CASE · Clearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-28532.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-28532.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-28532.h1

deniedAug 13, 2004· Hon. Charles D. Ablard· hearing

Summary

A 51-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to over $22,000.00 in delinquent debts. The most significant debt was a back child support obligation exceeding $20,000.00.

While the applicant acknowledged the debts and provided proof of payment for the three smallest obligations, he failed to demonstrate a payment plan or any evidence of payment for the largest child support debt. He also disputed the allegation that his monthly expenses exceeded his income but did not offer supporting evidence to rebut this claim or other government submissions.

The judge found that the applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns, specifically regarding the substantial outstanding child support and a history of financial delinquencies. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant incurred over $22,000.00 in delinquent debts, including a back child support obligation exceeding $20,000.00.
He provided proof of payment for only the three smallest debts and no evidence for the largest debt.
Applicant disputed his monthly expenses exceeding his income but did not provide supporting evidence.

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

Mitigating

E2.A6.1.3.6rejectedGood Faith Effort to Repay Overdue CreditorsApplicant stated he was attempting to resolve debts but provided insufficient evidence.
E2.A6.1.3.3rejectedConditions Largely Beyond the Person's ControlApplicant claimed the child support debt was due to divorce but did not provide evidence.

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 issuedSep 30, 2003
Answer filedNov 10, 2003Applicant elected to have the case decided on the written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; decided on written record.
Decision dateAug 13, 2004

Cite For

Denial of Clearance Due to Significant Delinquent Debts Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence of Financial Rehabilitation
Failure to Demonstrate a Good Faith Effort to Resolve Debts

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 applicant incurred over $22,000 in delinquent debts, including a significant back child support obligation exceeding $20,000. While he provided evidence of payment for three smaller debts, he failed to demonstrate a payment plan or resolution for the larger debts. The judge ruled against the applicant on four of the six allegations, leading to a denial of the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The largest debt was for back child support in the amount of over $20,000.00. $20,000	Against Applicant	Child Support Debt	Admitted	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	He offered evidence of payment of the three smallest debts.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.c	He offered evidence of payment of the three smallest debts.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	(g) arrangements made with the tax authority; in compliance	Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.d	He disputed the allegation that his monthly expenses exceeded his income.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability	—	—
1.e	He acknowledged the debt and the reason for it but offered no evidence of payment or a payment plan.	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	He has had a history of financial delinquencies that disqualify him at this time from having a security clearance.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.g	He failed to offer sufficient evidence to rebut the allegations and the evidence the government has submitted to support them.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	(b) unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of ability (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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Financial

DIGEST: Applicant is a 51-year-old employee of a defense contractor who incurred over $22,000.00 in delinquent debts. He admitted the six debts existed but offered proof of payment of only the three smallest debts. He disputed the allegation that his monthly expenses exceeded his income. The largest debt was for back child support in the amount of over $20,000.00. He acknowledged the debt and the reason for it but offered no evidence of payment or a payment plan. Clearance is denied.

CASENO: 02-28532.h1

DATE: 08/13/2004

DATE: August 13, 2004

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 02-28532

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

CHARLES D. ABLARD

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS

Applicant is a 51-year-old employee of a defense contractor who incurred over $22,000.00 in delinquent debts. He admitted the six debts existed but offered proof of payment of only the three smallest debts. He disputed the allegation that his monthly expenses exceeded his income. The largest debt was for back child support in the amount of over $20,000.00. He acknowledged the debt and the reason for it but offered no evidence of payment or a payment plan. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On September 30, 2003, the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA), pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified 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 November 10, 2003, 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 April 12, 2004. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was provided to the Applicant, and he was afforded an opportunity to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant submitted no additional information and the case was assigned to me on June 8, 2004.

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 51-year-old owner-operator of a truck for a defense contractor who incurred over $22,000.00 in delinquent debts at the time the SOR was prepared. He offered evidence of payment of the three smallest debts (Subparagraphs 1.b., c, and e) even though he questioned one of them.

Two other debts were for hospitalization that he questioned but was trying to resolve. He disputed the allegation that his monthly expenses exceeded his income. The largest debt was for back child support in the amount of over $20,000.00.

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 delinquent debts prompted the allegation in the SOR 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 or unwillingness to satisfy debts. (E2.A6.1.2.3.) Mitigating Conditions (MC) might 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.)

Applicant stated in his answer that he was attempting to resolve the outstanding delinquent debts but offered no evidence, except for three smallest debts, either with the answer or when he had an opportunity to respond to the FORM six months later. He stated that the child support debt was caused by a divorce and that he would begin to pay this debt in monthly payments beginning in March 2004 but no evidence was offered to prove the fact.

As to his expenses exceeding his income, Applicant stated that his income had increased as a result of a business restructuring but offered no evidence to support the statement. He has failed to offer sufficient evidence to rebut the allegations and the evidence the government has submitted to support them. While Applicant offers an argument that he may be attempting to resolve his past financial problems, he offers insufficient evidence to mitigate the fact that he has had a history of financial delinquencies that disqualify him at this time from having a security clearance. I find that none of the mitigating conditions are applicable.

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.

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

Formal findings as required by the Directive (Par. E3.1.25) are as follows:

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 1.a.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.b.: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.c.: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.d.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.e.: For Applicant

Subparagraph 1.f.: Against Applicant

Subparagraph 1.g.: Against Applicant

DECISION

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

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Lynette Andresen, Esq., Department Counsel file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-28532.h1.htm[6/24/2021 11:13:18 AM] FOR APPLICANT Pro Se