ISCR Case No. 02-03179.h1

DATE: July 18, 2003

In Re:

------------------

SSN: -----------

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-03179

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

CHARLES D. ABLARD

SYNOPSIS

Applicant, an employee of a defense contractor incurred extensive debts arising in large part from a divorce after 21 years of marriage. Some debts have been paid but others were not including a $47,000.00 deficiency debt for repossession of her home. Applicant wrote the creditor only a few days before her final answer to the allegations raised by the security clearance denial to request a payment schedule. Clearance is denied.

On December 17, 2002, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Information Within Industry, as amended and modified, and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended and modified, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant which detailed reasons why DOHA could not make the preliminary affirmative finding under the Directive that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. DOHA recommended the case be referred to an administrative judge to determine whether a clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked.

In a sworn written statement, dated January 23, 2003, Applicant responded to the allegations set forth in the SOR, and elected to have her case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case on May 14, 2003. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, and she was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation , extenuation, or mitigation. She did so on June 18, 2003. The case was assigned to, and received by, this Administrative Judge on June 30, 2003.

Applicant has admitted three of the factual allegations pertaining to financial considerations under Guideline F. Those admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. She has denied the remaining five. After a complete review of the evidence in the record and upon due consideration of the record the following additional findings of fact are made.

Applicant's debts arose from the breakup in 2000 of a 21 year marriage leaving her with family to support, no educational training for a good income producing job, and debts that have not been paid. These included an extensive debt of $47,000.00 from the repossession of the family home and over $4,000.00 of credit card debt owed to two companies.(SOR 1 a, b and c) She has paid five smaller debts totaling $1,500.00. (SOR 1 d, e, f, g and h)

Applicant corresponded with the creditor for the debt on the home in August and November 2002 but only inquired about a payment schedule in a letter of June 15, 2003.

Her former husband has a record of unsteady employment. Although he is legally obligated for half of the debt for the home, it seems problematic that he is willing or able to pay his share.

Since the separation and divorce Applicant has completed a computer science engineering course and is now employed by a defense contractor with an opportunity for further advancement. She has received several awards and commendations from her employer for her work.

"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance." Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has "the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to occupy a position that will give that person access to such information." Id. at 527.

An evaluation of whether the applicant meets the security guidelines includes consideration of the following factors: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the voluntariness of participation; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other 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. Directive, ¶ E2.2.1. Security clearances are granted only when "it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so." Executive Order No. 10,865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12,968 § 3.1(b).

Initially, the Government must establish, by something less than a preponderance of the evidence, that conditions exist in the personal or professional history of the applicant which disqualify, or may disqualify, the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. The applicant then bears the burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue the applicant's clearance. "Any doubt as to whether access to classified information is clearly consistent with national security will be resolved in favor of the national security." Directive, ¶ E2.2.2. "[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials." Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. See Executive Order No. 12,968 § 3.1(b)

The applicable Guideline cited in the SOR concern the following Disqualifying Conditions (DC):

Financial Considerations Guideline F:

An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include a history of not meeting financial obligations or an inability or unwillingness to satisfy his debts.

Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include the fact that the behavior was largely beyond the person's control, that he has received counseling, and that he has initiated good faith effort to repay creditors and resolve debts.

Based on the evidence of record, including Applicant's admissions, the Government has established reasons to deny her a security clearance because of financial considerations. Having established such reasons, the Applicant has the burden to establish security suitability through evidence which refutes, mitigates, or extenuates the disqualification and demonstrates that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant a security clearance. ISCR Case No. 99-0424 (App. Bd. Feb. 8, 2001)

The financial considerations alleged as a Disqualifying Condition (DC) 3 under Guideline F are based on a series of debts arising from Applicant's separation and divorce that she was unable to pay. Mitigating Condition (MC) 3 is applicable in that the conditions were largely beyond her control and as a result of her divorce. (E2.A6.1.3.3)

Applicant has manifested motivation to straighten out her problems including her debts and taken some steps to resolve the smaller debts cited in the SOR. Her financial problems were largely caused by the breakup of her marriage and her need to obtain qualifications for better employment. She has now become a qualified computer sciences engineer but still has extensive unresolved debts primarily arising from the repossession of her home.

She wrote to the three remaining creditors only three days prior to filing her answer to the FORM to inquire about a payment schedule and thus had no information from them to submit in her answer.

The statements of Applicant in her answer to the SOR and response to the FORM are persuasive as to the cause of her financial difficulties and her efforts to resolve them. However, the fact that such a large debt is still unresolved with no specific plan to accomplish a repayment except the possibility of a better paying job with her employer is not sufficient to overcome the considerations raised by the government as grounds for denial of a security clearance. Thus, it would be premature to grant a security clearance at this time to the Applicant.

Formal Findings as required by the Executive Order No. 10,865 § 3, ¶ 7 (See Directive, ¶ E3.1.25), are as follows:

Paragraph 1. Guideline F : AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d.: For Applicant

Subparagraph l. e.: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.f.: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.g.: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.h.: For Applicant

After full consideration of all the facts and documents 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.

Charles D. Ablard

Administrative Judge

02-03179.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Kathryn Antigone Trowbridge, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-03179.h1.html[6/24/2021 10:48:06 AM] 02-03179.h1