CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05097.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05097.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05097.h1

deniedFeb 22, 2016· Hon. Matthew E. Malone· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant had $27,766 in delinquent debts across eight accounts, primarily stemming from medical bills. These debts were identified as security concerns, raising disqualifying conditions AG ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c).

The applicant acknowledged her financial difficulties, attributing them to a period of unemployment and a failed business venture. However, she failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns.

Specifically, the denial was based on her inability to provide documentation supporting claims of resolving her debts, and a lack of evidence demonstrating good-faith efforts to pay or otherwise resolve her financial obligations. Consequently, the security clearance application was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns regarding her delinquent debts.
She failed to provide documentation supporting her claims of resolving her debts.
No evidence of good-faith efforts to pay or resolve her financial obligations was presented.

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

“A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest for an applicant to either receive or continue to have access to classified information.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 31, 2014
Answer filedNov 14, 2014
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision without a hearing.
Decision dateFeb 22, 2016

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Lack of Evidence Supporting Claims of Debt Resolution
Impact of Financial Issues 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 that the applicant did not mitigate the financial concerns related to her past-due debts, totaling $27,766. All allegations were ruled against the applicant, leading to the denial of her request for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant owes $27,766 for eight delinquent or past-due accounts	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant owes $27,766 for eight delinquent or past-due accounts	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	Applicant owes $27,766 for eight delinquent or past-due accounts	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	Applicant owes $27,766 for eight delinquent or past-due accounts	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	Applicant owes $27,766 for eight delinquent or past-due accounts	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	Applicant owes $27,766 for eight delinquent or past-due accounts	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	Applicant owes $27,766 for eight delinquent or past-due accounts $20,810	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	Applicant owes $27,766 for eight delinquent or past-due accounts	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: ) ) ) [NAME REDACTED] ) ISCR Case No. 14-05097 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Braden M. Murphy, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

02/22/2016 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

MALONE, Matthew E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns about her past-due or delinquent debts. Her request for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

On November 18, 2013, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (EQIP) to obtain eligibility for access to classified information as required for her job with a defense contractor. After reviewing the completed background investigation, Department of Defense (DOD) adjudicators could not determine that it is clearly consistent with the national interest for Applicant to have access to classified information.1 On October 31, 2014, DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging facts that raise security concerns addressed under Guideline F (Financial Considerations).2 Applicant timely responded to the SOR and requested a decision without a hearing. On April 16, 2015, Department Counsel for the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a File of Relevant Material (FORM) in support of the SOR. Applicant received the FORM on August 13, 2015. She was advised she had 30 days from the date of receipt to submit additional information in response to the FORM, but she did not respond. The record closed on September 12, 2015, and the case was assigned to me on October 16, 2015.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Under Guideline F, the Government alleged that Applicant owes $27,766 for eight delinquent or past-due accounts (SOR 1.a - 1.h). The debt alleged at SOR 1.gis a delinquent hospital bill for $20,810, or about 75 percent of the total debt listed. The debts at SOR 1.d, 1.e, 1.g, and 1.hare for unpaid medical bills. Applicant admitted all of the allegations, citing a failed business and a period of unemployment as the circumstances underlying her financial problems. (FORM, Items 1 and 2) In addition to the facts established by her admissions, I make the following findings of fact.

Applicant is a 55-year-old employee of a defense contractor, where she has worked since October 2013. She has four children, ages 17, 19, 28, and 30. The two younger children still live with her. Applicant was unemployed for about two years before she was hired for her current job. During that time, she was studying to earn an associate’s degree, which she received in August 2013. (FORM, Item 5)

In her clearance application, Applicant disclosed the debts alleged at SOR 1.a, 1.b, 1.d, 1.e, 1.g, and 1.h. All of the debts alleged in the SOR are documented in two credit reports obtained during her background investigation, and she discussed those debts during a personal subject interview with a Government investigator on January 7, 2014. (FORM, Items 2 - 8)

Applicant’s financial problems are the product of multiple periods of unemployment since 2003. She also experienced medical problems while she was without medical insurance. Applicant’s largest debt other than the SOR 1.ghospital bill, is the $4,587 remainder after resale of a car she lost to repossession in 2008. (FORM, Items 5, 6, and 8)

Applicant stated in her EQIP and during her subject interview, that she intended to establish repayment plans for some of her past-due debts. In response to the SOR, she stated that she was working with a credit repair law firm to validate or refute the debts attributed to her in the credit reports. She also averred that she had received a tax refund that she intended to apply toward some of her debts. However, Applicant did not produce any documents to corroborate her claims.

POLICIES

Each security clearance decision must be a fair, impartial, and commonsense determination based on examination of all available relevant and material information,4 and consideration of the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in the adjudicative guidelines. Decisions must also reflect consideration of the factors listed in ¶ 2(a) of the new guidelines. Commonly referred to as the “whole-person” concept, those factors are:

(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 presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative of a conclusion for or against an applicant. However, specific applicable guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified information. A security clearance decision is intended only to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest for an applicant to either receive or continue to have access to classified information. Department Counsel must produce sufficient reliable information on which DOD based its preliminary decision to deny or revoke a security clearance for an applicant. Additionally, Department Counsel must prove controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If the Government meets its burden, it then falls to the applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the case for disqualification.

Because no one is entitled to a security clearance, applicants bear a heavy burden of persuasion to establish that it is clearly consistent with the national interest for them to have access to protected information. A person who has access to such information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Thus, there is a compelling need to ensure each applicant possesses the requisite judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness of one who will protect the nation’s interests as his or her own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access to classified information in favor of the Government.9

ANALYSIS

Financial Considerations

The Government met its burden of production in support of the allegations in the SOR. The facts established herein raise a security concern addressed, in relevant part, at AG ¶ 18 as follows:

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.

More specifically, available information requires application of the disqualifying conditions at AG ¶¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts) and 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations). By contrast, the record does not support any of the mitigating conditions listed at AG ¶ 20. Applicant’s debts are recent and ongoing. Her indebtedness arose from, or was exacerbated by, unemployment and medical problems. However, mitigation requires a corresponding response that reflects well on Applicant’s judgment and reliability. Applicant did not support her claims that she was resolving her debts through a credit repair law firm, or that she had used her tax refund to make payments. Also, she has not obtained any financial counseling and she did not show that she has made any good-faith efforts to pay or otherwise resolve her debts.

In summary, Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns raised by the Government’s information. In addition to evaluating the facts and applying the appropriate adjudicative factors under Guideline F, I have reviewed the record before me in the context of the whole-person factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Applicant has been a single mother and has worked hard to provide for her children. Nonetheless, without other information suggesting her financial problems are being addressed, doubts remain about her suitability for access to classified information. Protection of the national interest is the principal focus of these adjudications. Accordingly, those doubts must be resolved against the Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings 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.h: Against Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all available information, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest for Applicant to have access to classified information. Applicant’s request for a security clearance is denied.

MATTHEW E. MALONE Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended, and by the Directive. See Directive, Enclosure 2. See also 32 C.F.R. § 154, Appendix H (2006). See Directive, Enclosure 3, Section E3.1.7. The FORM included eight exhibits (Items 1 - 8) proffered in support of the Government’s case. Directive. 6.3. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). Directive, E3.1.14. Directive, E3.1.15. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 528, 531. See Egan; Adjudicative Guidelines, ¶ 2(b).