CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-12848.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-12848.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-12848.h1

grantedJun 17, 2004· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 38-year-old defense contractor employee was granted a security clearance despite concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons alleged the applicant omitted material facts from her SF-86, specifically acknowledging only one delinquent debt on questions 38 and 39, and denying the existence of judgments on question 37. These issues raised disqualifying conditions related to personal conduct and financial irresponsibility.

However, the judge found that the applicant had made good faith efforts to resolve her financial issues. Her approximately $10,000 in debts, primarily from divorce and medical expenses, had been significantly reduced, with only $1,200 remaining and being systematically repaid.

Crucially, the judge determined that the omissions on her security application were not deliberate. Given the demonstrated commitment to repaying debts and the non-deliberate nature of the application errors, mitigating conditions were applied, and the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

Applicant demonstrated a good faith effort to repay overdue debts.
Only $1,200 in debts remained, being repaid systematically.
Omissions on the security application were not deliberate.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedEvidence of Inability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts
E2.A5.1.2.2raisedOmission of Relevant and Material Facts From the SF 86

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.6appliedGood Faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors
E2.A6.1.3.3appliedConditions Resulting in Problems Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control

Key Rule Quoted

“"[N]o one has a 'right' to a security clearance."”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 25, 2003
Answer filedSep 12, 2003Applicant elected to decide on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateJun 17, 2004

Cite For

Good Faith Effort to Repay Debts Under Guideline F
Non-deliberate Omissions on Security Application Under Guideline E
Consideration of Personal Circumstances in Security Clearance Decisions

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 E (Personal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant's omissions regarding delinquent debts on her security clearance application were not deliberate. The applicant demonstrated that she was unaware of several debts and had made efforts to repay her remaining obligations. Consequently, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant omitted relevant and material facts from her personnel security application (SF 86).	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.b	Applicant acknowledged only one of the delinquent debts on questions 38 and 39 on her SF 86.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
2.c	Applicant denied the existence of any judgments against her on question 37.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline E). The verbatim source decision is shown in full below.

Standardized Decision Profile

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

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: granted

The judge found that the applicant had incurred approximately $10,000 in debts primarily due to divorce and medical expenses, but most of these debts have been resolved or are being repaid systematically. The judge concluded that the applicant's financial issues were largely beyond her control and that her omissions regarding the debts were not deliberate, resulting in a decision to grant the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a–1.l	12 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

DATE: June 17, 2004 In Re: -------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 02-12848 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CHARLES D. ABLARD

SYNOPSIS Applicant is a 38-year-old employee of a defense contractor who incurred approximately $10,000.00 in debts most of them arising from a divorce and from medical expenses for herself and children. An analysis of the delinquent debts and Applicant's answer and supplemental submission indicates that the only remaining debts are for approximately $1,200.00 and are being re-paid in a systematic fashion. Her omission of information about several of the delinquencies was not deliberate. Clearance is granted. STATEMENT OF CASE On August 25, 2003, 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 September 12, 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 November 25, 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. Applicant responded on January 30, 2004 and the case was assigned to me on February 25, 2004. A supplemental submission was received and accepted without objection on May 19, 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted all but two of the specific allegations regarding debts in the SOR in her answer. In her subsequent submission she offered evidence of payment of most of them. After a complete and thorough review of the information in the record, and upon due consideration of same, I make the following additional findings of fact. Applicant is a 38-year-old employee of a defense contractor who incurred approximately $10,000.00 in debts most of them arising from a divorce and from medical expenses for herself and children. An analysis of the debts and Applicant's answer and supplemental submission indicates that the remaining debts total approximately $1,200.00 and are being re-paid in a systematic fashion. Specifically, the debts identified in the SOR break down as follows: 1. Three debts have been paid and are now off the most recent credit report. (1.a, m, and f) 2. Three others have been paid but are still on the credit report. (1.e, i, and j) 3. One is a duplicate of another debt (1g), and another is based on a medical bill that contained a partial error that has been corrected and paid. (1.l) 4. Of only one debt for $21.00 is she unsure but will pay if owed. (1.k) 5. The remaining debts totaling $1,200.00 are owed and are being paid (1.b, c, d, h) except one that is the debt of her former husband who is paying it (1.m). Applicant acknowledged only one of the delinquent debts on questions 38 and 39 on her SF 86. She also denied the existence of any judgments against her on question 37.

POLICIES

"[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. 10865 § 2. See Executive Order No. 12968 § 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. 12968 § 3.1(b)

CONCLUSION

Upon consideration of all the facts in evidence, and after application of all appropriate legal precepts, factors, and conditions above, I conclude the following with respect to all allegations set forth in the SOR. Applicant's extensive debts prompted the allegation of violation of Guideline F in that an individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. (E2.A6.1.1.) Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include a history of not meeting financial obligations (E2.A6.1.2.1.) and evidence of inability orunwillingness to satisfy debts. (E2.A6.1.2.3.) Mitigating Conditions (MC) include the fact that the person has initiated a good faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts. (E2.A6.1.3.6.) and that the conditions resulting in the problems were largely beyond the person's control such as divorce. (E2.A6.1.3.3.) Under Guideline E, conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information. Directive. (E2.A5.1.1.) The Government has established by evidence and Applicant's admissions that she has omitted relevant and material facts from her personnel security application (SF 86) (E2.A5.1.2.2.) However, the guideline requires that the omission be deliberate. Because the debts were either paid or being paid with a payment plan, Applicant has mitigated the allegations concerning financial considerations under Guideline F. Applicant has presented credible arguments that she was unaware of several of the delinquent debts and thus acknowledged only one on questions 38 and 39 on the SF 86. She also was unaware of the two unpaid judgments incurred by her former husband that were identified on her credit report since she was a joint owner of the accounts. She did not have access to a credit report until after the SF 86 process began. I conclude that her omissions were not deliberate. In all adjudications the protection of our national security is of paramount concern. Persons who have access to classified information have an overriding responsibility for the security concerns of the nation. The objective of the security clearance process is the fair-minded, commonsense assessment of a person's trustworthiness and fitness for access to classified information. The "whole person" concept recognizes that we should view a person by the totality of their acts and omissions. Each case must be judged on its own merits taking into consideration all relevant circumstances, and applying sound judgment, mature thinking, and careful analysis. After considering all the evidence in its totality and as an integrated whole to focus on the whole person of Applicant, I conclude that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant clearance to Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows: Paragraph 1. Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.c.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.d.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.e.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.f.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.g.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.h.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.i.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.j.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.k.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.l.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.m.: For Applicant Paragraph 2.Guideline E: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraph 2.a.: For Applicant Subparagraph 2.b.: For Applicant Subparagraph 2.c.: For Applicant

DECISION

After full consideration of all the facts and documents presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance is granted. Charles D. Ablard Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

02-12848.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Rita C. O'Brien, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-12848.h1.html[6/24/2021 10:56:28 AM] 02-12848.h1