CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01315.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01315.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01315.h1

deniedApr 19, 2016· Hon. Edward W. Loughran· hearing

Summary

A 55-year-old engineer working for a defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations, due to significant delinquent debts. The Statement of Reasons cited a $454 delinquent medical debt and three delinquent credit card debts totaling approximately $30,600. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 19(a) and 19(c).

The judge determined that the applicant had not made a good-faith effort to resolve the approximately $31,000 in delinquent debts. Despite having the financial means to pay, the applicant chose not to, believing the debts were uncollectable, and did not seek financial counseling.

Ultimately, the applicant failed to mitigate the security concerns related to financial considerations. The continued financial issues cast doubt on the applicant's reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has delinquent debts totaling approximately $31,000 and has not made a good-faith effort to resolve them.
The applicant believes the debts may be uncollectable and has not sought financial counseling.
The applicant's financial issues continue to cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.

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

“Reliance on the statute of limitations does not constitute a good-faith effort to resolve debts.”
— ISCR Case No. 14-01231 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 10, 2015)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 22, 2015
Answer filedOct 12, 2015
Hearing heldFeb 1, 2016
Decision dateApr 19, 2016

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Considerations Under Guideline F
Impact of Financial Irresponsibility on Security Clearance Eligibility
Reliance on Statute of Limitations as Insufficient for Debt Resolution

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 did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns, ruling against him on all allegations under Guideline F. The applicant has delinquent debts totaling approximately $31,054, which he admitted owing but chose not to pay despite having the financial means to do so.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has a $454 medical debt that is delinquent. $454	Against Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	Applicant has three credit card debts totaling about $30,600 that are delinquent. $30,600	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c–1.d	2 sub-charges — specific text not stated in this decision (against the applicant). (low confidence)	Against 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. 15-01315 ) Applicant for Security Clearance )

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

04/19/2016 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

LOUGHRAN, Edward W., Administrative Judge:

Applicant did not mitigate the financial considerations security concerns. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

On September 22, 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 October 12, 2015, and requested a hearing before an administrative judge. The case was assigned to another administrative judge on December 5, 2015, and reassigned to me on January 15, 2016. The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) issued a notice of hearing on January 15, 2016, scheduling the hearing for February 1, 2016. The hearing was convened as scheduled. A letter from Department Counsel to Applicant was marked Hearing Exhibit (HE) I. Government Exhibits (GE) 1 through 5 were admitted in evidence without objection. Applicant testified, but he did not submit any documentary evidence. DOHA received the hearing transcript (Tr.) on February 9, 2016.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant is a 55-year-old engineer employed by a defense contractor. He has worked for his current employer since 2008. He served in the U.S. military from 1982 until he was honorably discharged in 1986. He seeks to retain a security clearance. He has a bachelor’s degree that was awarded in 1982. He is married with two adult children, a minor child, and an adult stepchild.1

Applicant developed financial problems in about 2010 when he had medical bills for his children and school expenses for his special-needs child. He did not pay all his credit card bills, and several debts became delinquent.2

The SOR alleges a $454 medical debt and three credit card debts totaling about $30,600. Applicant admitted owing all the debts. The debts are also listed on credit reports.3

Applicant’s one child graduated from his special-needs school, and another child’s medical condition has stabilized. Applicant earns about $125,000 per year, and his wife earns about $50,000. He inherited more than $400,000 in 2014, but he chose not to pay his debts. He believes they may be uncollectable because of the statute of limitations. He also did not like some of the credit card companies’ practices. He has not 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 has delinquent debts that he originally was unable to pay, but he is now unwilling 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;

(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 attributed his financial problems to medical bills for his children and school expenses for his special-needs child. He now has the ability to pay his debts, but chooses not to. He believes the debts may be uncollectable because of the statute of limitations. However, reliance on the statute of limitations does not constitute a good- faith effort to resolve debts. See e.g., ISCR Case No. 14-01231 at 3 (App. Bd. Feb. 10, 2015).

I am unable to find that Applicant acted responsibly under the circumstances or that he made a good-faith effort to pay his debts. His financial issues continue to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. There are no applicable mitigating conditions.

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.

I considered Applicant’s honorable military service and his employment since 2008 with a defense contractor. However, he has debts that he refuses to pay despite the means to do so.

Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts as to Applicant’s eligibility and suitability for a security clearance. I conclude Applicant did not 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 continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

________________________ Edward W. Loughran Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

1 Tr. at 20-23; GE 1, 5. 2 Tr. at 15-16; GE 1-5. 3 Applicant’s response to SOR; GE 2-4. 4 Tr. at 15-27; GE 5.