CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06702.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06702.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06702.h1

grantedJul 1, 2014· Hon. Robert E. Coacher· hearing

Summary

This case concerns a 36-year-old single male defense contractor employee whose security clearance was initially questioned under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple delinquent debts. The Statement of Reasons cited four student loan debts totaling $7,887, $4,028, $3,943, and $3,857, respectively. Additionally, two collection debts of $36 and $567 were noted. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines (AG) ¶ 19(a) and AG ¶ 19(c).

However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. All delinquent debts were resolved prior to the hearing, demonstrating good-faith efforts to repay overdue creditors. Furthermore, it was established that his financial difficulties were largely due to circumstances beyond his control, specifically periods of unemployment.

The Adjudicator applied mitigating conditions AG ¶ 20(a), AG ¶ 20(b), AG ¶ 20(c), and AG ¶ 20(d). Based on the resolution of all debts and the explanation for his financial challenges, the applicant's security clearance was GRANTED.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

All delinquent debts were resolved prior to the hearing.
The applicant made good-faith efforts to repay overdue creditors.
Financial difficulties were largely due to circumstances beyond the applicant's control.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

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 Long Ago or Infrequently
AG ¶ 20(b)appliedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's Control
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedReceived Counseling or Indications of Control
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedGood-faith Effort to Repay Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 9, 2015
Answer filedApr 1, 2015
Hearing held—Decided on the written record.
Decision date—Decision issued by Administrative Judge Robert E. Coacher.

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts
Impact of Unemployment on Financial Obligations

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns under Guideline F. All debts listed in the Statement of Reasons were resolved, and the applicant demonstrated responsible financial behavior, leading to a favorable decision for security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	four student loan debts in the amounts of $7,887 $7,887	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full Claimed Other
1.b	four student loan debts in the amounts of $4,028 $4,028	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full Claimed Other
1.c	four student loan debts in the amounts of $3,943 $3,943	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full Claimed Other
1.d	four student loan debts in the amounts of $3,857 $3,857	For Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full Claimed Other
1.e	remaining two collection debts are in the amounts of $36 $36	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full Claimed Other
1.f	remaining two collection debts are in the amounts of $567 $567	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(a) behavior happened long ago / infrequent / unlikely to recur (b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly (c) received/receiving counseling; problem being resolved (d) good-faith effort to repay or otherwise resolve debts	Documented Debt Paid in Full Claimed Other

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. 14-06702 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Daniel F. Crowley, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

12/31/2015 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

COACHER, Robert E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concern. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

Statement of the Case

On February 9, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing security concerns under Guideline F, financial considerations. The 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) effective within the DOD on September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR on April 1, 2015. He elected to have his case decided on the written record. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s File of Relevant Material (FORM) on August 31, 2015. The FORM was mailed to Applicant who received it on September 23, 2015. As evidence, the Government offered Items 2 through 5, which were admitted without objection (Item 1 was the SOR and Applicant’s answer). Applicant was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. He submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A through C, which were admitted into the record without objection. The case was assigned to me on November 10, 2015.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In Applicant’s answer to the SOR, he admitted all the allegations. His admissions are adopted as findings of fact. After a thorough and careful review of the pleadings and evidence submitted, I make the following additional findings of fact.

Applicant is 36 years old. He is single, never married and he has no children. He has worked for his current employer, a defense contractor, since May 2013. He received a bachelor’s degree in 2006.1

The SOR lists six collection debts. They include four student loan debts in the amounts of $7,887; $4,028; $3,943; and $3,857 (SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.d). The remaining two collection debts are in the amounts of $36 and $567 (SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.f). These debts are supported by credit reports from July 2013 and October 2014.2

Applicant experienced periods of unemployment from February 2009 to July 2011 and April 2012 to November 2012. During these times, he was unable to make his student loan payments. He resumed making payments at some point, however, the loan-servicing agency changed unbeknownst to him. In July 2013 he became aware the loans were in a delinquent status. He provided documentation showing that he paid all of his delinquent student loans in March 2015. These debts are resolved.3

Applicant stated he paid the debts listed at SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.fand further stated that the creditors failed to provide receipts documenting the payments. Two credit reports support his claim because neither shows these debts as delinquent. These debts are resolved. Currently, there is no evidence of other delinquent debts.4

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 accumulated delinquent debts over an extended period of time. I find both 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 has resolved all his delinquent debts. His efforts to repair his financial position make it reasonable to conclude that these types of debts will not recur, nor do they cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. AG ¶ 20(a) applies. Applicant accumulated delinquent debt when he experienced two periods of unemployment. These were conditions beyond his control. He eventually paid these debts. His actions, although delayed, were responsible. AG ¶ 20(b) applies.

There are clear indications that Applicant’s debts are resolved or under control. Applicant made good-faith efforts to resolve the debts listed on the SOR. He supplied documentary evidence showing the payments were made and the debts were paid. AG ¶ 20(c) and ¶ 20(d) 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 Applicant’s personal circumstances. The evidence supports that he is again financially stable and that he resolved the debts. The record contains sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant mitigated 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: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a – 1.f: 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.

_____________________________ Robert E. Coacher Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Item 2. 2 Items 3, 5. 3 Items 1, 4; AE A, B. 4 Item 5; AE A, C.