CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 03-20789.h1 — CASE

ISCR Case 03-20789.h1granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 03-20789.h1

grantedApr 26, 2005· Hon. Richard A. Cefola· hearing

Summary

A 46-year-old defense contractor employee was granted a security clearance despite initial concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The Statement of Reasons cited several past due debts and the repossession of a motor vehicle. Additionally, the Applicant's 2002 Security Clearance Application (SCA) disclosed the vehicle repossession but indicated no awareness of other debts exceeding 90 or 180 days.

Disqualifying conditions related to financial considerations were raised, specifically regarding a history of not meeting financial obligations and an inability to satisfy debts. However, the Applicant demonstrated significant mitigating actions. He fully paid a $75 cable television debt and made a $194 payment toward a $430 department store debt. He also increased monthly payments from $125 to $250 for a $3,287 military exchange debt and is making $200 monthly payments for an $11,245 debt related to the repossessed vehicle.

The Administrative Judge found that the Applicant had addressed or was actively addressing all alleged past due debts, demonstrating a good-faith effort to repay or resolve them. Crucially, there was no evidence of willful falsification in his SCA. Based on these mitigating factors, the security clearance was granted.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The Applicant has addressed or is in the process of addressing all alleged past due debts.
The Applicant demonstrated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or resolve debts.
There was no willful falsification in the Applicant's Security Clearance Application.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F.2.araisedHistory of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
F.2.craisedInability or Unwillingness to Satisfy Debts

Mitigating

F.3appliedInitiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
E.2appliedNo Willful Falsification

Key Rule Quoted

“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.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedSep 21, 2004
Answer filedOct 14, 2004
Hearing heldFeb 23, 2005previously assigned to another judge
Decision dateApr 26, 2005

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Obligations Under Guideline F
No Willful Falsification Under Guideline E
Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts as a Mitigating Factor

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant did not willfully falsify information on his Security Clearance Application. He disclosed a motor vehicle repossession and was unaware of other past due debts. The applicant's credibility was supported by his supervisors, and he is actively addressing his financial obligations. Therefore, the judge ruled in favor of the applicant under Guideline E.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	In November of 2002, the Applicant executed a Security Clearance Application (SCA). He disclosed that his motor vehicle had been repossessed in answer to question 35, but was unaware he had any past due debts in excess of 90 or 180 days in answer to questions 38 and 39.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	—
2.b	In November of 2002, the Applicant executed a Security Clearance Application (SCA). He disclosed that his motor vehicle had been repossessed in answer to question 35, but was unaware he had any past due debts in excess of 90 or 180 days in answer to questions 38 and 39.	For Applicant	Omission or Failure to DiscloseNOT DELIBERATE	Financial	Denied	—	(c) offense is minor, long ago, infrequent, or unique circumstances	—

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: granted

The Applicant has addressed or is in the process of addressing all alleged past due debts, with one debt paid and payments being made towards the others. The judge found that the Applicant's financial considerations were mitigated, leading to a decision in favor of granting the security clearance.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	The Applicant has paid a $75 debt to a cable television provider $75	For Applicant	Utility or Phone Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	The Applicant has paid $194 towards a $430 debt to a department store $194	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	The Applicant has increased his monthly payments from $125 to $250 towards a $3,287 debt to the military exchange $3,287	For Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Unknown	—	—	—
1.d	The Applicant is making monthly payments of $200 towards an $11,245 debt for a motor vehicle that was repossessed $11,245	For Applicant	Auto Loan Debt	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

SYNOPSIS

KEYWORD: Financial; Personal Conduct

DIGEST: The Applicant has addressed, or is in the process of addressing, all of the alleged past due debts. One of the four debts has been paid, and he is making payments towards the other three alleged past due debts. I find no willful falsification here. When the Applicant executed his November 2002 Security Clearance Application (SCA), he disclosed a motor vehicle repossession, but was unaware of that the other three debts were past due. Mitigation is shown. Guidelines E and F are found for the Applicant. Clearance is granted.

CASENO: 03-20789.h1

DATE: 04/26/2005

DATE: April 26, 2005

In Re:

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

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

Applicant for Security Clearance

ISCR Case No. 03-20789

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

RICHARD A. CEFOLA

APPEARANCES

SYNOPSIS

The Applicant has addressed, or is in the process of addressing, all of the alleged past due debts. One of the four debts has been paid, and he is making payments towards the other three alleged past due debts. I find no willful falsification here. When the Applicant executed his November 2002 Security Clearance Application (SCA), he disclosed a motor vehicle repossession, but was unaware of that the other three debts were past due. Mitigation is shown. Guidelines E and F are found for the Applicant. Clearance is granted.

STATEMENT OF CASE

On September 21, 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, 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 October 14, 2004.

The case was received by the undersigned on February 22, 2005. A notice of hearing had already been issued on February 1, 2005, as this case had previously been assigned to another judge, and the case was heard on February 23, 2004. The Government submitted documentary evidence. Testimony was taken from the Applicant, who also submitted documentary evidence. The transcript (TR) was received on March 4, 2005. The issues raised here are whether the Applicant's Financial Considerations and alleged Personal Conduct militate against the granting of a security clearance. [The Applicant only admits the underlying factual basis of the department store debt, 1.b. He denies all the other allegations.]

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 46 years of age, and is employed by a defense contractor who seeks a security clearance on behalf of the Applicant. After a complete and thorough review of the evidence in the record, and upon due consideration of the same, I make the following additional findings of fact.

Guideline F - Financial Considerations

The Applicant was maintaining two households, one in the U.S. and one in Korea (TR at page 19 line 23 to page 21 line 10). All of his alleged past due debts were incurred prior to the Applicant retiring from the active duty Army and moving to Korea as a contractor (Id). By far his largest debt was for his motor vehicle which the title holder would not permit the Applicant to take it to Korea (Ibid). He now has a positive monthly cash flow of between $700 and $800 (TR at page 21 lines 11–15).

1.a. The Applicant has paid a $75 debt to a cable television provider (TR at page 14 lines 15–22, and Applicant's Exhibit (AppX) C at page 4).

1.b. The Applicant has paid $194 towards a $430 debt to a department store (TR at page 16 lines 8–20, at page 35 lines 1–22, and AppX C at page 3).

1.c. The Applicant has increased his monthly payments from $125 to $250 towards a $3,287 debt to the military exchange (TR at page 16 line 22 to page 18 line 9, at page 29 line 17 to page 31 line 3, and AppX C at pages 1 and 2).

1.d. The Applicant is making monthly payments of $200 towards an $11,245 debt for a motor vehicle that was repossessed (TR at page 18 line 11 to page 19 line 18, at page 23 line 16 to page 27 line 17, at page 28 line 13 to age 29 line 16, and AppX D at page 1). The creditor is now willing to settle this debt for $8,500 (AppX D at page 1). Guideline E - Personal Conduct

2.a. and 2.b. In November of 2002, the Applicant executed a Security Clearance Application (SCA) (Government Exhibit (GX) 1). He disclosed that his motor vehicle had been repossessed in answer to question 35, but was unaware he had any past due debts in excess of 90 or 180 days in answer to questions 38 and 39 (TR at page 21 line 20 to page 22 line 8, at page 36 line 13 to page 38 line 1, and GX 1 at pages 7–8).

Mitigation

The Applicant immediate supervisor and his program manager both think most highly of the Applicant and would recommend his to a position of trust (AppXs A and B).

POLICIES

Enclosure 2 and Section E.2.2. of the 1992 Directive set forth both policy factors, and conditions that could raise or mitigate a security concern. Furthermore, 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, and 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 that is speculative or conjectural in nature.

The Government must make out a case under Guidelines E (Personal Conduct), and F (Financial Considerations); 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.

Unacceptable Personal Conduct are conduct involving questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations. 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 Financial Considerations, the first and third disqualifying conditions are applicable as the Applicant had a "history of not meeting [his] financial obligations," and there was an "[i]inabilty or unwillingness to satisfy [his] debts." However, the Applicant has now either addressed or is in the process of addressing, through payments or payment plans, all of his alleged past due debts. The last mitigating condition is therefore applicable as he has "initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts." Mitigation is shown. Guideline F is found for the Applicant.

As to his alleged wilful falsification, I can find no intent to keep information from the Government. When the Applicant filled out his SCA, he disclosed the repossession. He was unaware that he had any past due debts in excess of 90 or 180 days. The Applicant's credibility is attested to by both his immediate supervisor and his program manager. He thus answered the posited questions truthfully and to the best of his ability. Guideline E is also found for the Applicant.

Considering all the evidence, the Applicant has rebutted the Government's case regarding his Financial Considerations, and his Personal Conduct. The Applicant has thus met the mitigating conditions of Guidelines E and F, and of Section E.2.2. of the Directive. Accordingly, he has met his ultimate burden of persuasion under Guidelines E and F.

FORMAL FINDINGS

Formal Findings required by paragraph 25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive are:

Paragraph 1: FOR THE APPLICANT

a. For the Applicant.

b. For the Applicant.

c. For the Applicant.

d. For the Applicant.

Paragraph 2: FOR THE APPLICANT a. For the Applicant.

b. 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 clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for the Applicant.

Richard A. Cefola

Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

FOR GOVERNMENT Edward W. Loughran, Esquire, Department Counsel file:///usr.osd.mil/...Computer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/03-20789.h1.htm[6/24/2021 3:34:09 PM] FOR APPLICANT Pro Se