She gives no further explanation. This allegation is found against Applicant.

1.g. Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor G, in the amount of about $123. She gives no further explanation. This allegation is found against Applicant.

1.h. Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor H, in the amount of about $123. She avers “This HAS BEEN removed;” but gives no further explanation as to why, and has not submitted a more recent credit report to support her averment. This allegation is found against Applicant.

1.i. Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor I, in the amount of about $2,157. She avers “This is in [the] process of being removed;” but gives no further explanation as to why, and has not submitted a more recent credit report to support her averment. This allegation is found against Applicant.

1.j. Applicant admits she has a past-due debt to Creditor J, in the amount of about $1,036. She again avers “This is in [the] process of being removed;” but gives no further explanation as to why, and has not submitted a more recent credit report to support her averment. This allegation 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, which she 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 her eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. Applicant has over $17,000 in past-due indebtedness that she has yet to address. For this reason, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns under the whole-person concept arising from her 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. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.e. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.f. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.g. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.h. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.i. Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.j. 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