CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-05658.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-05658.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-05658.h1

deniedFeb 16, 2016· Hon. Shari Dam· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old staff analyst for federal contractors was denied a security clearance due to financial considerations under Guideline F. The applicant was found to be indebted to 14 creditors, with a total approximate outstanding balance of $76,000. This significant debt raised concerns under disqualifying conditions F.1.a and F.1.c.

The judge determined that the applicant failed to provide sufficient mitigating evidence. Specifically, there was no documentation demonstrating efforts to resolve the outstanding debts or a consistent track record of financial responsibility. The applicant also did not submit evidence of having sought financial counseling.

Given the lack of demonstrated progress in addressing the substantial delinquent debts and the absence of mitigating factors, the security clearance application was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant remains indebted to 14 creditors totaling approximately $76,000.
The applicant failed to provide evidence of efforts to resolve her debts or to demonstrate financial responsibility.
The applicant did not submit documentation of financial counseling or a track record of debt resolution.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.1.araisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
F.1.craisedA 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.”
— AG ¶ 18

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedApr 19, 2015
Answer filedMay 14, 2015Applicant requested a decision on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the written record.
Decision dateFeb 16, 2016

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Obligations
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating Financial Responsibility for 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 applicant has significant financial concerns, remaining indebted to 14 creditors for approximately $76,000. The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate these concerns, resulting in a denial of eligibility for a security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant remains indebted to 14 creditors in an approximate amount of $76,000. $41,229	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(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: 14-05658 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Stephanie C. Hess, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

02/16/2016 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

DAM, Shari, Administrative Judge:

Applicant remains indebted to 14 creditors in an approximate amount of $76,000. Resulting security concerns were not mitigated. Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

On August 15, 2013, Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SF- 86). On April 19, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR), 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; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (AG), effective within the DOD after September 1, 2006. Applicant answered the SOR on May 14, 2015 (Answer), and requested that her case be decided by an administrative judge on the written record without a hearing. (Item 4.) On September 8, 2015, Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case. A complete copy of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), containing six Items, was mailed to Applicant on September 17, 2015, and received by her on September 25, 2015. The FORM notified Applicant that she had an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation within 30 days of his receipt of the FORM. She timely submitted an exhibit that I marked as Applicant Exhibit (AE) A and admitted into the record without objection from Department Counsel. Applicant did not submit any objections to the Government’s Items; hence, Items 1 through 6 are admitted into evidence. DOHA assigned the case to me on November 9, 2015.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In her Answer Applicant admitted 3 of the 14 allegations contained in Paragraph 1 of the SOR: 1.a ($41,229); 1.h ($2,677); and 1.o ($11,808). She denied the remaining debts.1 (Item 2.) Her admissions are incorporated into these findings of fact.

Applicant is 55 years old and unmarried. She has an adult child. She earned some college credits. Since 2003 she has worked for federal contractors. She is a staff analyst. (Item 4.)

Based on credit bureau reports (CBRs) from August 2014 and August 2013, the SOR alleged 14 delinquent debts, which totaled $76,362, and included a delinquent mortgage and two judgments. The debts became delinquent between 2007 and 2013. (Items 5, 6.) In her Answer, Applicant stated that she was in the process of hiring a lawyer to resolve the mortgage and an automobile repossession. She said she is making monthly payments on a judgment. She denied the remaining debts because they were paid, were duplicates, or were not her debts. (Item 2; AE A.) She provided no evidence to corroborate any of those assertions.

Applicant stated that her mortgage problems arose because the house she purchased needed substantial work of which she was unaware at the time of the sale. The automobile she purchased broke down soon after she bought it, and she could not afford the repairs or payments. The car was subsequently repossessed. (Item 2.)

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 (AG) list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, 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(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.

According to 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 the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”

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. 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 relating to 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.

This concern is broader than the possibility that an individual might knowingly compromise classified information in order to raise money. It encompasses concerns about an individual’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified information. An individual who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information.2

AG ¶ 19 describes two conditions that could raise security concerns and may be disqualifying in this case:

(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and

Applicant has a history of delinquent debt. From 2007 to 2013, she accumulated 14 delinquent accounts totaling over $76,000. That ongoing pattern of delinquent debt, and history of inability or unwillingness to pay lawful debts, raise security concerns under the above disqualifying conditions, 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 failed to produce sufficient evidence that she addressed any of her delinquent accounts. She offered no evidence from which to establish a track record of debt resolution. She provided some evidence that certain delinquencies were caused by conditions beyond her control; but she failed to submit documentation indicating that she acted responsibly under those circumstances. She presented no evidence of financial counseling. There are no clear indications that her financial problems are being resolved in good faith, or are under control. She did not formally dispute any of the SOR-listed debts. Accordingly, the record is insufficient to establish mitigation under any of the foregoing provisions.

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.

According to 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 a mature adult, who is responsible for her voluntary choices and conduct that underlie the security concerns expressed in the SOR. Her SOR-listed delinquent debts arose between 2007 and 2013, and appear to remain unresolved despite her employment by a government contractor since 2003. She provided no evidence of financial counseling, rehabilitation, better judgment, or responsible conduct in other areas of her life to offset resulting security concerns. The potential for pressure, coercion, and duress from her financial situation remains undiminished. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with substantial doubt as to Applicant’s judgment, reliability, and present eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. She did not meet her burden to mitigate the security concerns arising from her 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 Subparagraphs 1.e through 1.o: 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.

SHARI DAM Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 The SOR does not contain an allegation 1.d. 2 See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App.Bd. May 1, 2012).