CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 14-07016.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 14-07016.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 14-07016.h1

grantedMar 17, 2016· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old defense contractor employee was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The applicant had accumulated delinquent medical debts totaling $11,309 and a $96 utility account, which raised disqualifying conditions related to financial irresponsibility and an unwillingness to meet financial obligations.

However, the applicant successfully mitigated these concerns. They demonstrated a commitment to resolving their debts by paying four of the five delinquent accounts and showing a clear intent to pay the remaining ones. Furthermore, the applicant has maintained full-time employment, enabling them to pay current bills without incurring new delinquencies.

Proactive steps were also taken, including receiving financial counseling to better manage their financial situation. These actions collectively satisfied the mitigating conditions, leading to the decision to grant the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant paid four of the five delinquent debts and demonstrated a commitment to pay the remaining debts.
The applicant has been working full-time and is able to pay his bills without accruing new delinquent debts.
The applicant received financial counseling, indicating proactive steps to manage his financial situation.

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)appliedThe Behavior Happened so Long Ago, Was so Infrequent, or Occurred Under Such Circumstances That It Is Unlikely to Recur
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Person Has Received or Is Receiving Counseling for the Problem
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors

Key Rule Quoted

“The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJun 15, 2015
Answer filedJul 16, 2015
Hearing heldDec 9, 2015
Decision dateMar 17, 2016

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Demonstrating a Commitment to Repay Debts
Impact of Financial Counseling 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: granted

The judge found that the applicant mitigated the financial considerations security concerns related to several delinquent debts. The applicant demonstrated a commitment to resolving his financial issues, having paid off multiple debts and receiving financial counseling, leading to a favorable decision for all allegations under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a–1.f	6 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	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. 14-07016 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

For Government: Robert J. Kilmartin, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

03/17/2016 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge:

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

Statement of the Case

On June 15, 2015, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline 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 July 16, 2015, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to me on November 4, 2015. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on November 13, 2015, scheduling the hearing for December 9, 2015. The hearing was convened as scheduled. Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 4 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified and submitted Applicant’s Exhibits (AE) A through H, which were admitted without objection. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on December 16, 2015.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 39-year-old employee of a defense contractor. He has worked for his current employer, or a predecessor contractor, since 2006, but there was an extended period when his employment was reduced to a part-time basis. He seeks to retain a security clearance. He is a high school graduate. He married in 2005 and divorced in 2010. He has three children, ages 19, 17, and 14.1

The SOR alleges five delinquent medical debts totaling $11,309 and a $96 delinquent utility account. Applicant admitted owing all the debts at one time, but he established that four of the debts were paid. The medical debts accrued during the period when Applicant was only working part-time and he did not have medical insurance.2

Applicant paid the $96 utility account (SOR ¶ 1.d) in July 2015. He paid $409 and $929, also in July 2015, for the two medical debts alleged in SOR ¶¶ 1.e and 1.f. He paid the $184 medical debt (SOR ¶ 1.c) in December 2015.3

Applicant credibly testified that he intends to pay the remaining two medical debts. He expects to use his income tax refund to help pay or settle the debts. He has been working full-time for several years. He no longer has to pay child support for his oldest child. He is able to pay his bills without accruing new delinquent debts. He has received financial counseling.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 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 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 AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c) as 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;

(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 paid four of the debts alleged in the SOR. He credibly testified that he is committed to paying the remaining two debts. I am convinced that he will continue his efforts to resolve any remaining financial problems. Financial concerns are mitigated under AG ¶¶ 20(a), 20(c), and 20(d).

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 Guideline F in my whole-person analysis.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me without questions or doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. I conclude Applicant 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.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 continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

________________________ Edward W. Loughran Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Tr. at 20, 28-31; GE 1, 2. 2 Tr. at 20-21, 27-28; Applicant’s response to SOR; GE 1-4. 3 Tr. at; GE 22, 24, 29; Applicant’s response to SOR; AE A-E. 4 Tr. at 21-24, 28-31; GE 1-4; AE A, F.