PSH-11-0029

* The original of this document contains information which is subject to withholding from
disclosure under 5 U.S.C. § 552. Such material has been deleted from this copy and replaced
with XXXXXX’s.
United States Department of Energy
Office of Hearings and Appeals
In the matter of Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: November 30, 2011 ) Case No.: PSH-11-0029
)
____________________________________)
Issued: March 21, 2012
______________
Decision and Order
_______________
Robert B. Palmer, Hearing Officer:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
individual”) for access authorization under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled
"Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special
Nuclear Material.” 1 For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the individual’s security
clearance should be restored. 2
I. BACKGROUND
The individual is employed by a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor, and was granted a security
clearance in connection with that employment. A routine reinvestigation of the individual revealed
information concerning his finances that raised security concerns, and the local security office (LSO)
1An access authorization is an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access
to classified matter or special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5. Such authorization will also be
referred to in this Decision as a security clearance.
2 Decisions issued by the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) are available on the OHA website
located at http://www.oha.doe.gov . The text of a cited decision may be accessed by entering the case
number of the decision in the search engine located at http://www.oha.doe.gov/search.htm.
-2-
summoned the individual for an interview with a personnel security specialist in August 2011. After
reviewing the transcript of this Personnel Security Interview (PSI) and the rest of the individual’s
personnel security file, the LSO determined that derogatory information existed that cast into doubt
the individual’s eligibility for access authorization. They informed the individual of this
determination in a letter that set forth the DOE’s security concerns and the reasons for those
concerns. I will hereinafter refer to this letter as the Notification Letter. The Notification Letter also
informed the individual that he was entitled to a hearing before a Hearing Officer in order to resolve
the substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for access authorization.
The individual requested a hearing on this matter. The LSO forwarded this request to the Office of
Hearings and Appeals, and I was appointed the Hearing Officer. The DOE introduced 17 exhibits
into the record of this proceeding and the individual introduced 22 exhibits and presented the
testimony of his ex-wife, his ex-landlord, a friend, and his girlfriend, in addition to testifying himself.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE DOE’S SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the Notification Letter included a statement of derogatory information that
created a substantial doubt as to the individual’s eligibility to hold a clearance. This information
pertains to paragraph (l) of the criteria for eligibility for access to classified matter or special nuclear
material set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8.
Under criterion (l), information is derogatory if it indicates that the individual “has engaged in any
unusual conduct or is subject to any circumstances which tend to show that [he] is not honest,
reliable, or trustworthy; or which furnishes reason to believe that [he] may be subject to pressure,
coercion, exploitation or duress which may cause [him] to act contrary to the best interests of the
national security.” Such conduct includes, but is not limited to, “a pattern of financial
irresponsibility.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(l). As support for this criterion, the Letter alleges that the
individual currently has outstanding collection accounts totaling $30,928.94 due to 16 creditors, that
he is currently over 120 days delinquent on repaying his student loans, with a past due balance of
$1,536, that he has two charged-off accounts totaling $12,690, that he currently owes $9,700 in back
state and federal taxes and has previously had his wages garnished to pay back taxes, and that he has
failed to repay four of his creditors despite having promised the DOE that he would do so.
This derogatory information adequately justifies the DOE’s invocation of criterion (l), and raises
significant security concerns. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to
engage in illegal activity to generate funds. See Revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining
Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, The White House (December 19, 2005) (Adjudicative
Guidelines), Guideline F.
-3-
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
The criteria for determining eligibility for security clearances set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710 dictate
that in these proceedings, a Hearing Officer must undertake a careful review of all of the relevant
facts and circumstances, and make a “common-sense judgment . . . after consideration of all relevant
information.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). I must therefore consider all information, favorable or
unfavorable, that has a bearing on the question of whether granting or restoring a security clearance
would compromise national security concerns. Specifically, the regulations compel me to consider
the nature, extent, and seriousness of the individual’s conduct; the circumstances surrounding the
conduct; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the age and maturity of the individual at the time
of the conduct; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent
behavioral changes; the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of the conduct; and any other
relevant and material factors. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c).
A DOE administrative proceeding under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 is “for the purpose of affording the
individual an opportunity of supporting his eligibility for access authorization.”
10 C.F.R. § 710.21(b)(6). Once the DOE has made a showing of derogatory information raising
security concerns, the burden is on the individual to produce evidence sufficient to convince the
DOE that granting or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and
security and will be clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). See
Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. VSO-0013, 24 DOE ¶ 82,752 at 85,511 (1995) (affirmed by
OSA, 1996), and cases cited therein. The regulations further instruct me to resolve any doubts
concerning the individual’s eligibility for access authorization in favor of the national security.
10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a).
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT AND ANALYSIS
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth factors that could mitigate security concerns raised by
allegations of financial irresponsibility. Among those factors are “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, or a death, divorce or separation), and the individual
acted responsibly under the circumstances,” and “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts.” Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline F, ¶ 20(b), (d).
After reviewing the testimony at the hearing and the record in this matter as a whole, I find that both
of these factors apply to the case at hand.
-4-
There is substantial evidence in the record indicating that the individual’s financial dilemma was
caused in large part by his divorce, which was finalized in 2007, and by his adherence to the terms
of a lease he signed in 2009 during his cohabitation with another woman. The individual’s ex-wife
testified that from October 2005, when the couple separated, until 2011, the individual paid her an
average of $500.00 per month in combined spousal and child support for herself and their eight-year
old son. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 16-19. 3 The payments stopped, at least temporarily, in 2011
because the individual began to concentrate on paying off his overdue bills. Tr. at 19. For a period
of time after their separation in 2005, the individual was paying both her rent and his own housing
expenses. Tr. at 17.
In 2009, the individual began cohabiting with a woman with ten children. The individual’s ex-
landlord testified that in February of that year, the individual and the woman signed a one-year lease
on a house where they all lived, with a monthly rent of $1,800.00. Tr. at 34, 36. Although problems
in the relationship caused the individual to move out of the house that July, he continued to make
payments of approximately $1,300 per month until the lease expired the following year. Tr. at 37.
Consequently, for a period of time, the individual was paying approximately $500 per month to his
ex-wife and $1,300 per month to his ex-landlord, in addition to having to cover his own living
expenses. According to the individual, this made paying his bills “almost impossible.” Request for
Administrative Review at 2.
Based on the testimony at the hearing, I find that the individual acted responsibly under trying
financial circumstances. In addition to the above, his friend testified that the individual did not use
his income to live extravagantly. Tr. at 55. Instead, the individual supported his ex-wife and son,
fulfilled his legal obligation to his ex-landlord, and later began paying off his debts.
At the hearing, the individual testified that as a result of this effort to resolve his indebtedness, he
has fully paid off 10 of the 18 collection accounts and charged off accounts alleged in the
Notification Letter, and is in the process of paying off two others. Tr. at 62-80. 4 The individual
further stated that he has been in contact with the IRS, with state tax authorities, and with the creditor
3 There was no court order of support entered as a result of the divorce. According to the ex-wife,
the individual made these payments voluntarily, on an as-needed basis. Tr. at 18, 23.
4 Of the remaining six collection or charged off accounts, four appear to have been sold to a new
creditor and are listed twice in the Notification Letter, the individual is actively disputing a fifth, and
he contacted the sixth alleged creditor, who informed the individual that it did not have a record of
his account. The individual testified that he was also unaware of what this alleged debt was for. Tr.
at 70.
-5-
who holds his student loans. He has begun making payments to the IRS and to the state, and has
arranged a payment schedule for his student loans. Tr. at 97; Individual’s Exhibit 18. I have
thoroughly examined the comprehensive documentation submitted by the individual, including
statements from creditors, cancelled checks, and credit reports, and have determined that his
testimony about his repayment efforts is accurate. Finally, the individual testified that, with the
exception of his two largest debts, for his student loans and for a vehicle that was repossessed, he
anticipates that he will be debt-free within one year, and that the circumstances that led to his
financial dilemma were unique and unlikely to recur. Tr. at 97, 102.
After the hearing, the individual submitted a projected budget for 2012, showing his monthly income
of $4,076.00 and projected expenses, including payments to creditors, for each month. Individual’s
Exhibit 22. The exhibit shows a surplus for each month, ranging from $2,415.00 to $3,840.00. I
therefore conclude that the individual has the resources to repay his creditors and to return to good
financial health.
V. CONCLUSION
As set forth above, I find that the individual’s financial problems were largely caused by factors that
were beyond his control, that he acted responsibly under the circumstances, and that he has made a
concerted and largely successful effort to resolve his indebtedness. I further conclude that these
mitigating factors are sufficient to address the serious security concerns under criterion (l) that are
set forth in the Notification Letter. I therefore conclude that the individual has demonstrated that
restoring his access authorization would not endanger the common defense and would be clearly
consistent with the national interest. Accordingly, I find that the individual’s security clearance
should be restored. The DOE may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel under the
procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Robert B. Palmer
Hearing Officer
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: March 21, 2012