CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06516.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06516.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06516.h1

grantedAug 4, 2015· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 40-year-old defense contractor and veteran was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons alleged the applicant had an unpaid $223 judgment, eight delinquent medical debts totaling approximately $3,443, ten miscellaneous delinquent debts totaling about $5,416, and a $96 balance due on an auto loan after repossession. Additionally, there was an allegation regarding the intentional falsification of his security clearance application (SF 86).

The judge determined that the applicant did not intentionally provide false information on his SF 86, thereby refuting the personal conduct concerns. Regarding financial considerations, the applicant demonstrated that his financial difficulties were largely due to circumstances beyond his control.

Furthermore, the applicant showed he was actively taking steps to resolve his outstanding debts. Based on these findings, the judge applied mitigating conditions and concluded that the applicant was eligible for a security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant refuted the personal conduct security concerns by demonstrating no intent to falsify his SF 86.
The applicant mitigated financial concerns by showing that his financial difficulties were largely beyond his control and that he was taking steps to resolve his debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 16(a)rejectedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts
AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedBehavior Happened so Long Ago, Was Infrequent, or Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions That Resulted in Financial Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedIndividual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance adjudication is not a debt collection procedure. It is a procedure designed to evaluate an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 31, 2015
Answer filedMar 4, 2015
Hearing held—Decided on the written record.
Decision dateAug 4, 2015

Cite For

Refutation of Personal Conduct Allegations Under Guideline E
Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F Due to Circumstances Beyond Control
Evaluation of Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts in Security Clearance Cases

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant refuted the personal conduct security concerns and concluded that he did not intentionally provide false information on his SF 86. The decision granted the applicant eligibility for access to classified information under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant did not intentionally provide false information on his SF 86.	For Applicant	Falsification Security FormNOT DELIBERATE	—	Denied	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns, concluding that the applicant's financial issues were largely beyond his control and that he was committed to resolving his debts. The applicant's eligibility for access to classified information was granted, reflecting a positive assessment of his reliability and trustworthiness despite the financial challenges.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	unpaid $223 judgment $223	For Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.b	eight delinquent medical debts with balances totaling about $3,443 $3,443	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.c	ten miscellaneous delinquent debts with balances totaling about $5,416 $5,416	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	—
1.d	$96 debt for the balance due on an auto loan after the vehicle was repossessed $96	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	Denied	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e–1.s	15 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant). (low confidence)	For Applicant			—	—	—

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. 14-06516 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Candace L. Garcia, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

08/04/2015 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge:

Applicant refuted the personal conduct security concerns, and he mitigated the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

Statement of the Case

On January 31, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guidelines E (personal conduct) and F (financial considerations). The action was taken 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) implemented by the DOD on September 1, 2006.

Applicant responded to the SOR on March 4, 2015, and elected to have the case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. The Government’s written case was submitted on May 11, 2015. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, who was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the security concerns. Applicant received the FORM on May 27, 2015. He responded with a letter that I have marked Applicant’s Exhibit (AE) A. The case was assigned to me on June 23, 2015. The Government exhibits included in the FORM and AE A are admitted without objection.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 40-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has worked for his current employer since 2007. He served on active duty in the U.S. military from 2003 until he was honorably discharged in 2007. He attended community college for a period, but he did not earn a degree. He is married with three children and a stepchild.1

Applicant served two tours in Iraq. He saw a significant amount of combat, and he was in a vehicle that was hit by an improvised explosive device (IED). He has had difficulties resolving his disability claims for his injuries with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).2

Applicant was unemployed for about five months after he was discharged from the military in 2007. His wife was also not working, and they struggled to pay their bills. Applicant injured himself at work, and he required surgery in January 2014. He received workers’ compensation, but he was unable to work the overtime hours that he had come to rely on.3

The SOR alleges an unpaid $223 judgment, eight delinquent medical debts with balances totaling about $3,443, and ten miscellaneous delinquent debts with balances totaling about $5,416. Applicant admitted owing the majority of the debts. Each debt is listed on at least one credit report, although several of the debts appear to be duplicates.4

SOR ¶ 1.e alleges a $96 debt for the balance due on an auto loan after the vehicle was repossessed. Applicant denied owing the debt. The credit reports list a $3,313 judgment to the same creditor that was filed in September 2011 and paid in October 2012. Applicant’s statement that the debt was paid through the judgment is logical and accepted.5

Applicant was unaware of the extent of his financial issues until he was questioned for his background investigation in April 2014. He paid a number of debts that were not alleged in the SOR. His repayment efforts were hindered by the loss of overtime. He knows it will take time, but he intends to pay his delinquent debts.6

Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF 86) in December 2013. He did not list any delinquent debts under the financial questions. He denied intentionally falsifying the SF 86. He was unaware of the extent of his financial problems. He stated that he “may not be as smart as some people in this world,” and that he was unsure how to answer certain questions.7 Having considered all the evidence, I find that he did not intentionally falsify the SF 86.

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 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, administrative judges apply the guidelines 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.”

Under Directive ¶ E3.1.14, the Government must present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, the 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.” The applicant 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 the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation of potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.

Section 7 of EO 10865 provides that adverse 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 E, Personal Conduct

The security concern for personal conduct is set out in AG ¶ 15, as follows:

Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the security clearance process.

AG ¶ 16 describes conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying. The following disqualifying condition is potentially applicable:

(a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.

Applicant did not intentionally provide false information on his SF 86. AG ¶ 16(a) is not applicable. SOR ¶ 2.a is concluded for Applicant.

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

The security concern for financial considerations is set out in AG ¶ 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 AG ¶ 19. The following are potentially applicable in this case: (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; and

Applicant had delinquent debts that he was unable to pay. The evidence is sufficient to raise the above disqualifying conditions.

Conditions that could mitigate the financial considerations security concerns are provided under AG ¶ 20. The following 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; and

(d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.

Applicant was unemployed for about five months after his discharge from the military. He injured himself at work, and he was unable to work the overtime hours that he had come to rely on. He paid a $3,313 judgment and a number of other debts that were not alleged in the SOR. His finances are still far from perfect, but he is committed to paying his delinquent debts.

A security clearance adjudication is not a debt collection procedure. It is a procedure designed to evaluate an applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. See ISCR Case No. 09-02160 (App. Bd. Jun. 21, 2010). An applicant is not required, as a matter of law, to establish resolution of every debt alleged in the SOR. An applicant need only establish a plan to resolve the financial problems and take significant actions to implement the plan. There is no requirement that an applicant make payments on all delinquent debts simultaneously, nor is there a requirement that the debts alleged in the SOR be paid first. See ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008).

I find that much of Applicant’s financial problems were caused or exacerbated by conditions that were beyond his control. They occurred under circumstances that are unlikely to recur and do not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. The above mitigating conditions are partially, but not completely, applicable because Applicant is still in the process of resolving his debts.

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.

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 guidelines 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 have incorporated my comments under Guidelines E and F in this whole-person analysis.

I considered Applicant’s honorable military service, particularly his combat tours in Iraq. He still has steps he needs to take to remedy his financial problems. He has earned the additional time required to complete those steps.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. I conclude Applicant refuted the personal conduct security concerns, and he mitigated the financial considerations security concerns.

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: For Applicant

Subparagraphs 1.a-1.s: For Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline E: For Applicant

Subparagraph 2.a: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

In light of all of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant Applicant eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

________________________ Edward W. Loughran Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Items 3, 4; AE A. 2 Items 3, 4; AE A. 3 Items 3, 4. 4 Items 2, 4-6. 5 Items 2, 4-6. 6 Items 4-6; AE A. 7 Items 2-4; AE A.