Loading case…

ISCR Case 18-00285 · CASE

ISCR Case 18-00285denied

Case Headnote

ISCR Case No. 18-00285

deniedJul 16, 2018· Hon. Noreen A. Lynch· hearing

Synopsis

The applicant, a 50-year-old retired Master Sergeant with 24 years of service in the U.S. Air Force, faced security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and Guideline F (Financial Considerations) due to multiple unpaid debts totaling approximately $19,000 and allegations of falsifying her security clearance application. The judge found that the applicant failed to mitigate the financial issues and deliberately omitted relevant information from her application, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

Why the Applicant Was Denied

The applicant admitted to multiple unpaid debts and failed to provide sufficient evidence of resolution or a credible plan to address them.
The applicant intentionally falsified her security clearance application by omitting knowledge of delinquent debts, which undermined her credibility.
The applicant did not demonstrate prompt or good-faith efforts to correct the falsification or mitigate the financial concerns.

Conditions Referenced

Disqualifying

AG ¶ 19(a)appliedInability to Satisfy Debts
AG ¶ 19(c)appliedA History of Not Meeting Financial Obligations
AG ¶ 19(f)appliedFailure to File or Fraudulently File Annual Federal, State, or Local Income Tax Returns
AG ¶ 16(a)appliedDeliberate Omission, Concealment, or Falsification of Relevant Facts

Key Rule Quoted

“A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence.”

Procedural Posture

SOR issuedFeb 6, 2018
Answer filedFeb 26, 2018
Hearing held—Decision made on the record without a hearing.
Decision dateJul 16, 2018

Cite For

Failure to Mitigate Financial Issues Under Guideline F
Deliberate Falsification of Security Clearance Application Under Guideline E
Impact of Personal Conduct on Security Clearance Eligibility

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: denied

The judge found against the applicant on the personal conduct allegation under Guideline E, determining that the applicant deliberately falsified her security clearance application. The applicant's failure to disclose relevant financial information raised significant concerns about her reliability and trustworthiness, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

2.a Applicant admitted intentionally falsifying her SCA.
Finding: Against Applicant
Conduct: Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE
Concealed issue: Financial
Response: Admitted
Disqualifying (¶16): —
Mitigating applied (¶17): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Conduct	Concealed Issue	Response	Disqualifying (¶16)	Mitigating applied (¶17)	Mitigation
2.a	Applicant admitted intentionally falsifying her SCA.	Against Applicant	Falsification Security FormFOUND DELIBERATE	Financial	Admitted	—	—	—

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: denied

The judge found multiple financial concerns under Guideline F, including an inability to satisfy debts and a history of not meeting financial obligations. Despite some debts being resolved, the applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient mitigation for the remaining debts and tax issues, leading to a denial of her security clearance.

1.a–1.n 14 sub-charges: specific text not stated in this decision (8 against, 6 for the applicant).
Finding: Mixed
Type:
Response:
Disqualifying (¶19): —
Mitigating applied (¶20): —
Mitigation: —

¶	Allegation	Finding	Type	Response	Disqualifying (¶19)	Mitigating applied (¶20)	Mitigation
1.a–1.n	14 sub-charges: specific text not stated in this decision (8 against, 6 for the applicant).	Mixed			—	—	—

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. 18-00285

) Applicant for Security Clearance )

Appearances

For Government: Gatha Manns, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se

______________

Decision ______________

LYNCH, Noreen A., Administrative Judge:

This case alleges security concerns raised under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) and Guideline E (Personal Conduct). Eligibility for access to classified information is denied.

Statement of the Case

Applicant submitted a security clearance application (SCA) on December 16, 2016. (Item 1.) On February 6, 2018, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) sent her a Statement of Reasons (SOR) alleging security concerns under Guidelines F and E. (Item 1.) The DOD CAF acted under Executive Order (EO) 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 (AG) implemented by the DOD on June 8, 2017.

Applicant answered the SOR on February 26, 2018. (Answer), and requested a decision on the record without a hearing. Department Counsel submitted the Government’s written case on March 29, 2018. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM) was sent to Applicant, including documents identified as Items 1 through 6. She was given an opportunity to file objections and submit material to refute, extenuate, 07/16/2018

or mitigate the Government’s evidence. She received the FORM on April 5, 2018, and responded. The case was assigned to me on June 21, 2018.

Findings of Fact

Applicant, age 50, is twice divorced and has three adult children. Applicant honorably served 24 years as an enlisted airman on active duty in the U.S. Air Force. She retired from the U.S. Air Force in May 2011, achieving the rank of Master Sergeant, E-7. She has been employed with her current employer since May 2016. She works full time as a business analyst for a federal contractor. She has held a security clearance since February 5, 2007.

The Statement of Reasons (SOR) sets forth security concerns under Guidelines F and E. Guideline F (Financial Considerations) lists 13 financial allegations, SOR 1.a through SOR 1.land SOR 1.n, totaling about $19,000. SOR 1.m, the 14th financial concern, alleges Applicant failed to file her 2016 Federal and State income tax returns. (Item 4) In her Answer, Applicant admits to all allegations, with the exception of SOR 1.m. She stated that she filed her 2016 Federal tax return, but did not file her state tax return. (Item 2)

Applicant accepts responsibility for the debts and the fact that they have gone unpaid or closed. During the time the accounts became delinquent, she and her husband were going through a separation in March 2015. Applicant explained that he was physically and verbally abusive. When she finally asked him to leave, she was left with all the household bills and the credit card accounts. They attempted reconciliation, and Applicant’s husband agreed to help with the financial issues. They were not living together, but he agreed to pay the credit card bills. She was unaware of the fact that many of them went to collection. She stated that she has made arrangement to take funds from her savings plan to pay unpaid balances within four months. (Answer)

In response to the FORM, Applicant provided documentation that in April 2018, she resolved the following debts in full: SOR 1.d, 1.e, 1.f, and 1.g. As to the debts in SOR 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c, Applicant stated that she has made payments or resolved the debts, but did not provide any evidence. She also noted that several debts appear to be duplicates, and while that may be true, she did not note the accounts.

As to SOR 1.mand 1.nconcerning the filing and payment of Federal and State taxes for 2016, Applicant stated that the Federal tax return was filed timely and that she has a formal payment arrangement with the IRS and provided a case number. She noted that she has made a payment of $400 and an additional payment of $300. However, she did not provide any documentation to substantiate the claim.

Applicant noted that she has submitted her 2017 Federal and State tax returns and is seeking a tax counselor to resolve the unfiled 2016 State tax returns. She believes all delinquent accounts will be satisfied by June 30, 2018. (Response to Form)

As to the Personal Conduct allegation, under Guideline E, that she falsified her SCA, Applicant answered “No” to all questions in Section 26: Financial Records. She stated during her OPM interview that she believed her husband was making payments on the credit cards. She stated during that interview that she had no knowledge of those accounts. She thought that they could have been cards that she co-signed with her husband. She did not list the tax information because it occurred after completion of the SCA. (Item 6) She stated that she was not trying to mislead the Government. Her earlier credit report shows many accounts as “pays as agreed.”

Policies

When evaluating an applicant’s suitability for a security clearance, the administrative judge must consider the adjudicative guidelines. In addition to brief introductory explanations for each guideline, the adjudicative guidelines (AG) list potentially disqualifying conditions and mitigating conditions, which are to be used in evaluating an applicant’s national security eligibility.

These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in AG ¶ 2 describing the adjudicative process. The administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. The entire process is a conscientious scrutiny of applicable guidelines in the context of a number of variables known as the whole-person concept. The administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, in making a decision.

The protection of the national security is the paramount consideration. AG ¶ 2(b) requires, “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.” In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. I have not drawn inferences based on mere speculation or conjecture.

Directive ¶ E3.1.14, requires the Government to present evidence to establish controverted facts alleged in the SOR. Under Directive ¶ E3.1.15, “The applicant is responsible for presenting witnesses and other evidence to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate facts admitted by the applicant or proven by Department Counsel, and has the ultimate burden of persuasion as to obtaining a favorable clearance decision.”

A person who seeks access to classified information enters into enter into a fiduciary relationship with the Government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in individuals to whom it grants national security eligibility. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified or

sensitive information. Finally, as emphasized in Section 7 of EO 10865, “Any determination under this order adverse to an applicant 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.” See also EO 12968, Section 3.1(b) (listing multiple prerequisites for access to classified or sensitive information.)

Analysis

Guideline F (Financial Considerations)

The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 18:

Failure 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 or dependence. An individual who is financially overextended is at greater risk of having to engage in illegal or otherwise questionable acts to generate funds . . . .

This concern is broader than the possibility that a person might knowingly compromise classified information to raise money. It encompasses concerns about a person’s self-control, judgment, and other qualities essential to protecting classified information. A person who is financially irresponsible may also be irresponsible, unconcerned, or negligent in handling and safeguarding classified information. See ISCR Case No. 11-05365 at 3 (App. Bd. May 1, 2012).

Applicant’s admissions, corroborated by her credit reports, establish three disqualifying conditions under this guideline: AG ¶ 19(a) (“inability to satisfy debts”), AG ¶ 19(c) (“a history of not meeting financial obligations”) and AG (19 (f) (“failure to file or fraudulently file filing annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns or failure to pay annual Federal , state or local income tax as required.

The security concerns raised in the SOR may be mitigated by any of the following potentially applicable factors:

AG ¶ 20(a): the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

AG ¶ 20(b): the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person's control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation,

clear victimization by predatory lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances;

AG ¶ 20(c): the individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under control; and

AG ¶ 20(d): the individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.

AG ¶ 20(a) is not established. Applicant’s delinquent debts remain unresolved.

AG ¶ 20(b) is not established. While Applicant’s divorce was a condition beyond her control, she has not acted responsibly to address the resulting debts and tax issues.

AG ¶ 20(c) and 20(d) are not established. Applicant responded to the FORM and provided documentation of recent payment of four accounts. She stated that she has begun to pay others, but did not provide any evidence. She also did not provide any documentation with regard to the tax situation. She plans to pay all the accounts, but a promise to pay in the future is not sufficient mitigation. The record is silent as to her current ability to repay her delinquent debts, the reasons that they have persisted, or her plan to resolve them other than her stated intent to take money from a savings plan. Her financial problems are not under control.

Applicant failed to meet her burden to mitigate the financial concerns set out in the SOR. For these reasons, I find SOR ¶¶ 1.a through 1.n. against Applicant.

Guideline E, Personal Conduct

The concern under this guideline is set out in AG ¶ 15:

Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual's reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes. The following will normally result in an unfavorable national security eligibility determination, security clearance action, or cancellation of further processing for national security eligibility:

(a) refusal, or failure without reasonable cause, to undergo or cooperate with security processing, including but not limited to meeting with a security investigator for subject interview, completing security forms or releases, cooperation with medical or psychological evaluation, or polygraph examination, if authorized and required; and

(b) refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful questions of investigators, security officials, or other official representatives in connection with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination.

Based on Applicant’s alleged deliberate falsification of her SCA, the following disqualifying condition could apply:

AG ¶ 16 (a): deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities.

Applicant admitted intentionally falsifying her SCA. .An administrative judge must consider the record evidence as a whole to determine an applicant’s state of mind at the time of the omission.1 An applicant’s level of education and business experience are relevant to determining whether a failure to disclose relevant information on an SCA was deliberate.2

In this instance, it is clear from Applicant’s comments that she was aware of some of her delinquent debts, because she stated that her husband left her with all the bills after attempting reconciliation. She stated during her interview that she had no knowledge of any of the delinquent accounts and that she misunderstood the question. Her claims of innocent mistake are not credible in light of the facts. She should have disclosed the delinquent debts she had knowledge of on her SCA. Given these facts, I find substantial evidence of an intent by Applicant to omit, conceal, or falsify facts on her SCA. Therefore, AG ¶ 16(a) is established.

The personal conduct security concerns raised in the SOR may be mitigated by any of the following potentially applicable factors in AG ¶ 17:

(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; (b) the refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;

1 See ISCR Case No. 03-09483 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 17, 2004).

2 ISCR Case No. 08-05637 (App. Bd. Sep. 9, 2010).

(c) the offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;

(d) the individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;

(e) the individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress;

(f) the information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability; and

(g) association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased, or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and regulations.

After considering the mitigating conditions outlined above, none of them apply. Applicant did not make prompt or good-faith efforts to correct her falsification or concealment. She provided no information that indicates she was ill-advised in completing her SCA. Falsifying information is a serious offense and Applicant has not shown that similar lapses in judgment are unlikely to recur. Further, she failed to take responsibility for her actions. She has not provided sufficient information in this record to demonstrate that she has met his burden of proof for her personal conduct.

Whole-Person Concept

Under AG ¶ 2(c), the ultimate determination of whether the granting or continuing of national security eligibility is clearly consistent with the interests of national security must be an overall common sense judgment based upon careful consideration of the applicable guidelines, each of which is to be evaluated in the context of the whole person. An administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(d):

(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 changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.

I have incorporated my comments under Guidelines F and E in my whole-person analysis, and I have considered the factors in AG ¶ 2(d). After weighing the disqualifying and mitigating conditions under Guidelines F and E, and evaluating all the evidence in the context of the whole person, including her honorable military service, I conclude that Applicant deliberately falsified her SCA, and she has not mitigated the security concerns raised by her financial indebtedness. Accordingly, Applicant has not carried her burden of showing that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant her eligibility for access to classified information.

Formal Findings

I make the following formal findings on the allegations in the SOR:

Paragraph 1, Guideline F (Financial Considerations): AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraphs 1.a-c: : AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.d-e:

For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.f-h:

Against Applicant Subparagraphs 1.i-j:

For Applicant Subparagraphs 1.k-n:

Against Applicant

Paragraph 2, Guideline E (Personal Conduct): AGAINST APPLICANT

Subparagraph 2.a: Against Applicant

Conclusion

I conclude that it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to continue Applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information. Clearance is denied.

Noreen A. Lynch Administrative Judge