CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 02-31874.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 02-31874.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 02-31874.h1

deniedApr 29, 2004· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old Installation Technician II was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial indebtedness. The Statement of Reasons detailed ten separate allegations of outstanding debts. These included approximately $138.00 owed to a utility company, $353.00 and $145.00 to two different telephone companies, and $91.00 to a television company. Additionally, the applicant owed a city approximately $196.00 across three accounts.

Further debts included approximately $1,146.00 to one bank, which was settled in full as of July 23, 2003. Other outstanding amounts were approximately $879.00 to another bank, $1,132.00 to a creditor, and $1,281.00 to a third bank. Finally, the applicant was indebted to an education department for approximately $623.00 in delinquent student loans.

The denial was based on the applicant's history of excessive indebtedness and minimal effort to repay outstanding debts. Only one of the ten alleged debts had been settled, with the majority remaining unpaid. The applicant failed to provide persuasive evidence to mitigate concerns regarding financial irresponsibility, leading to the conclusion that his financial conduct posed a security risk.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of excessive indebtedness and has made little effort to pay off outstanding debts.
Only one of the applicant's debts has been settled, while the majority remain unpaid.
The applicant did not provide persuasive evidence to mitigate the government's concerns regarding financial irresponsibility.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

DC 1appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
DC 3appliedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedAug 25, 2003
Answer filedSep 22, 2003Applicant elected to have the case determined on a written record.
Hearing held—No hearing; case determined on written record.
Decision dateApr 29, 2004

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility as a Disqualifying Factor Under Guideline F
Lack of Mitigating Factors in Cases of Unresolved Financial Obligations
Importance of Demonstrating Good Faith Efforts to Resolve Debts in Security Clearance Cases.

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's financial history revealed multiple outstanding debts, with only one debt settled. The judge found that the applicant had not made a good faith effort to repay creditors, leading to a denial of the security clearance under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant is indebted to a utility company in the approximate amount of $138.00. $138	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.b	The Applicant is indebted to a telephone company in the approximate amount of $353.00. $353	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.c	The Applicant is indebted to a telephone company in the approximate amount of $145.00. $145	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.d	The Applicant is indebted to a television company in the approximate amount of $91.00. $91	Against Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.e	The Applicant is indebted to a city for three separate accounts totaling approximately $196.00. $196	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.f	The Applicant is indebted to a bank in the approximate amount of $1,146.00. The Applicant submitted documentation showing that the debt was settled in full as of July 23, 2003. $1,146	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.g	The Applicant is indebted to a bank in the approximate amount of $879.00. $879	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.h	The Applicant is indebted to a creditor in the approximate amount of $1,132.00. $1,132	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.i	The Applicant is indebted to a bank in the approximate amount of $1,281.00. $1,281	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	—	—
1.j	The Applicant is indebted to an education department in the approximate amount of $623.00 for delinquent student loans. $623	Against Applicant	Student Loan Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (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

APPEARANCES

DATE: April 29, 2004 In Re: ----------------------- SSN: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 02-31874 DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE DARLENE LOKEY ANDERSON

SYNOPSIS Applicant's history of financial indebtedness has not been mitigated by a good faith effort to repay his creditors or otherwise resolve his financial indebtedness. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On August 25, 2003, 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, (as amended) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to the 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 the Applicant and recommended referral to an Administrative Judge to determine whether clearance should be denied or revoked. The Applicant responded to the SOR in writing on September 22, 2003, in which he elected to have the case determined on a written record in lieu of a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government's File of Relevant Material (FORM) to the Applicant on November 24, 2003. The Applicant was instructed to submit information in rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt. Applicant received the FORM on December 1, 2003, and did not submit a reply. The case was assigned to the undersigned for resolution on April 26, 2003.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Applicant is 39 years old. He is employed as a Installation Technician II by a defense contractor and is applying for a security clearance in connection with his employment. The Government opposes the Applicant's request for a security clearance, on the basis of allegations set forth in the Statement of Reasons (SOR). The following findings of fact are entered as to each paragraph and guideline in the SOR: The Applicant admits to each of the allegations set forth in the SOR. (See Government's Exhibit 3). One of the ten debts listed has been settled, another is in the process of being settled. The rest remain outstanding. (See Government Exhibit 3). The Applicant indicates that between November 2000 and June 2001, he became delinquent on several financial accounts due to overextending his credit. He then went to a consumer credit counseling agency for help. They consolidated his delinquent debts into one monthly payment of $150.00 that he paid from about January 2001 until June 2001. Several of the Applicant's creditors did not accept his debt consolidation. The Applicant then stopped making payments toward the debts. He had hoped that all of his indebtedness would be paid off by 2002. (See Government Exhibit 6). The Applicant states that he has recently received word that he has inherited money that will allow him to pay off most, if not all of his delinquent debts. (See Government Exhibit 3). The Government's evidence, namely the Applicant's credit report, supports each of the allegations in the SOR. (See Government Exhibit 7). The following debts remain outstanding and owing by the Applicant: The Applicant is indebted to a utility company in the approximate amount of $138.00. Applicant's credit report indicates that as of May 6, 2003, the debt had not been paid. (See Government Exhibit 7). The Applicant is indebted to a telephone company in the approximate amount of $353.00. Applicant's credit report indicates that as of May 6, 2003, this debt had not been paid. (See Government Exhibit 7). The Applicant is indebted to a telephone company in the approximate amount of $145.00. Applicant's credit report indicates that as of May 6, 2003, this debt had not been paid. (See Government Exhibit 7). The Applicant is indebted to a television company in the approximate amount of $91.00. Applicant's credit report indicates that as of May 6, 2003, this debt had not been paid. (See Government Exhibit 7). The Applicant is indebted to a city for three separate accounts totaling approximately $196.00. Applicant's credit report indicates that as of May 6, 2003, this debt had not been paid. (See Government Exhibit 7). The Applicant is indebted to a bank in the approximate amount of $1,146.00. Applicant's credit report indicates that as of May 6, 2003, this debt had not been paid. (See Government Exhibit 7). The Applicant submitted documentation showing that the debt was settled in full as of July 23, 2003. The Applicant is indebted to a bank in the approximate amount of $879.00. Applicant's credit report indicates that as of May 6, 2003, this debt had not been paid. (See Government Exhibit 7). The Applicant is indebted to a creditor in the approximate amount of $1,132.00. Applicant's credit report indicates that as of May 6, 2003, this debt had not been paid. (See Government Exhibit 7). The Applicant is indebted to a bank in the approximate amount of $1,281.00. Applicant's credit report indicates that as of May 6, 2003, this debt had not been paid. (See Government Exhibit 7). The Applicant is indebted to an education department in the approximate amount of $623.00 for delinquent student loans. Applicant's credit report indicates that as of May 6, 2003, this debt had not been paid. (See Government Exhibit 7).

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 of the Directive sets forth adjudication policies divided into "Disqualifying Factors" and "Mitigating Factors." The following Disqualifying Factors and Mitigating Factors are found to be applicable in this case: Guideline F (Financial Considerations) Conditions that could raise a security concern: 1. A history of not meeting financial obligations; 3. Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts. Condition that could mitigate security concerns include: None. In addition, as set forth in Enclosure 2 of the Directive at pages 16-17, in evaluating the relevance of an individual's conduct, the Administrative Judge should consider the following general factors: a. The nature and seriousness of the conduct and surrounding circumstances b. The circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation c. The frequency and recency of the conduct d. The individual's age and maturity at the time of the conduct e. The voluntariness of participation f. The presence or absence of rehabilitation and other pertinent behavior changes g. The motivation for the conduct h. The potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation or duress i. The likelihood of continuation or recurrence. The eligibility criteria established in the DoD Directive identify personal characteristics and conduct which are reasonably related to the ultimate question, posed in Section 2 of Executive Order 10865, of whether it is "clearly consistent with the national interest" to grant an Applicant's request for access to classified information. The DoD Directive states, "The adjudicative process is an examination of a sufficient period of a person's life to make an affirmative determination that the person is an acceptable security risk. Eligibility for access to classified information is predicted upon the individual meeting these personnel security guidelines. The adjudicative process is the careful weighing of a number of variables known as the whole person concept. Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable should be considered in reaching a determination." The Administrative Judge can draw only those inferences or conclusions that have 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. Finally, as emphasized by President Eisenhower in Executive Order 10865, "Any determination under this order . . . shall be a determination in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the Applicant concerned."

CONCLUSION

In the defense industry, the security of classified industrial secrets is entrusted to civilian workers who must be counted upon to safeguard such sensitive information twenty-four hours per day, seven days per week. The Government is therefore appropriately concerned when available information indicates that an Applicant for clearance may be involved in instances of financial irresponsibility which demonstrates poor judgment or unreliability. It is the Government's responsibility to present substantial evidence to support the finding of a nexus, or rational connection, between the Applicant's conduct and the holding of a security clearance. If such a case has been established, the burden then shifts to the Applicant to go forward with evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation which is sufficient to overcome or outweigh the Government's case. The Applicant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion in proving that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her a security clearance. In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the Applicant was financially irresponsible (Guideline F). This evidence indicates poor judgment, unreliability and untrustworthiness on the part of the Applicant. Because of the scope and nature of the Applicant's conduct, I conclude there is a nexus or connection with her security clearance eligibility. Considering all of the evidence, the Applicant has not introduced persuasive evidence in rebuttal, explanation or mitigation that is sufficient to overcome the Government's case. With respect to his finances, the Applicant has a history of excessive indebtedness and has made little effort, if any, to pay off his outstanding debts or to further explain his financial situation. Only one of his debts has been settled. The Applicant indicates that he has recently received word that he has inherited money that will allow him to pay off his indebtedness. However, at the present time, all but one of these debts remain outstanding. His financial statement indicates that he is capable of paying some of his past due debts, which are not large, but for some reason he has chosen not to pay them. Disqualifying conditions (DC)1, a history of not meeting financial obligations; and (DC)3, an inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts, apply and have not been mitigated. The Applicant's financial problems remain current, (MC)1, they are not isolated (MC2), and the Applicant has not initiated a good faith effort to repay his overdue creditors or otherwise resolve his debts (MC)3. Consequently, I must find that none of the mitigating factors set forth in the Directive under Guideline F apply. Accordingly, I find against the Applicant under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). On balance, it is concluded that the Applicant has failed to overcome the Government's case opposing her request for a security clearance. Accordingly, the evidence supports a finding against the Applicant as to the factual and conclusionary allegations expressed in Paragraph 1 of the Government's Statement of Reasons.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal findings For or Against the Applicant on the allegations in the SOR, as required by Paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are: Paragraph 1: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.a.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.b.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.c.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.d.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.e.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.f.: For the Applicant. Subpara. 1.g.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.h.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.i.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.j.: Against the Applicant.

DECISION

In light of all 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. Darlene Lokey Anderson Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

02-31874.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Melvin A. Howry, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...omputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/02-31874.h1.html[6/24/2021 11:18:45 AM] 02-31874.h1