Loading case…

ISCR 15-00204.h1: Guideline E security clearance hearing, denied (2016) · CASE

ISCR Case 15-00204.h1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-00204.h1

deniedMar 31, 2016· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 42-year-old painter for a U.S. defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed primarily from significant, ongoing, and unresolved delinquent debts totaling nearly $44,000. The applicant failed to provide evidence of financial counseling, efforts to address the debts, or documentation of contact with creditors.

Specifically, the applicant admitted to a $2,832 debt to a government agency, claiming to have reduced it to $1,828, but provided no corroborating evidence. Another alleged debt involved a creditor asserting a claim for an amount purchased from an original creditor, though the account number differed from what the applicant acknowledged.

While the government alleged the applicant falsified a 10 April 2013 clearance application, the applicant denied this, stating his application was dated 18 April 2014. The judge found the government did not substantiate this falsification allegation. However, the persistent and unmitigated financial issues led to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the applicant was denied

The applicant has a history of financial difficulties totaling nearly $44,000, which are ongoing and unresolved.
The applicant provided no evidence of financial counseling or efforts to address his debts.
The applicant did not document any contacts with creditors or provide corroborating evidence for his claims regarding his debts.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedFinancial Considerations
E.1rejectedPersonal ConductThe government failed to establish a case for disqualification under Guideline E.

Key rule quoted

“The Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own.”
Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural posture

SOR issuedAug 15, 2015
Answer filed—
Hearing held—Applicant requested a decision without hearing.
Decision dateMar 31, 2016

Cite for

Denial of Security Clearance Due to Unresolved Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Lack of Evidence to Mitigate Financial Considerations
Failure to Establish Falsification Under Guideline E

Editorial summary generated for research. Not legal advice; not a prediction. Verify against the full decision before relying on any quoted language.

From the decision

Facts this decision states, each with the exact sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.

Age at decision: 42: “He is a 42-year-old painter employed by a U.S. defense contractor since April 2014.”
Tenure: ~2 years: “He is a 42-year-old painter employed by a U.S. defense contractor since April 2014.”
Held a clearance before: No: “He has not previously held an industrial clearance.”
Delinquent debt cited: $44,000: “The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits (Items 3-5) substantiate, two delinquent debts totaling nearly $44,000.”

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the Government failed to establish a case for disqualification under Guideline E. The allegation of falsification regarding a clearance application was not substantiated, and the judge accepted the applicant's explanation for not remembering certain debts at the time of the application. Therefore, the judge resolved Guideline E in favor of the applicant.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found that the applicant had significant financial difficulties, including two delinquent debts totaling nearly $44,000, which he failed to adequately address or mitigate. As a result, the judge ruled against the applicant on all financial allegations under Guideline F.

The sub-allegation breakdown is part of the Professional plan. See what it includes.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. 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: ) ) XXXXXXX, Xxxxxxx, Xxx ) ISCR Case No. 15-00204 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

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

03/31/2016 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge:

Based on the record in this case, I deny Applicant’s clearance.

On 15 August 2015, the Department of Defense (DoD) sent Applicant a Statement of Reasons (SOR) raising security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, and Guideline E, Personal Conduct. Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a decision without hearing by the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). The record in this case closed 9 December 2015, when Applicant’s response to the FORM was due. Applicant provided no additional documents. DOHA assigned the case to me 11 March 2016.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted SOR allegation 1.a. He denied SOR allegation 1.bbecause he did not recognize the debt. He also denied paragraph 2. He is a 42-year-old painter employed by a U.S. defense contractor since April 2014. He was previously employed in similar positions since February 2004. He served on active duty in the U.S. military from November 1994 to November 1999. There is no record of his having held a clearance while serving in the military. He has not previously held an industrial clearance. He is single and has no children.

The SOR alleges, and Government exhibits (Items 3-5) substantiate, two delinquent debts totaling nearly $44,000. Applicant admitted a $2,832 debt to a Government agency, but claimed in his Answer (Item 1) to have reduced the balance to $1,828. He provided no corroboration for this claim.

Applicant’s April 2014 clearance application (Item 2) reported no financial problems. Applicant was questioned about his April 2014 credit report (Item 5) during his June 2014 interview with a Government investigator (Item 3). Applicant told the investigator that he did not remember any debts when he completed the clearance application. However, during Applicant’s interview, he acknowledged several other delinquent debts, including two delinquent credit cards that had been sold to other lenders. The creditor for SOR 1.basserts its claim for an amount it purchased from the original creditor, but assigns a different account number than the credit card that Applicant acknowledges. The two credit cards and two collection agents report that the last activity on these accounts was June 2007. Consequently, none of the accounts appear on Applicant’s August 2014 credit report (Answer) or his November 2014 credit report (Item 4).

Applicant offered no real explanation for his delinquent debts. Indeed, he thought some of the debts may have been his father’s (who shares a name with Applicant) or may have been resolved by his father (Item 3). However, like his other claims, he provided no corroboration of his claims.

Applicant did not provide a current financial statement or budget. He has not documented any financial or credit counseling. He provided no work or character references, or any evidence of community involvement. He documented no contacts with his creditors.

POLICIES

The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors for evaluating a person’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented. Each decision must also reflect a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). Any one disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed where a case can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations).

Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government must prove, by substantial evidence, controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, the burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion.

Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.5

ANALYSIS

The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant failed to submit sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has a history of financial difficulties, which are ongoing, and seem unlikely to be resolved any time soon. Applicant’s financial problems appear to date from at least 2007.

Applicant meets none of the mitigating conditions for financial considerations. His financial difficulties are both recent and multiple; and the immediate causes of his problems may be likely to recur, as he identified no particular cause for his inability to keep up payments on his debts. Applicant identified no circumstances beyond his control, and he has not demonstrated that he has been responsible in addressing his debt.8

Applicant submitted no evidence to show that he received credit or financial counseling, and his debts are clearly not being resolved. There are no signs that Applicant has been in contact with any of the creditors alleged in the SOR, and thus he cannot establish that he has made a good-faith effort to address his debts. Moreover, Applicant has mostly disregarded these financial obligations since he obtained a copy of his credit report in August 2014. He did not document his claimed action on SOR 1.a, and has done nothing to address SOR 1.b. The fact that this debt appears of have aged off his credit reports does not extinguish his responsibility for this debt from a clearance perspective. Moreover, Applicant failed to provide any documentation of his past military service, current employment performance, or work or character references upon which I might base a favorable “whole-person” analysis. Accordingly, I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.

The Government failed to establish a case for disqualification under Guideline E. The Government alleged that Applicant falsified a 10 April 2013 clearance application, an allegation Applicant denied, noting that his clearance application was dated 18 April 2014. The Government produced no April 2013 clearance, and made no reference to the April 2014 clearance application in the FORM, or indeed any reference at all to an alleged falsification. I might fairly infer that the Government had abandoned its falsification allegation. Further, there is nothing in Applicant’s 2014 clearance application to connect it to 2013. Morever, even if I stretched the SOR beyond all recognition to amend the SOR to allege a falsification of his April 2014 clearance application, I would accept his explanation that he did not remember any of the accounts at the time he completed his clearance application. Consequently, he did not commit a deliberate omission or evasiveness inconsistent with the candor required of applicants.11 Accordingly, I resolve Guideline E for Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs a-b: Against Applicant

Paragraph 2. Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT

Subparagraph a: For Applicant

CONCLUSION

Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance denied.

JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

Consisting of the File of Relevant Material (FORM), Items 1-5, prepared by Department Counsel on 26 October 2015 and mailed to Applicant.

DoD acted 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 (AG) effective within the DoD on 1 September 2006. The Government produced no evidence of an April 2013 clearance application as alleged in SOR 2.a.

The other credit card Applicant discussed during his interview was sold to a different collection agent, but both the account numbers and balances match exactly. However, this debt was not alleged in the SOR. See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).

¶19(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;

¶20(a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur . . . ¶20(b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

¶20(c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control;

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

¶ 6 (a) deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, . . . [or] determine security clearance eligibility or trustworthiness. . .;