CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 15-01409.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 15-01409.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 15-01409.h1

deniedJun 27, 2016· Hon. Thomas M. Crean· hearing

Summary

A 54-year-old information assurance engineer with military service was denied a security clearance under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. The denial stemmed from unresolved financial issues, specifically a $594 telephone company debt in collection and an Internal Revenue Service tax lien for $10,085. These issues raised disqualifying conditions under Adjudicative Guidelines Paragraphs 19(a) and 19(c).

The judge determined that the applicant failed to provide sufficient documentation or demonstrate adequate efforts to mitigate these financial concerns. While the applicant admitted to the delinquent debts, she did not show proactive steps toward their resolution.

Ultimately, the applicant's reliance on her husband for financial matters was not accepted as an excuse for her personal responsibility regarding the debts. Due to the lack of demonstrated mitigation efforts, the judge concluded that the applicant's reliability and trustworthiness were in question, leading to the denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant did not provide adequate documentation to mitigate financial concerns.
The applicant admitted to delinquent debts but failed to demonstrate efforts to resolve them.
The applicant's reliance on her husband for financial matters did not absolve her responsibility for her debts.

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

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 19, 2015
Answer filedNov 19, 2015Applicant elected to have the matter decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateJun 27, 2016

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Importance of Personal Responsibility in Financial Matters for Security Clearance
Impact of Unresolved Debts 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: denied

The judge found that the applicant had a history of delinquent debts, including a telephone company debt of $594 and an IRS tax lien of $10,085. The applicant's failure to provide adequate documentation to mitigate these financial concerns led to a decision against her eligibility for access to classified information.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	a telephone company debt in collection for $594 $594	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	an Internal Revenue Service (IRA) tax lien for $10,085 $10,085	Against Applicant	Tax Unpaid	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. 15-01409 ) ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance

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

06/27/2016 ______________

STATEMENT OF CASE

______________

CREAN, Thomas M., Administrative Judge:

Applicant failed to provide adequate documentation to mitigate security concerns for financial considerations under Guideline F. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

On May 16, 2012, Applicant submitted an Electronic Questionnaire for Investigations Processing (e-QIP) to obtain a security clearance required for employment with a defense contractor. (Item 2) Applicant was interviewed by a security investigator from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on June 18, 2012. (Item 3) After reviewing the results of the OPM investigation, the Department of Defense (DOD) could not make the affirmative findings required to issue a security clearance. On October 19, 2015, DOD issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns for financial considerations under Guideline F. (Item 1) The action was taken 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 in the DOD on September 1, 2006.

Applicant answered the SOR on November 19, 2015, admitting both allegations of delinquent debt. She elected to have the matter decided on the written record. (Item 2) Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on January 15, 2016. Applicant received a complete file of relevant material (FORM) on January 19, 2016, and was provided the opportunity to file objections and to submit material to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the disqualifying conditions. Applicant did not file a reply to the FORM. I was assigned to case on May 5, 2015.

Procedural Issues

Applicant was advised in the FORM that the summary of the Personal Subject Interview with an OPM agent (Item 6) was not authenticated and could not be considered over her objection. She was further advised that she could make any corrections, additions, or deletions to the summary to make it clear and accurate, and she could object to the admission of the summary as not authenticated by a Government witness. She was additionally advised that if no objection was raised to the summary, the Administrative Judge could determine that she waived any objection to the admissibility of the Personnel Subject Interview summary. Applicant did not respond to the FORM, so she waived any objection to the admissibility of the Personal Subject Interview summary. I will consider information in the Personal Subject Interview in my decision.

FINDINGS OF FACT

I thoroughly reviewed the case file and the pleadings. I make the following findings of fact.

Applicant is 54 years old, and has been an information assurance engineer for a defense contractor since February 2012. She served on active duty in the Navy from December 1985 until July 1997, and in the inactive reserve from August 1997 until August 2000, when she was honorably discharged. She has taken college level courses while employed full time. She married in May 1982 and divorced in June 1986. She married her present husband in June 1993. She has one child. She was granted access to classified information while on active duty in February 1986. (Item 2, e-QIP, dated May 16, 2012; Item 3, Personal Subject Interview, dated June 18, 2012)

The SOR lists, and credit reports (Item 4, dated September 24, 2015; Item 5, dated January 30, 2015; and Item 6, dated May 2, 2012) confirm the following delinquent debts for Applicant: a telephone company debt in collection for $594 (SOR 1.a); and an Internal Revenue Service (IRA) tax lien for $10,085 (SOR 1.b).

Applicant informed the OPM agent in the Personal Subject Interview that she and her husband file their taxes jointly. Her husband advised her that their taxes were paid. He never advised her that they were behind on their taxes or that there was a tax lien. In her response to the SOR, Applicant stated that she relied on her husband to take care of their IRS matters. She did not know about the tax lien and she would be more proactive in the future in regard to her financial matters. She also acknowledged the debt at SOR 1.a. She relied on her husband to pay their bills. She stated that the bill would be paid soon. Applicant did not present any information concerning contact with the IRS or payments made on the tax lien. She also did not present any information on correspondence with the telephone company concerning the debt she owed them.

POLICIES

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines (AG). In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which must be considered 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, 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.

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.

ANALYSIS

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, thereby raising 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. (AG ¶ 18) Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or careless in his or her obligations to protect classified information. Behaving responsibly or irresponsibly in one aspect of life provides an indication of how a person may behave in other aspects of life.

A person’s relationship with her creditors is a private matter until evidence is uncovered demonstrating an inability or unwillingness to repay debts under agreed terms. Absent evidence of strong extenuating or mitigating circumstances, an applicant with a history of serious or recurring financial difficulties is in a situation of risk inconsistent with the holding of a security clearance. An applicant is not required to be debt free, but is required to manage finances in such a way as to meet financial obligations.

Adverse information in credit reports can normally meet the substantial evidence standard to establish financial delinquency. Applicant’s history of delinquent debts is documented in her credit reports and her admissions to the allegations in the SOR. The evidence is sufficient to raise security concerns under Financial Considerations Disqualifying Conditions AG ¶ 19(a) (inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts), and AG ¶ 19(c) (a history of not meeting financial obligations). The information raises both an inability and an unwillingness to pay delinquent debt.

I considered the following Financial Consideration Mitigating Condition under AG ¶ 20:

(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 problems 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;

(d) the individual has initiated a good-faith effort to repay the overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; and

(e) the individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past due debt which is the cause of the problem and provided documented proof to substantial the basis for the dispute or provide evidence of actions to resolve the issue.

None of the mitigating conditions apply. Applicant’s unpaid debts are a continuous course of conduct and thus current. Applicant claimed ignorance of the two SOR debts stating that her husband was responsible for the family finances and taxes. She knew of the debts as of June 2012 when questioned about them by the security investigator. In her November 2015 response to the SOR, Applicant stated she would resolve the debts and be more proactive in regard to finances in the future. Applicant did not present any information or documentation concerning her efforts to resolve the delinquent debts.

Applicant has not presented a reasonable plan to assume responsibility for and resolve her financial problems. With evidence of delinquent debt and no documentation to support responsible management of her finances, it is obvious that Applicant’s financial problems are not under control. Applicant's lack of documented action is significant and disqualifying. Based on the acknowledged debts and the failure to make arrangements to pay the debts, it is clear that Applicant has not been reasonable and responsible in regard to her finances. Her failure to act reasonably and responsibly towards her finances is a strong indication that she will not protect and safeguard classified information. Applicant has not presented sufficient information to mitigate security concerns for financial considerations.

WHOLE PERSON CONCEPT

Under the whole-person concept, an administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information 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 access to classified information 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 considered Applicant’s active duty and reserve service in the Navy and her honorable discharge. Applicant presented no evidence of any action she has taken to resolve his delinquent debts. She has not provided sufficient credible documentary information to show reasonable and responsible action to address delinquent debts and resolve financial problems. Applicant has not demonstrated responsible management of her finances or a consistent record of actions to resolve financial issues. Overall, the record evidence leaves me with questions and doubts about Applicant’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. She has not established her suitability for access to classified information. For all these reasons, I conclude Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns arising from her financial situation.

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.b: 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 access to classified information. Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

_________________ THOMAS M. CREAN Administrative Judge