CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-04130.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-04130.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-04130.h1

deniedOct 30, 2015· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

A 44-year-old federal contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to unresolved delinquent debts totaling approximately $29,217. The Statement of Reasons detailed several collection accounts, including amounts of $72, $154, $410, $60, $571 (twice), $381, and a significant account for $26,968. These issues raised disqualifying conditions F.1.a and F.1.c.

The applicant claimed to be addressing some of these debts but failed to provide supporting documentation or evidence of financial counseling. The judge found that she did not demonstrate responsible action toward resolving her financial issues.

Consequently, the judge concluded that the applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concern, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has unresolved delinquent debts totaling approximately $29,217.
She failed to provide documentation to support claims of debt resolution or financial counseling.
The applicant did not demonstrate responsible action toward resolving her financial issues.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.1.craisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Key Rule Quoted

“Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for access to classified information will be resolved in favor of national security.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 24, 2014
Answer filedNov 14, 2014Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateOct 30, 2015

Cite For

Failure to Provide Evidence of Debt Resolution Under Guideline F
Impact of Unresolved Financial Issues on Security Clearance Eligibility
Importance of Financial Counseling in Mitigating Security Concerns

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 unresolved financial debts totaling approximately $29,217, which raised significant security concerns under Guideline F. Despite the applicant's claims of having paid some debts, she failed to provide supporting documentation, leading to a decision against her eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	collection accounts for $72 $72	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	collection accounts for $154 $154	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	collection accounts for $410 $410	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	collection accounts for $60 $60	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	collection accounts for $571 $571	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	collection accounts for $571 $571	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	specific text not stated in this decision	Withdrawn	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.h	collection accounts for $381 $381	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.j	collection account for $26,968 $26,968	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. 14-04130 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Alison O’Connell, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

10/30/2015 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant has not mitigated the financial considerations security concern. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

On October 24, 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. DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (EO) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG).

Applicant answered the SOR on November 14, 2014, and elected to have her case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on February 27, 2015. The evidence included in the FORM is identified as Items 1-7 and is admitted into the record. The FORM was mailed to Applicant, who received it on May 29, 2015. Applicant was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. She did not submit any information in response. The case was assigned to me on October 8, 2015.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, she admitted all the debts listed in the SOR (Department Counsel moved to amend the SOR to withdraw ¶ 1.g; the motion is granted and that allegation is withdrawn). The admissions are adopted as findings of fact. After a careful review of the pleadings and evidence, I make the following additional findings of fact.1

Applicant is 44 years old. She has worked for a federal contractor since 2009. She is married with two adult children from a previous marriage. She has a high school diploma and has some technical training. She has no military experience, but held a security clearance when she worked for a different federal agency.2

The amended SOR lists nine delinquent debts totaling approximately $29,217. The debts include eight collection accounts, and one charged-off account. The debts are supported by a credit report from April 2015 and by Applicant’s statements to a defense investigator in May 2014.3

Applicant financial difficulties arose as a result of her husband losing his job of 20 years in 2011. She has not received financial counseling. There is no evidence of a current budget or earnings and expense statement.4

The status of the debts is as follows:

SOR ¶¶ 1.a, 1.d, 1.i (collection accounts for $72; $30; $60):

Applicant claims she paid these debts, but failed to supply any supporting documentation. These debts are unresolved.5 SOR ¶¶ 1.b, 1.c, 1.e, 1.f, 1.h (collection accounts for $154; $410; $571; $571; $381):

Applicant claims all these accounts were turned over to her insurance company for payment. No proof of payments or documentation from the insurance company was submitted. These debts are unresolved.6

SOR ¶ 1.j (collection account for $26,968):

Applicant claimed she set up a payment plan to pay this debt, but she did not provide documentation supporting such a payment plan. This debt is unresolved.7

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 the 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’s debts are recent and remain unresolved. She did not provide sufficient evidence to show that financial problems are unlikely to recur. AG ¶ 20(a) does not apply. Applicant presented evidence that some debts were due to circumstances beyond her control. For this mitigating condition to apply, she must also show responsible action toward resolving the debts. She failed to show proof of any action to resolve these debts or that she received any financial counseling. AG ¶¶ 20(b), 20(c), 20(d) do not apply.

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 the circumstances that led to Applicant’s financial problems. She failed to show a track record of financial stability. 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.f: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.g: Withdrawn Subparagraphs 1.h – 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.

_____________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Item 4. 2 Items 5, 7. 3 Items 6-7. 4 Items 5, 7. 5 Item 4. 6 Item 4. 7 Item 4.