ISCR Case No. 02-21317.h1

DATE: February 26, 2004 In Re: --------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 02-21317 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE CHARLES D. ABLARD

SYNOPSIS Applicant is a 52-year-old part-time employee of a defense contractor working as a security guard. He admitted to debts of approximately $40,000.00 and failing to acknowledge those debts on his Application for Security Clearance (SF 86). Clearance is denied. STATEMENT OF CASE On July 22, 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 but undated written statement, Applicant responded to the allegations set forth in the SOR, and elected to have his case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's written case on September 11, 2003. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to Applicant, and he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant did not respond and the case was assigned to me on December 22, 2003.

Applicant admitted to 12 of the specific allegations in the SOR and denied four. The admitted facts are hereby incorporated as findings of fact. 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 52-year-old part-time employee of a defense contractor working as a security guard. He admitted to debts of approximately $40,000.00 and failing to acknowledge those debts on his Application for Security Clearance (SF 86). In addition to his employment as a guard, Applicant has a full-time job with a health care organization. He contributes approximately $5,000.00 per annum to his church and intends to continue to do so. Applicant declined to submit a financial report with his answer to the SOR.

"[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) Applicant's extensive debts have raised 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 maybe disqualifying include a history of not meeting financial obligations (E2.A6.1.2.1.) and evidence of inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. (E2.A6.1.2.3.) Also alleged is falsification of his SF 86 by failing to disclose debts that were over 180 days old. Guideline E raises an issue involving questionable judgment, unreliability, and unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations could indicate that the person may not properly safeguard classified information (E2.A5.1.1.) including a deliberate omission of relevant and material facts from a personnel security application. (E2.A5.1.2.2.)

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 has acknowledged that he is over his head in debt and that it was caused by his financial irresponsibility. While it may be commendable that he contributes a significant amount of his income to his church, this is not a mitigating condition that can be applied in his favor in a security clearance determination. Applicant offered a plausible explanation of payment of four of the debts. None of the mitigating conditions under Guideline F are applicable. Applicant failed to report the overdue debts on his SF 86 and offered no plausible explanation for his failure to do so. No mitigating factors under Guideline E are applicable. 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 not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant clearance to Applicant.

Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows: Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 1.a.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.b.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.c.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.e.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.f.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.g.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.h.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.i.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.j.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.k.: For Applicant Subparagraph 1.l.: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.m: Against Applicant Subparagraph 1.n: For Applicant Subparagraph 1 o: Against Applicant Paragraph 2. Guideline E: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraph 2.a.: Against 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. Clearance is denied. Charles D. Ablard Administrative Judge

02-21317.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Nygina Mills, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-21317.h1.html[6/24/2021 11:02:47 AM] 02-21317.h1