Loading case…

ISCR 03-10656.h1: Guideline F security clearance hearing, denied (2004) · CASE

ISCR Case 03-10656.h1denied

Case headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-10656.h1

deniedDec 20, 2004· Hon. Darlene Lokey Anderson· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old defense contractor employee was denied a security clearance under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to significant and unresolved financial indebtedness. The applicant owed approximately $13,000 to six separate creditors, with all debts remaining outstanding and delinquent.

The Statement of Reasons highlighted that the applicant had not made a good faith effort to resolve these debts and stated he did not earn enough money to pay them. Furthermore, there was no evidence of financial rehabilitation or reform, and his financial problems were current and not isolated.

The judge concluded that the applicant's financial irresponsibility demonstrated poor judgment and unreliability. Given the ongoing nature of the financial issues and the lack of effort to resolve them, the security clearance was denied.

Why the applicant was denied

The applicant has over $13,000 in delinquent debt and has not made a good faith effort to resolve his financial obligations.
There is no evidence of financial rehabilitation or reform on the part of the applicant.
The applicant's financial issues are ongoing and not isolated.

Conditions referenced

Disqualifying

F.1raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
F.3raisedInability 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 issuedMay 10, 2004
Answer filed—Date uncertain, applicant elected to proceed without a hearing.
Hearing held—Written record in lieu of a hearing.
Decision dateDec 20, 2004

Cite for

Financial Irresponsibility as a Basis for Security Clearance Denial
Lack of Evidence for Rehabilitation in Financial Matters
Importance of Good Faith Efforts in Resolving Debts 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.

From the decision

Facts this decision states, each with the exact sentence it comes from. Descriptive of the record, not an assessment.

Age at decision: 39: “The Applicant is 39 years old.”
Delinquent debt cited: $13,000: “He is indebted to six separate creditors totally an amount of approximately $13,000.00.”

Standardized Decision Profile

SEAD-4 Guideline F · descriptive summary of a decided case

Posture: Decision on RecordDecided: denied

The applicant was found to have significant financial issues, with over $13,000 in delinquent debts and no evidence of a good faith effort to resolve them. The judge ruled against the applicant on all financial allegations, concluding that the applicant's financial irresponsibility raised security concerns.

The sub-allegation breakdown is part of the Professional plan. See what it includes.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation

Descriptive standardized rendering of a decided public case. 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: December 20, 2004 In Re: ----------------------- SSN: ---------------- Applicant for Security Clearance ISCR Case No. 03-10656 ECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE DARLENE LOKEY ANDERSON

SYNOPSIS Applicant's financial indebtedness remains current and he has not made a good faith effort to resolve his debts. There is no evidence of reform and rehabilitation. Clearance is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On May 10, 2004, 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 a date uncertain, 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 October 4, 2004, consisting of seven documents, referred to as Items 1 through 7. The Applicant was instructed to submit information in rebuttal, extenuation or mitigation within 30 days of receipt. Applicant received the FORM on October 15, 2004, and he submitted no reply. The case was assigned to the undersigned for resolution on November 29, 2004.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The following Findings of Fact are based on the Applicant's Answer to the SOR, and the seven exhibits. The Applicant is 39 years old. He is employed by a defense contractor as a Production Associate and is seeking to obtain his 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: Paragraph 1 (Guideline F - Financial Considerations) The Government alleges that the Applicant is ineligible for clearance because he is financially overextended and at risk to engage in illegal acts to generate funds. The Applicant admits all of the allegations set forth in the SOR. (See Government Item 2). He is indebted to six separate creditors totally an amount of approximately $13,000.00. Each of the debts remains outstanding and delinquent. (See Government Item 2, 5, 6 and 7). In a statement he provided to the Defense Security Service (DSS) dated June 5, 2002, the Applicant indicates that he has no money to pay his debts. (See Government Item 5). His personal financial statement dated October 26, 2003, indicates that he has a net remainder of $227.00 after paying his monthly expenses. This does not include repayment of any of his debts. The Applicant states that he does not earn enough money to pay his delinquent debts. (See Government Item 6).

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. Conditions 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 him a security clearance. In this case the Government has met its initial burden of proving that the Applicant has been 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 his 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 in excess of $13,000.00 in delinquent debt. He has not presented any evidence to show that he has made or is making a good faith effort to pay off his past due creditors or resolve his financial indebtedness. He has done absolutely nothing. Upon review of his financial statement, it appears that he has a small remainder at the end of the month but does not believe that he can afford to pay his past due debts. There is no evidence of financial rehabilitation. All of the debts remain owing, and he remains heavily indebted. None of the mitigating conditions (MC) apply. (His financial problems remain current, (MC)1; they are not isolated, (MC) 2; and the Applicant has not initiated a good faith effort to repay his overdue creditors or otherwise resolve his debts (MC) 3). 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 his 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.: Against the Applicant. Subpara. 1.g.: 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

03-10656.h1 FOR GOVERNMENT Nichole L. Noel, Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-10656.h1.html[6/24/2021 3:17:55 PM] 03-10656.h1