CASEClearance Adjudication Search EngineCASE

Loading case…

ISCR Case 06-13879.h2 — CASE

ISCR Case 06-13879.h2denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 06-13879.h2

deniedDec 29, 2006· Hon. Michael H. Leonard· hearing

Summary

A 39-year-old customer service representative was denied a security clearance for an ADP I/II/III position under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). The denial stemmed from approximately $50,000 in delinquent debt across four accounts.

Specifically, the applicant had a charged-off credit card account with an original debt of about $11,755, now owned by a collection agency with a balance of about $18,473. A second charged-off credit card account had an original debt of about $11,548, also owned by a collection agency, with a current balance of about $11,248. Additionally, there was a delinquent collection account for about $13,760, with a current balance of about $13,843, and a fourth charged-off credit card account for about $10,428, with a current balance of about $10,327.

While the applicant acknowledged personal circumstances contributing to her financial difficulties, these issues occurred several years prior. She failed to provide sufficient evidence demonstrating a current good-faith effort to resolve her debts, leading to the denial.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

Applicant has over $50,000 in delinquent debt across four accounts.
She did not present sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns under Guideline F.
The circumstances contributing to her financial issues occurred several years prior and did not demonstrate a current good-faith effort to resolve her debts.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

F1raisedFinancial Considerations

Mitigating

F3rejectedFinancial ConsiderationsWhile personal circumstances contributed to her financial problems, they were insufficient to mitigate the concerns due to lack of recent progress in resolving debts.

Key Rule Quoted

“The standard that must be met for . . . assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, the person's loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that . . . assigning the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security.”
— Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1.

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJul 31, 2006
Answer filedAug 12, 2006Applicant did not request a hearing.
Hearing held—No hearing was conducted.
Decision dateDec 29, 2006

Cite For

Financial Irresponsibility Under Guideline F
Insufficient Evidence to Mitigate Financial Concerns
Impact of Personal Circumstances on Financial Obligations

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 has approximately $50,000 in delinquent debt across four accounts, primarily from charged-off credit card accounts. The judge found that the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial concerns, leading to a denial of eligibility under Guideline F.

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	This is a delinquent debt from a charged-off credit card account for about $11,755. The account is now owned by a collection agency, and the current balance is about $18,473. $18,473	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.b	This is a delinquent debt from a charged-off credit card account for about $11,548. The account is now owned by a collection agency, and the current balance is about $11,248. $11,248	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—
1.c	This is a delinquent collection account for about $13,760. The current balance is about $13,843. $13,843	Against Applicant	Unspecified Financial	Admitted	—	—	—
1.d	This is a delinquent debt from a charged-off credit card account for about $10,428. The current balance is about $10,327. $10,327	Against Applicant	Credit Card Debt	Admitted	—	—	—

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: December 29, 2006

In re:

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

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

Applicant for Trustworthiness Determination

P Case No. 06-13879

DECISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE

MICHAEL H. LEONARD

SYNOPSIS

Applicant has about $50,000 in delinquent debt on four accounts. She failed to present sufficient evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the concerns under Guideline F for financial considerations. Eligibility is denied.

STATEMENT OF CASE

The Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA) reviewed Applicant's eligibility to occupy an information systems position designated as an ADP I, II, or III position to support a contract with the Defense Department. As a result of the review, the agency recommended Applicant's case be submitted to an administrative judge for a determination whether Applicant is eligible to occupy such a position. Under Department of Defense Regulation 5200.2-R (Jan. 1987), as amended (Regulation), and Department of Defense Directive 5220.6 ¶ E3.1.2 (Jan. 2, 1992), as amended (Directive), DOHA issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) on July 31, 2006, detailing the basis for its action-- concerns raised under Guideline F for Financial Considerations. Applicant answered the SOR in writing on August 12, 2006, and indicated she did not wish to have a hearing. On September 25, 2006, department counsel submitted his written case consisting of all relevant and material information that could be adduced at a hearing. This so-called file of relevant material (FORM) was mailed to Applicant and it was received by her on October 10, 2006. Applicant did not submit any information within the 30-day period after receipt. The case was assigned to me on December 13, 2006.

FINDINGS OF FACT

In response to the SOR, Applicant admits the factual allegations in subparagraphs 1.a through 1.d. Her admissions are incorporated herein as findings of fact. In addition, I make the following findings of fact.

1. Applicant is a 39-year-old woman. She is employed as a customer service representative for a company that provides services to the Defense Department. She has worked in this job since May 2001.

2. She married in 1994. She and her husband separated in about February 2002. The current status of her marriage is not established by the record.

3. Applicant has a history of financial problems as evidenced by delinquent consumer debt. The SOR alleges four accounts that have been charged off as bad debt or placed for collection. Applicant's admissions, coupled with the credit reports and other documentary information in the FORM, establish the factual allegations in the SOR. None of the four accounts have been paid, settled, or otherwise resolved by Applicant.

4. Concerning SOR subparagraph 1.a, this is a delinquent debt from a charged-off credit card account for about $11,755. The account is now owned by a collection agency, and the current balance is about $18,473. She paid $50 on this account in July 2006.

5. Concerning SOR subparagraph 1.b, this is a delinquent debt from a charged-off credit card account for about $11,548. The account is now owned by a collection agency, and the current balance is about $11,248.

6. Concerning SOR subparagraph 1.c, this is a delinquent collection account for about $13,760. The current balance is about $13,843.

7. Concerning SOR subparagraph 1.d, this is a delinquent debt from a charged-off credit card account for about $10,428. The current balance is about $10,327. During 2004-2005, Applicant made four payments of $100 each on this account.

8. Because she did not respond to the FORM, the available information in support of Applicant is limited. In her March 2005 written statement, she explained that several circumstances caused her financial hardship. In particular, she explained that in about February 2002, her father passed away and she helped her mother with bills. Then around the same time, she and her husband separated and she was paying the family bills. These circumstances resulted in her falling several months behind on payments. Also, she explained that she has been paying her other bills and does not have any new delinquent accounts.

POLICIES

Positions designated as ADP I or ADP II are classified as sensitive positions; ADP III positions are not. Regulation ¶ AP10.2. By memorandum, dated November 19, 2004, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Counterintelligence and Security directed DOHA to decide all contractor cases submitted for trustworthiness determinations, including ADP I, II, and III, under the Directive. Thus, even though they are nonsensitive positions, ADP III cases are treated in the same way and adjudicated under the same guidelines and procedures as ADP I and II cases.

"The standard that must be met for . . . assignment to sensitive duties is that, based on all available information, the person's loyalty, reliability, and trustworthiness are such that . . . assigning the person to sensitive duties is clearly consistent with the interests of national security." Regulation ¶ C6.1.1.1. Appendix 8 of the Regulation sets forth the adjudicative policy, as well as the disqualifying conditions (DC) and mitigating conditions (MC) associated with each guideline. DoD contractor personnel are afforded the adjudication procedures contained in the Directive. Regulation ¶ C8.2.1.

CONCLUSION

Under Guideline F, a concern typically exists for two different types of situations--significant unpaid debts or unexplained affluence. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to engage in illegal or unethical acts to generate funds to meet financial obligations. Similarly, an individual who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, negligent, or careless in properly handling and safeguarding classified information.

Here, based on the record evidence as a whole, a concern is raised under Guideline F. As established above, Applicant has a history of not meeting financial obligations as well as inability or unwillingness to pay one's just debts. She has more than $50,000 in delinquent debt based on four accounts. Three of the accounts are charged-off credit card accounts, which leads me to conclude that Applicant incurred these debts by the irresponsible use of credit. I reviewed the mitigating conditions under the guideline and conclude she receives some credit in mitigation. The confluence of circumstances in 2002 no doubt contributed to her financial problems, and these circumstances were largely beyond her control. The credit in mitigation is limited, however, because these circumstances happened about four years ago and, aside from a few token payments, she has made no progress in putting her financial house in order.

Although she receives some credit in mitigation, she has not presented sufficient evidence to mitigate the financial considerations concern. In particular, the record evidence is insufficient to establish that she has made a good-faith effort to pay or otherwise resolve her delinquent debt. Absent here is: (1) a comprehensive, realistic approach for paying off, settling, or otherwise resolving her indebtedness; (2) documented actions taken in furtherance of that approach; and (3) a substantial improvement to her financial situation. Indeed, her financial situation is still uncertain. Given these circumstances, I conclude Applicant failed to establish it is in the interests of national security to grant her eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position. In reaching this conclusion, I also considered Applicant's case under the whole-person concept, which a detailed discussion thereof would not change the outcome.

FORMAL FINDINGS

The following are my conclusions as to each allegation in the SOR:

SOR Paragraph 1-Guideline F: Against Applicant

Subparagraphs a-d: Against Applicant

DECISION

In light of all of the circumstances in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the interests of national security to grant or continue Applicant's eligibility for an ADP I/II/III position. Eligibility is denied.

Michael H. Leonard

Administrative Judge

FOOTNOTES

06-13879.h2 FOR GOVERNMENT Eric H. Borgstrom, Esq., Department Counsel FOR APPLICANT Pro Se file:///usr.osd.mil/...yComputer/Desktop/DOHA%20transfer/DOHA-Kane/dodogc/doha/industrial/Archived%20-%20HTML/06-13879.h2.html[7/2/2021 3:55:31 PM] 06-13879.h2