Loading case…

ISCR Case 17-04378 · CASE

ISCR Case 17-04378granted

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 17-04378

grantedJun 25, 2018· Hon. Roger C. Wesley· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 58-year-old electrician for a defense contractor, faced security concerns under Guideline F due to seven delinquent debts exceeding $14,000. The applicant mitigated these concerns by demonstrating good-faith efforts to resolve the debts, having paid or established payment plans for all but one small debt. The judge granted the security clearance based on the applicant's financial stability and contributions to the defense industry.

Why the Applicant Prevailed

The applicant resolved all but one of the delinquent debts, demonstrating good-faith efforts to address financial obligations.
The applicant provided a payment summary and assurances regarding future payments, which were deemed credible by the judge.
The applicant's contributions to the defense industry and positive repayment initiatives were considered in the whole-person assessment.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)raisedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)raisedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations

Mitigating

AG ¶ 20(a)appliedThe Behavior Was Not Recent
AG ¶ 20(b)rejectedThe Individual Has Received Counseling for the Problem
AG ¶ 20(c)appliedThe Individual Has Initiated a Good-faith Effort to Repay Overdue Creditors or Otherwise Resolve Debts
AG ¶ 20(d)appliedThe Individual Has a Reasonable Basis to Expect to Be Able to Satisfy Debts

Key Rule Quoted

“Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedJan 9, 2018
Answer filedFeb 2, 2018
Hearing heldApr 18, 2018Applicant requested to keep the record open for additional documentation.
Decision dateJun 25, 2018

Cite For

Mitigation of Financial Concerns Under Guideline F
Good-faith Efforts to Resolve Debts as a Basis for Granting Clearance
Whole-person Assessment in Security Clearance Decisions

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: granted

The judge found that the applicant had accumulated seven delinquent accounts exceeding $14,000, primarily due to relocation and reduced earnings. However, the applicant successfully mitigated the financial concerns by resolving most debts and demonstrating a commitment to address the remaining medical debt, leading to a decision to grant the security clearance.

1.a medical debt associated to the repair of his broken leg
Finding: For Applicant
Type: Medical Debt
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶19):
(a) inability to satisfy debts
(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations
Mitigating applied (¶20):
(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly
Mitigation:
Claimed
Payment Plan with Creditor
Documented
Debt Paid in Full
1.b–1.g 6 sub-charges: specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).
Finding: For Applicant
Type:
Response:
Disqualifying (¶19): —
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a	medical debt associated to the repair of his broken leg	For Applicant	Medical Debt	Admitted	(a) inability to satisfy debts (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations	(b) conditions largely beyond the person’s control; acted responsibly	Claimed Payment Plan with Creditor Documented Debt Paid in Full
1.b–1.g	6 sub-charges: specific text not stated in this decision (for the applicant).	For Applicant			—	—	—

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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS

In the matter of: ) ) ) ------------------------------------ ) ISCR Case No. 17-04378 ) ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Jeff Nagel, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se _____________ Decision ______________ WESLEY, Roger C., Administrative Judge: Based upon a review of the pleadings and exhibits, I conclude that Applicant mitigated the security concerns regarding his financial considerations. Eligibility for access to classified information is granted.

Statement of Case On January 9, 2018, Department of Defense (DoD) Consolidated Adjudications Facility (CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) detailing reasons why DoD adjudicators could not make the affirmative determination of eligibility for a security clearance, and recommended referral to an administrative judge to determine whether a security clearance should be granted, continued, denied, or revoked. The action was taken under Executive Order (Exec. Or.) 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information Within Industry (February 20, 1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the Adjudicative Guidelines (AGs), effective June 8, 2017, by Directive 4 of the Security Executive Agent Directive (SEAD 4), dated December 10, 2016, entitled National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for all covered individuals who 06/25/2018 require initial or continued eligibility for access to classified information or eligibility to hold a sensitive position. Applicant responded to the SOR on February 2, 2018, and requested a hearing. The case was assigned to me on March 19, 2018, and scheduled for hearing on April 18, 2018. The Government’s case consisted of six exhibits (GEs 1-6) Applicant relied on one witness (himself) and two exhibits. (AEs A-B) The transcript was received on May 1, 2018. Procedural Issues Before the close of the hearing, Applicant requested the record be kept open to permit him the opportunity to supplement the record with documented payments. For good cause shown, Applicant was granted 14 days to supplement the record. Department Counsel was afforded two days to respond. Within the time permitted, Applicant supplemented the record with a documented payment summary. Applicant’s submission was admitted as AE C. Summary of Pleadings Under Guideline F, Applicant allegedly accumulated seven delinquent debts exceeding $14,000. Allegedly, these debts have not been addressed. In his response to the SOR, Applicant admitted each of the allegations without explanations.

Findings of Fact Applicant is a 58-year-old electrician for a defense contractor who seeks a security clearance. The allegations covered in the SOR and admitted by Applicant are incorporated and adopted as relevant and material findings. Additional findings follow. Background Applicant married his first wife in June 1980 and divorced her in June 1999 and has two adult stepchildren from this marriage. (GE 1) Applicant earned a high school diploma in 1977 and reported no post-high school education credits. (GEs 1-2) He enlisted in the Air Force (AF) in February 1979 and served nine years of active duty. (GEs 1-2; Tr. 32) He received an honorable discharge in June 1982. Between March 1985 and March 1990, he served in the AF Active Reserve. (GEs 1-2) He continued his military service with his state’s Air National Guard, reporting active reserve service between October 1992 and November 1993 and an honorable discharge. (GE 2) Between November 1993 and October 1998, Applicant served in the AF Active Reserve and received an honorable discharge in October 1998. (GE 1) Since May 2007, Applicant has been employed by his current employer. (GEs 1-2) Between June 2005 and May 2007, he was employed by a non-military employer as an electrician. (GE 2) 2 Finances Between July 2014 and June 2015, Applicant accumulated seven delinquent accounts exceeding $14,000. (GEs 5-7) He attributed his delinquencies to relocation, reduced earnings, his insurance company’s failure to cover his SOR ¶ 1.a medical debt associated to the repair of his broken leg, and his own failure to cover his co-pays on the smaller medical debts. (GE 2; Tr. 33-35). Applicant has since paid or resolved by payment plan all but one of the listed debts in the SOR (i.e, SOR debt ¶ 1.gfor $25 that he cannot locate). (AEs A-C; Tr. 31-32) Debts paid in full are comprised of the following: SOR debts ¶¶ 1.bfor $367, 1.cfor $196, 1.dfor $123, 1.e for $90, and 1.ffor $28. (AEs A-C; Tr. 31, 36-39) SOR debt ¶ 1.a covers a medical account that Applicant opened in April 2012. (GE 5). Until recently, Applicant had not addressed this account, and it remained delinquent and outstanding. While Applicant assured he had entered into a repayment plan, he provided no documentation of his plan. (AEs A-B; Tr. 31) He did, however, provide a brief payment summary of creditors he has addressed and cited to the $100 payment he made to the creditor in February 2018 as evidence of his good-faith efforts to settle the account. (AE C) While a concrete payment plan detailing the payment arrangement and historical accounting of the payments he claims to have made to creditor 1.a would have helped to validate his payment arrangement with SOR creditor ¶ 1.a, his supplied payment information on the only major debt he has not paid or otherwise resolved in full is enough to warrant acceptance of his oral assurances. Applicant assured that he would like to pay off his creditor 1.a medical debt and is exploring the availability of home equity financing. (Tr. 37) Currently, he has no 401(k) account or other retirement account to draw upon a this time. (Tr. 39) He keeps his other accounts current and is putting aside monthly savings to cover any unforeseen debts that arise. (Tr. 40)

Policies

The SEAD 4, Appendix (App.) 4 lists guidelines to be used by administrative judges in the decision-making process covering security clearance cases. These guidelines take into account factors that could create a potential conflict of interest for the individual applicant, as well as considerations that could affect the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. These guidelines include conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying (disqualifying conditions), if any, and many of the conditions that could mitigate security concerns. These guidelines must be considered before deciding whether or not a security clearance should be granted, continued, or denied. The guidelines do not require administrative judges to place exclusive reliance on the enumerated disqualifying and mitigating conditions in the guidelines in arriving at a decision. Each of the guidelines is to be evaluated in the context of the whole person in accordance with App. A. AG ¶ 2(c) 3 In addition to the relevant AGs, administrative judges must take into account the pertinent considerations for assessing extenuation and mitigation set forth in App. A, AG ¶ 2(d) of the AGs, which are intended to assist the judges in reaching a fair and impartial commonsense decision based upon a careful consideration of the pertinent guidelines within the context of the whole person. The adjudicative process is designed to examine a sufficient period of an applicant’s life to enable predictive judgments to be made about whether the applicant is an acceptable security risk. The following App A, AG ¶ 2(d) factors are pertinent: (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral chances; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. Viewing the issues raised and evidence as a whole, the following individual guidelines are pertinent in this case: Financial Considerations The Concern: Failure or inability to live within one’s means, satisfy debts and meet financial obligations may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Financial distress can also be caused or exacerbated by, and thus can be a possible indicator of, other issues of personnel security concern such as excessive gambling, mental health conditions, substance misuse, or alcohol abuse of dependence. An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal acts or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds. . . . AG ¶ 18. Burden of Proof By virtue of the principles and policies framed by the AGs, a decision to grant or continue an applicant's security clearance may be made only upon a threshold finding that to do so is clearly consistent with the national interest. Because the Directive requires administrative judges to make a commonsense appraisal of the evidence accumulated in the record, the ultimate determination of an applicant's eligibility for a security clearance depends, in large part, on the relevance and materiality of that evidence. See United States, v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509-511 (1995). As with all adversarial proceedings, the judge may draw only those inferences which have a reasonable and logical basis from the evidence of record. 4 The Government's initial burden is twofold: (1) it must prove by substantial evidence any controverted facts alleged in the SOR, and (2) it must demonstrate that the facts proven have a material bearing to the applicant's eligibility to obtain or maintain a security clearance. The required materiality showing, however, does not require the Government to affirmatively demonstrate that the applicant has actually mishandled or abused classified information before it can deny or revoke a security clearance. Rather, the judge must consider and weigh the cognizable risks that an applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Once the Government meets its initial burden of proof of establishing admitted or controverted facts, the evidentiary burden shifts to the applicant for the purpose of establishing his or her security worthiness through evidence of refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Based on the requirement of Exec. Or. 10865 that all security clearances be clearly consistent with the national interest, the applicant has the ultimate burden of demonstrating his or her clearance eligibility. “[S]ecurity-clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” See Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988). Analysis Security concerns are raised over Applicant’s accumulating delinquent medical and consumer debts over a two-year period spanning July 2014 and June 2015. Applicant’s accumulation of delinquent medical and consumer accounts warrant the application of three of the disqualifying conditions (DC) of the AGs: DC ¶ 19(a), “inability to satisfy debts,” and DC ¶ 19(c), “a history of not meeting financial obligations.” Holding a security clearance involves the exercise of important fiducial responsibilities, among which is the expectancy of consistent trust and candor. Financial stability in a person cleared to access classified information is required precisely to inspire trust and confidence in the holder of the clearance. While the principal concern of a clearance holder’s demonstrated financial difficulties is vulnerability to coercion and influence, judgment and trust concerns are also implicit in financial cases. Applicant’s addressing his listed medical and consumer debts merit the application of several available mitigating conditions. His resolved debt delinquencies permit him to meet the relevant Appeal Board’s requirements for demonstrating financial stability. See ISCR Case No. 07-06482 (App. Bd. May 21 2008); see also ISCR Case No. 05-11366 at 4 n.9 (App. Bd. Jan. 12, 2007)(citing ISCR Case No. 99-0462 at 4 (App. Bd. May 25, 2000)); ISCR Case No. 99-0012 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 1999). Except for one small debt (creditor 1.gfor $28), all of his listed creditors have either been paid or are being resolved through a repayment plan with the creditor (i.e., creditor 1.a) From a whole-person standpoint, Applicant’s contributions to the defense industry are worthy of respect. Coupled with his positive repayment initiatives, they are sufficient to overcome security concerns associated with his history of delinquent 5 medical and consumer debts. Considering all of the circumstances surrounding Applicant’s addressed delinquent debts, favorable conclusions are warranted with respect to listed SOR debts ¶¶ 1.a-1.g of Guideline F. Formal Findings In reviewing the allegations of the SOR and ensuing conclusions reached in the context of the findings of fact and the factors listed above, I make the following formal findings: GUIDELINE F (FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS): FOR APPLICANT Subparas. 1.a-1.g: For Applicant

Conclusions In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s security clearance. Clearance is granted.

Roger C. Wesley Administrative Judge