CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 03-00920.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 03-00920.h1denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-00920.h1

deniedJul 13, 2004· Hon. John Grattan Metz, Jr.· hearing

Summary

A 28-year-old defense contractor was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to a history of financial irresponsibility. The applicant had ten delinquent credit accounts, totaling over $5,000, which fell past due between May 1997 and May 2003. These financial difficulties were not attributed to circumstances beyond his control.

Despite stating intentions to resolve his debts by specific dates, including October 2003 and March 2002 for certain accounts, credit reports from July 2003 and May 2004 indicated these debts remained unpaid. The applicant also failed to document any payments made, contacts with creditors, or participation in credit counseling.

The decision concluded that the applicant's financial situation had deteriorated, rather than improved, and he had made no arrangements to satisfy the outstanding debts. Consequently, the security clearance was denied.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant has a history of financial difficulties dating back to 1997.
He has ten delinquent credit accounts totaling over $5,000, none of which were caused by circumstances beyond his control.
The applicant failed to document any efforts to resolve his debts or seek credit counseling.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

E2.A6.1.2.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
E2.A6.1.2.3raisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“A security clearance decision is intended to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an Applicant's security clearance.”
— Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988)

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedOct 1, 2003
Answer filedOct 20, 2003Requested decision without a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing held.
Decision dateJul 13, 2004

Cite For

Denial Based on Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Failure to Document Efforts to Resolve Debts
Ongoing Financial Difficulties Not Due to Circumstances Beyond Control

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 irresponsibility and substantial indebtedness led to a denial of his security clearance. The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate the financial concerns raised under Guideline F, as he had numerous delinquent accounts and did not document any efforts to resolve them.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	Applicant has 10 delinquent credit accounts totaling over $5,000.00, that fell past due between May 1997 and May 2003. $5,000	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	Applicant has a history of financial difficulties and irresponsibility dating back to 1997.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	None of these debts were caused by circumstances beyond his control.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	Applicant has not documented any credit counseling, just as he has not documented any of his claimed payments or his claimed contacts with creditors.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.e	Applicant's most recent credit report suggests his financial situation has not improved, but has instead deteriorated.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.f	Applicant stated his intent to pay the debts at 1.a. and 1.g. by October 2003, but those debts remained unpaid according to a May 2004 credit bureau report.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.g	Applicant has made no arrangements to satisfy any of the outstanding debts.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.h	Applicant intended to resolve the debts and was expecting to pay off one of the accounts by March 2002, yet those accounts remained unpaid according to a July 2003 credit bureau report.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.i	Applicant denied the allegations at 1.i. and 1.j. as accounts he did not recognize.	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Denied	—	—	—
1.j	specific text not stated in this decision	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—

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: July 13, 2004 In Re: ----------------------- SSN: ----------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 03-00920 ECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE JOHN G. METZ, JR.

SYNOPSIS Applicant's pattern of financial irresponsibility renders him an unsuitable candidate for a security clearance. Clearance denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

Applicant challenges the 1 October 2003 Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) Statement of Reasons (SOR) recommending denial or revocation of his clearance because of financial considerations. (1) He answered the SOR on 20 October 2003 and requested a decision without a hearing. He did not respond to the Government's File of Relevant Material (FORM), issued 12 May 2004. The record in this case closed 19 June 2004, the day the response was due. The case was assigned to me 9 July 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

Applicant admitted the SOR allegations, except for the debt at 1.f., which he neither admitted nor denied, and the allegations at 1.i. and 1.j., which he denied as accounts he did not recognize. Accordingly, I incorporate his admissions as findings of fact. Applicant--a 28-year-old employee of a defense contractor--seeks access to classified information. He previously had a clearance in 1998. Applicant has a history of financial difficulties and irresponsibility dating back to 1997. He has 10 delinquent credit accounts totaling over $5,000.00, that fell past due between May 1997 and and May 2003. None of these debts were caused by circumstances beyond his control. In a January 2002 interview, he admitted falling into debt because of his irresponsible use of credit, but also stated that he intended to resolve the debts, and was expecting to pay off one of the accounts (1.h.) by March 2002. Yet, those accounts remained unpaid according to a July 2003 credit bureau report. Applicant's July 2003 response to interrogatories stated his intent to pay the debts at 1a. and 1.g. by October 2003, but those debts remained unpaid according to a May 2004 credit bureau report--which also showed additional accounts falling delinquent since the SOR was issued. Applicant has previously stated his intention to resolve his debts and to seek credit counseling, yet he has not documented any credit counseling, just as he has not documented any of his claimed payments or his claimed contacts with creditors.

POLICIES

The Directive, Enclosure 2 sets forth adjudicative guidelines to be considered in evaluating an Applicant's suitability for access to classified information. The Administrative Judge must take into account both disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each adjudicative issue fairly raised by the facts and circumstances presented. Each adjudicative decision must also reflect a fair and impartial common sense consideration of the factors listed in Section 6.3. of the Directive. The presence or absence of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not determinative for or against Applicant. However, specific adjudicative guidelines should be followed whenever a case can be measured against them, as they represent policy guidance governing the grant or denial of access to classified information. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, I conclude the relevant, applicable, adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations). BURDENS A security clearance decision is intended to resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an Applicant's security clearance. The government must prove--by something less than a preponderance of the evidence--controverted facts alleged in the SOR. If it does so, it establishes a prima facie case against access to classified information. Applicant must then refute, extenuate or mitigate the Government's case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the Applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion. A person who has access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. The Government, therefore, has a compelling interest in ensuring each Applicant possesses the requisite judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own. The "clearly consistent with the national interest" standard compels resolution of any reasonable doubt about an Applicant's suitability for access in favor of the Government. (2)

CONCLUSION

The Government has established its case under Guideline F and Applicant has not mitigated the security concerns. The record demonstrates Applicant's substantial indebtedness, acquired through his own irresponsibility, and largely ignored since before his January 2002 subject interview. Indeed, five of the delinquent accounts alleged in the SOR fell delinquent after the interview. His most recent credit report suggests his financial situation has not improved, but has instead deteriorated. He has made no arrangements to satisfy any of the outstanding debts. His response to his delinquent accounts bespeaks a financial irresponsibility inconsistent with access to classified information (3) Applicant meets none of the mitigating factors for financial considerations. His financial difficulties are both recent and not isolated; indeed they are ongoing. They are not due to circumstances beyond his control. He has not stopped digging himself into a financial hole, much less started to pull himself out of it. I conclude Guideline F against Applicant.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST THE APPLICANT Subparagraph a: Against the Applicant Subparagraph b: Against the Applicant Subparagraph c: Against the Applicant Subparagraph d: Against the Applicant Subparagraph e: Against the Applicant Subparagraph f: Against the Applicant Subparagraph g: Against the Applicant Subparagraph h: Against the Applicant Subparagraph i: Against the Applicant Subparagraph 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 Applicant. John G. Metz, Jr. Administrative Judge 1. Required by Executive Order 10865, as amended and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6, as amended (Directive). 2. See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988). 3. E2.A6.1.2.1. A history of not meeting financial obligations; E2.A6.1.2.3. Inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;

FOOTNOTES

03-00920.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Jason Perry, Esquire, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-00920.h1.html[6/24/2021 3:07:52 PM] 03-00920.h1