CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-24419.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-24419.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-24419.h1

deniedFeb 12, 2003· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 31-year-old applicant with an Associates Degree was denied a security clearance due to significant financial difficulties, personal conduct issues, and past criminal conduct. The denial was primarily driven by over $7,000 in past due debts, which the applicant was unable to address following a recent job loss. While some past fines were paid, substantial outstanding debts to two banks and a financial institution remained unresolved.

The applicant's history included three employment terminations between 1998 and 2000 for reasons such as insubordination and unauthorized time off, though one termination was due to an insurance coverage issue. Additionally, the applicant had a record of criminal conduct, including a 1997 citation for driving with cancelled insurance, and two separate convictions for criminal damaging in 1998 and 1999, resulting in fines.

Although the past criminal conduct and employment rule violations were deemed not recent enough to be of current security significance, the applicant's present inability to meet financial obligations was a primary concern. The decision highlighted that the applicant's financial responsibilities were of present security significance, leading to the denial of the security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The Applicant has over $7,000 in past due indebtedness due to recent loss of employment.
The Applicant was unable to address his financial responsibilities, which are of present security significance.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
F3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F3rejectedThe Conditions That Resulted in the Behavior Were Largely Beyond the Person's Control (e.g., Loss of Employment . . . )The Applicant's financial difficulties were not mitigated by his job loss as he failed to address his debts.

Key Rule Quoted

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

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 3, 2002
Answer filedSep 16, 2002
Hearing heldJan 9, 2003
Decision dateFeb 12, 2003

Cite For

Impact of Financial Difficulties on Security Clearance Eligibility
Relevance of Past Conduct Versus Current Financial Status
Criteria for Evaluating Mitigating Conditions Under Guideline F

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: denied

The judge found against the applicant on several personal conduct allegations, including terminations from employment due to insubordination and unauthorized absences. However, the judge ruled for the applicant on other personal conduct allegations, indicating that past minor criminal conduct was not recent enough to be of present security significance. Overall, the applicant's security clearance was denied due to unresolved financial issues.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
3.a	In June of 1998, the Applicant was terminated from his employment with the public school for insubordination.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
3.b	In May of 1999, the Applicant was terminated from his employment with a computer center for taking time off from employment without his supervisor's approval.	Against Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—
3.c	In April of 2000, the Applicant was terminated from his employment with an express company for circumstances beyond his control, his insurance carrier would not cover his working for the express company.	For Applicant	Rules Violation at Workplace	—	Denied	—	—	—

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: denied

The Applicant has over $7,000 in past due indebtedness, which he is unable to address due to a recent loss of employment. The judge found that the Applicant's financial difficulties are of present security significance, leading to a denial of his security clearance under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant owed $424 in unpaid fines to a county superior court for incidents that occurred in June of 1998, and in November of 1999. These fines have been paid. $424	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.b	The Applicant owes $802 in past due indebtedness to a bank. Due to his current loss of employment, the Applicant has been unable to address this past due indebtedness. $802	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.c	The Applicant owed $400 in unpaid fines to a city justice superior court for an incident that occurred in January of 1997. He has recently paid $50 towards this past due indebtedness. $400	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts	—	—
1.d	The Applicant owes $4,087 in past due indebtedness to a second bank. Due to his current loss of employment, he has been unable to address this past due indebtedness. $4,087	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e	The Applicant owes $1,847 in past due indebtedness to a financial institution. Due to his current loss of employment, he has been unable to address this past due indebtedness. $1,847	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	(a) inability to satisfy debts (b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—

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

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The judge found against the applicant on several allegations of criminal conduct, including multiple instances of criminal damaging and driving with canceled insurance. However, the judge noted that the applicant's past criminal conduct was not recent enough to be of present security significance, leading to a decision that ultimately denied the security clearance based on financial considerations rather than criminal conduct.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Offense	Criminal disposition	Response	Disqualifying (¶31)	Mitigating applied (¶32)	Mitigation
2.a	In January of 1997, the Applicant was cited for, and subsequently charged with driving while having Cancelled Insurance. He initially failed to appear in court and was subsequently fined $412.	Against Applicant	Traffic Offense Pattern	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.b	In June of 1998, the Applicant was arrested for, charged with, and subsequently found guilty of Criminal Damaging. He and his supervisor had a argument. He 'slammed a door open and put a hole in the wall'. The Applicant was fined $320 as a result of this conviction.	Against Applicant	Vandalism or Property Damage	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—
2.c	In November of 1999, the Applicant was again arrested for, charged with, and subsequently found guilty of Criminal Damaging. He and his girlfriend had a argument. He 'turned around and kicked the door'. The Applicant was fined $370 as a result of this conviction.	Against Applicant	Vandalism or Property Damage	Convicted	Unknown	(a) pattern of minor offenses casting doubt on judgment/reliability	—	—

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case (Guideline J). 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: February 12, 2003 In Re: ------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 02-24419 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE RICHARD A. CEFOLA

SYNOPSIS The Applicant's past criminal conduct and rule violations are distant enough in time so as not to be of present security significance. That same can not be said of his present financial situation, however. The Applicant has over $7,000 in past due indebtedness, which, because of a recent loss of employment, he is unable to address. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On September 3, 2002, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865 and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the Applicant, which detailed the 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 the Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether a clearance should be denied or revoked. Applicant filed an Answer to the SOR on September 16, 2002. The case was received by the undersigned on November 8, 2002. A notice of hearing was issued on November 26, 2002, and the case was heard on January 9, 2003. The Government submitted documentary evidence. Testimony was taken from the Applicant, who also submitted documentary evidence. The transcript was received on January 17, 2003. The issues raised here are whether the Applicant's past criminal conduct, rule violations, and present financial difficulties militate against the granting of a security clearance.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following Findings of Fact are based on Applicant's Answer to the SOR, the documents and the live testimony. The Applicant is 31 years of age, has an Associates Degree, and was employed by a defense contractor who sought a security clearance on behalf of the Applicant. Guideline F - Financial Considerations The Applicant had is employment terminated in June of 1998, in May of 1999, and again in April of 2000; and as a result, incurred the following past due indebtedness: 1.a. The Applicant owed $424 in unpaid fines to a county superior court for incidents that occurred in June of 1998, and in November of 1999, as set forth in subparagraphs 2.b. and 2.c., below (Transcript (TR) at page 26 lines 3–19, and Government Exhibit (GX) 9 at pages 1, and 2 ). These fines have been paid (Applicant's Exhibit (AppX) A at pages 1, 3 and 4). 1.b. The Applicant owes $802 in past due indebtedness to a bank (TR at page 26 line 20 to page 27 line 1, at page 29 lines 5–7, and GX 2 at page 3). Due to his current loss of employment, the Applicant was terminated by a defense contractor on October 24, 2002, he has been unable to address this past due indebtedness (id). 1.c. The Applicant owed $400 in unpaid fines to a city justice superior court for an incident that occurred in January of 1997, as set forth in subparagraph 2.a., below (TR at page 29 line 8 to page 31 line 7, And GX 9 at page 7). He has recently paid $50 towards this past due indebtedness (AppX A at pages 1 and 2). 1.d. The Applicant owes $4,087 in past due indebtedness to a second bank (TR at page 31 line 10 to page 32 line 11, and GX 11). Due to his current loss of employment, he has been unable to address this past due indebtedness (id). 1.e. The Applicant owes $1,847 in past due indebtedness to a financial institution (TR at page 32 lines 12–16, GX 2 at pages 4 and 5, and GX 11). Due to his current loss of employment, he has been unable to address this past due indebtedness (id). Guideline J - Criminal Conduct 2.a. In January of 1997, the Applicant was cited for, and subsequently charged with driving while having Cancelled Insurance (TR at page 34 lines 4–19, and Gx 9 at page 7). He initially failed to appear in court and was subsequently fined $412 (id). 2.b. In June of 1998, the Applicant was arrested for, charged with, and subsequently found guilty of Criminal Damaging (TR at page 35 line 20 to page 36 line 21, and GX 9 at page 2). He and his supervisor had a argument. He "slammed a door open and put a hole in the wall" (id). The Applicant was fined $320 as a result of this conviction (ibid). 2.c. In November of 1999, the Applicant was again arrested for, charged with, and subsequently found guilty of Criminal Damaging (TR at page 36 line 22 to page 37 line 12). He and his girlfriend had a argument. He "turned around and kicked the door" (id). The Applicant was fined $370 as a result of this conviction (ibid). Guideline E - Personal Conduct 3.a. In June of 1998, the Applicant was terminated from his employment with the public school for insubordination (TR at page 38 line 25 to page 39 line 17, and GX 1 at page 9, and GX 8). He had several disagreements with his supervisor (TR at page 35 line 20 to page 36 line 21). 3.b. In May of 1999, the Applicant was terminated from his employment with a computer center for taking time off from employment without his supervisor's approval (TR at page 39 line 18 to page 40 line 18, and GX 1 at page 9). 3.c. In April of 2000, the Applicant was terminated from his employment with an express company for circumstances beyond his control, his insurance carrier would not cover his working for the express company (TR at page 40 line 19 to page 41 line 13, and at page 45 line 10 to page 46 line 8). Mitigation Two coworkers and a friend think highly of the Applicant (AppX A at pages 6–8).

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 and Section E2.2. of the 1992 Directive set forth both policy factors and conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern, and which must be given binding consideration in making security clearance determinations. The conditions should be followed in every case according to the pertinent criterion, however, the conditions are neither automatically determinative of the decision in any case, nor can they supersede the Administrative Judge's reliance on his own common sense. Because each security clearance case presents its own unique facts and circumstances, it should not be assumed that these conditions exhaust the realm of human experience, or apply equally in every case. Conditions most pertinent to evaluation of this case are: Financial Considerations Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: 1. A history of not meeting financial obligations; 3. Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; Condition that could mitigate security concerns include: 3. The conditions that resulted in the behavior were largely beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment . . . ); Criminal Conduct Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: 1. Allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged; 2. A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses. Condition that could mitigate security concerns include: 1. The criminal behavior was not recent; Personal Conduct Condition that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include: 5. A pattern of . . . rule violations; Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include: None As set forth in the Directive, each clearance decision must be a fair and impartial common sense determination based upon consideration of all the relevant and material information and the pertinent criteria and adjudication policy in enclosure 2, including as appropriate: a. Nature, extent, seriousness of the conduct, and surrounding circumstances. b. Frequency and recency of the conduct. c. Age and maturity of the applicant. d. Motivation of the applicant, and the extent to which the conduct was negligent, willful, voluntary, or undertaken with knowledge of the consequence involved. e. Absence or presence of rehabilitation. f. Probability that circumstances or conduct will continue or recur in the future. The Administrative Judge, however, can only draw those inferences or conclusions that have a reasonable and logical basis in the evidence of record. The Judge cannot draw inferences or conclusions based on evidence which is speculative or conjectural in nature. The Government must make out a case under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) which establishes doubt about a person's judgment, reliability and trustworthiness. While a rational connection, or nexus, must be shown between an applicant's adverse conduct and his ability to effectively safeguard classified information, with respect to sufficiency of proof of a rational connection, objective or direct evidence is not required. Then, the Applicant must remove that doubt with substantial evidence in refutation, explanation, mitigation or extenuation, which demonstrates that the past adverse conduct is unlikely to be repeated, and that the Applicant presently qualifies for a security clearance. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. The Government must be able to place a high degree of confidence in a security clearance holder to abide by all security rules and regulations at all times and in all places.

CONCLUSION

Considering first the Applicant's past criminal conduct and rule violations (the two terminations that were his fault), he was last arrested in November of 1999 for kicking a door and he was terminated in May of 1999 for taking time off without his employer's permission. Although this conduct can not be condoned, they last occurred more than two years ago; and as such, I find that the Applicant's past minor criminal conduct and personal conduct are not recent enough in time so as to be of present security significance. Guidelines E and J are found for the Applicant. The same can not be said as to his current financial situation, however. The Applicant has in excess of $7,000 in past due indebtedness. Other than paying $474 in court fines, due to his recent loss of employment, the Applicant is unable to address his financial responsibilities, as required by the last mitigating condition under Financial Considerations. One hopes that the Applicant will find employment which will enable the Applicant to begin paying on his past due indebtedness, but his current, unaddressed financial difficulties are of present security significance. Guideline F is therefor found against the Applicant. Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has not rebutted the Government's case regarding his financial difficulties. The Applicant has thus not met the mitigating conditions of Guideline F, and of Section E2.2. of the Directive. Accordingly, he has not met his ultimate burden of persuasion under Guideline F.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal Findings required by paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are: Paragraph 1: AGAINST THE APPLICANT a. For the Applicant. b. Against the Applicant. c. Against the Applicant. d. Against the Applicant. e. Against the Applicant. Paragraph 2: FOR THE APPLICANT a. For the Applicant. b. For the Applicant. c. For the Applicant. Paragraph 3: FOR THE APPLICANT a. For the Applicant. b. For the Applicant. c. For the Applicant. Factual support and reasons for the foregoing are set forth in FINDINGS OF FACT and CONCLUSIONS, supra.

DECISION

In light of the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant. Richard A. Cefola Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

02-24419.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Melvin A. Howry, Esquire, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-24419.h1.html[6/24/2021 11:07:30 AM] 02-24419.h1