CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-06761.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-06761.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-06761.h1

deniedFeb 22, 2016· Hon. Marc E. Curry· hearing

Summary

A 26-year-old single man with two children was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to significant delinquent debt. The Statement of Reasons cited approximately $16,000 in back child support, delinquent since 2009, along with multiple unpaid utility bills and a $667 judgment entered against him in 2012. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guideline paragraphs 19(a) and 19(c).

The applicant attributed his financial difficulties to past unemployment. However, he failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to substantiate claims of financial control or demonstrate that his financial problems were being managed. The total delinquent debt amounted to approximately $17,000, primarily from child support outstanding since 2009.

Ultimately, none of the mitigating conditions under Guideline F were applied because the applicant did not provide evidence of debt repayment or management. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant failed to provide documentary evidence to substantiate claims of financial control.
Applicant has approximately $17,000 of delinquent debt, primarily child support, which has been outstanding since 2009.
None of the mitigating conditions applied due to lack of evidence of debt repayment or management.

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

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedMay 15, 2015
Answer filedAug 14, 2015Applicant requested a decision on the record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decision made on the record.
Decision dateFeb 22, 2016

Cite For

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Debt Under Guideline F
Lack of Documentary Evidence to Support Claims of Financial Stability
Failure to Meet Financial Obligations Raises Questions About Reliability and Trustworthiness

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 has approximately $17,000 in outstanding delinquent debt, primarily due to child support delinquency. The applicant's financial issues were not mitigated as he failed to provide sufficient evidence of repayment or control over his debts, leading to a denial of his security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	approximately $16,000 of this debt is back child support that has been delinquent since 2009 $16,000	Against Applicant	Child Support Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	utility bills $250	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	utility bills $250	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	a judgment for $667 entered against Applicant in 2012 $667	Against Applicant	Judgment Against Applicant	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. 14-06761 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Tovah Minster, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

02/22/2016 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CURRY, Marc E., Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed to provide enough documentary evidence to substantiate his contention that his financial problems are under control. Clearance is denied.

Statement of the Case

On May 15, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant 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; Department of Defense 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.

On August 14, 2015, Applicant answered the SOR, admitting all of the allegations, and requested a decision on the record rather than a hearing. On September 23, 2015, Department Counsel prepared a File of Relevant Material (FORM) consisting of documents supporting the government’s allegations. Applicant received the file on October 5, 2015, and was informed that he had until November 4, 2015 to submit a response. Applicant did not reply, and the case was subsequently assigned to me on November 10, 2015.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 26-year-old single man with two children, ages five and seven. He graduated from high school in 2008. Since 2013, he has worked for a defense contractor as a maintenance man. (Item 3 at 1)

Applicant has approximately $17,000 of delinquent debt. Approximately $16,000 of this debt, as alleged in SOR subparagraph 1.a, is back child support that has been delinquent since 2009. (Item 3 at 4) Subparagraphs 1.band 1.c., totalling approximately $500, are utility bills, and the debt alleged in subparagraph 1.dstems from a judgment for $667 entered against Applicant in 2012.

Applicant attributes his financial problems to lengthy periods of unemployment between November 2009 and July 2013. (Item 3 at 4-5) Applicant contends that upon beginning his current employment, he contacted his payroll office to arrange for both current and back child support to be deducted from his paycheck. (Item 3 at 4) He also contends that he will pay the other SOR debts now that his employment is stable. He provided no corroborating documentary evidence of any child support or debt payments.

POLICIES

The adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, they are applied together with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. 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 applicant or proven by department counsel. . . .” The applicant has the ultimate burden of persuasion for obtaining a favorable security decision. Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a). They are as follows:

(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.

ANALYSIS

Guideline F, Financial Considerations

Under this guideline, “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) Applicant has approximately $17,000 of outstanding delinquent debt, nearly all of which is composed of a child-support delinquency. AG ¶ 19(a), “inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” and AG ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations,” apply.

The following mitigating conditions are potentially applicable.

(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.

Although Applicant’s financial problems were substantially related to lengthy periods of unemployment between 2009 and 2013, he has failed to provide any documentary evidence supporting his contention that he has either paid or is making payments toward the satisfaction of these debts. Under these circumstances, none of the mitigating circumstances apply, and Applicant has failed to mitigate 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: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a-1.d: 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.

MARC E. CURRY Administrative Judge