PSH-12-0053

* 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: May 10, 2012 )
) Case No.: PSH-12-0053
_________________________________________ )
Issued: August 3, 2012
_______________
Hearing Officer Decision
_______________
Diane DeMoura, Hearing Officer:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (“the Individual”) to hold a
Department of Energy (DOE) access authorization.1 This Decision will consider whether, based
on the testimony and other evidence presented in this proceeding, the Individual’s suspended
DOE access authorization should be restored. For the reasons detailed below, I find that the
DOE should not restore the Individual’s access authorization at this time.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor and has held a DOE access authorization since
1980. DOE Exhibit (Ex.) 6. In October 2006, after reviewing the Individual’s credit report
during a routine reinvestigation in connection with her security clearance, the Local Security
Office (LSO) requested that the Individual participate in a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) in
order to discuss concerns raised by the Individual’s finances. DOE Ex. 14. The Individual’s
security clearance was continued at that time. DOE Ex. 6. During a subsequent routine
reinvestigation of the Individual’s security clearance in 2011, concerns regarding the Individual’s
delinquent accounts and outstanding judgments surfaced. The LSO to request that the Individual
participate in two PSIs in February 2012 (DOE Exs. 12, 13) with the Individual, to discuss issues
pertaining to her finances. During the PSIs, the LSO also learned that the Individual had omitted
an outstanding judgment on her August 2011 Questionnaire for National Security Positions
(QNSP). DOE Exs. 11, 13. After reviewing the Individual’s personnel security file, the LSO
1 Access authorization, also known as a security clearance, is an administrative determination that an individual is
eligible for access to classified matter or special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5.
- 2 -
informed the Individual in a May 2011 Notification Letter that there existed derogatory
information that raised security concerns under 10 C.F.R. §§ 710.8 (f) and (l) (Criteria F and L,
respectively). See Notification Letter, March 29, 2012. The Notification Letter also informed
the Individual that she was entitled to a hearing before a Hearing Officer in order to resolve the
security concerns. Id.
The Individual requested a hearing on this matter. DOE Ex. 2. The LSO forwarded her request
to the Office of Hearings and Appeals, and I was appointed as Hearing Officer. At the hearing,
the Individual presented her own testimony, as well as the testimony of three friends. The
Individual submitted five exhibits (Indiv. Exs. A-E). The DOE counsel presented no witnesses,
and submitted fourteen exhibits into the record (DOE Exs. 1-14). See Transcript of Hearing,
Case No. PSH-12-0053 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”).
II. REGULATORY STANDARD
The regulations governing the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization are set forth at
10 C.F.R. Part 710, “Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified
Matter or Special Nuclear Material.” The regulations identify certain types of derogatory
information that may raise a question concerning an individual’s access authorization eligibility.
10 C.F.R. § 710.10(a). Once a security concern is raised, the individual has the burden of
bringing forward sufficient evidence to resolve the concern.
In determining whether an individual has resolved a security concern, the Hearing Officer
considers relevant factors, including the nature of the conduct at issue, the frequency or recency
of the conduct, the absence or presence of reformation or rehabilitation, and the impact of the
foregoing on the relevant security concerns. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c). In considering these factors,
the Hearing Officer also consults adjudicative guidelines that set forth a more comprehensive
listing of relevant factors. See Revised Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for
Access to Classified Information (issued on December 29, 2005 by the Assistant to the President
for National Security Affairs, The White House) (Adjudicative Guidelines).
Ultimately, the decision concerning eligibility is a comprehensive, common-sense judgment
based on a consideration of all relevant information, favorable and unfavorable. 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.7(a). In order to reach a favorable decision, the Hearing Officer must find that “the grant
or restoration of access authorization to the individual would not endanger the common defense
and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a).
“Any doubt as to an individual’s access authorization eligibility shall be resolved in favor of the
national security.” Id. See generally Dep’t of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (the
“clearly consistent with the interests of national security” test indicates that “security clearance
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials”).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The facts in this case are essentially undisputed. The Individual married at a young age, and her
husband handled the family’s finances. Tr. at 92-93. When the Individual and her husband
separated in 1994 after 18 years of marriage, the Individual became responsible for her family’s
- 3 -
finances for the first time. Tr. at 93-, 96-97. As a single parent, the Individual was under
financial strain. Tr. at 93. She did not feel she had anyone to turn to for guidance or advice on
how to handle her finances. Tr. at 95.
Following her separation from her husband, the Individual’s debts increased and, ultimately,
several creditors secured judgments against her. Currently, the Individual has three outstanding
judgments in the amounts of $4,135.36 (Creditor 1), $ 3,264.00 (Creditor 2), and $4,019
(Creditor 3). Tr. at 137-39; see also DOE Ex. 8. The Individual has two collection accounts –
one to which she owes $421 (Creditor 4) and another to which she owes $1,898.00 (Creditor 5).2
Tr. at 142 ; DOE Ex. 8 She owes $2,300 to a delinquent account (Creditor 6). Tr. at 146-46;
DOE Ex. 8 Finally, the Individual owes over $4,000 in state income taxes for tax years 2008 and
2010, and she owes over $10,000 in federal taxes for tax years 2009 and 2010. Tr. at 148-49;
DOE Ex. 8.
The Individual makes monthly payments to both the state tax authority and the Internal Revenue
Service in an effort to pay off her tax debts. Tr. at136; Indiv. Ex. A. She entered into a payment
plan to pay her tax debt in order to avoid garnishment of her wages. Tr. at 160. She has also
increased her payroll deductions in an effort to minimize her future tax liability. Indiv. Ex. A.
The Individual has not settled her outstanding debts with Creditors 5 and 6, but intends to
address those accounts once she has paid her tax debt. Tr. at 142, 148; Indiv. Ex. A. The
Individual has taken no action with respect to the outstanding judgments obtained by Creditors 1,
2, and 3. Tr. at 140. She indicated that the judgments will be the last debts she addresses
because the creditors are not currently pursuing payment and she wants to pay her taxes and
settle her accounts with Creditors 5 and 6 first. Tr. at 137-40; Indiv. Ex. A. She has not yet
contacted any of the pertinent creditors to make arrangements to pay the outstanding debts. Tr.
at 140.
The Individual characterizes her financial difficulties as the product of “financial immaturity,”
rather than financial irresponsibility. Tr. at 92, 104. She maintains that she does not understand
finances, and was unaware of financial education programs until recently. Tr. at 102-03. The
Individual acknowledged that she stated during her PSIs that she would address her outstanding
debts. Tr. at 99. She intended to do so, but was unable to handle her finances on her own. Id.
With respect to her current finances, the Individual does not have credit cards, and she spends
little money on herself. Tr. at 94, 157. She estimates that her current monthly income is
approximately $3,800.00, and her current monthly expenses are approximately $3,400. Indiv.
Ex. B.
Finally, the Individual attributed her omission of Creditor 2’s judgment on the August 2011
QNSP to confusion and poor record-keeping. Tr. at 118-20, 130. The Individual acknowledged
that she knew Creditor 2 had secured a judgment against her, but because she did not receive any
2 The Individual disputed the validity of the debt to Creditor 4. According to the Individual, her daughter paid that
debt and, after the hearing, the Individual submitted a document purporting to show that the debt noted on her credit
report was either paid or was an error. Tr. at 142-45; see also Indiv. Ex. E. After examining the document, I find
that the nature of the debt, and whether it has been satisfied, remains unclear. Because the Individual has not
submitted information to rebut the validity of the debt, nor evidence that it has been paid, I must find that the
concern raised by this debt remains unresolved.
- 4 -
further information and Creditor 2 did not pursue payment, she “wasn’t sure exactly what that
meant.” Tr. at 121. She also noted that when she completed the QNSP in 2011, her debt to
Creditor 2 “slipped [her] mind.” Tr. at 130.
IV. ANALYSIS
A. Criterion F
Criterion F pertains to deliberate false statements or misrepresentations by an individual during
the course of an official inquiry regarding the individual’s eligibility for access authorization,
including responses during personnel security interviews or on security questionnaires. Such
statements raise serious doubts regarding an individual’s honesty, reliability, and trustworthiness.
10 C.F.R § 710.8(f). See Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline E, ¶¶ 15, 16(a); see also, e.g.,
Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0727 (2009).3 In light of the Individual’s omission
of an outstanding judgment on her August 2011 QNSP, I find that the LSO properly invoked
Criterion F.
Having considered the testimony regarding the Individual’s honesty and character, I find it
unlikely that the Individual deliberately attempted to conceal or withhold information. The
Individual testified that she is an honest person and stated that she did not intend to lie or conceal
information on her QNSP. Tr. at 122. The Individual’s witnesses each testified that the
Individual is honest and always tells the truth. Tr. at 32, 74, 77, 107. While the Individual’s
omission of the judgment on her QNSP appears to be a product of lax or haphazard approach to
completing the QNSP on the part of the Individual, I find that it was not a “deliberate”
falsification of the form. See Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0983 (2011) (lack of
“the requisite element of ‘deliberateness’” by individual in providing incorrect responses on
security questionnaire sufficient to mitigate Criterion F concern). Consequently, I find that the
Individual has mitigated the Criterion F concern.
B. Criterion L
Criterion L concerns conduct tending to show that the Individual was “not honest, reliable, or
trustworthy, or which furnishes reason to believe that the individual may be subject to pressure,
coercion, exploitation, or duress which may cause the individual to act contrary to the best
interests of the national security.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.8(l). In this case, the Criterion L concerns
arise from the Individual’s purported financial irresponsibility. See Adjudicative Guidelines,
Guideline F, ¶ 19 (“[An] inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts,” “a history of not meeting
financial obligations,” and a “failure to file annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns as
required” raise security concerns). See also Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-1005
(2011); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0916 (2010). Given the Individual’s
longstanding pattern of delinquent debts, collection accounts, and judgments against her, the
LSO had ample grounds to invoke Criterion L.
3 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.
- 5 -
Among the factors that may serve to mitigate security concerns raised by an individual’s
financial problems are that “the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened
under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment,” “the conditions that resulted in the
financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control … and the individual acted
responsibly under the circumstances,” “the [individual] has received or is receiving counseling
for the problem and/or there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under
control,” and “the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise
resolve debts[.]” Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline F, ¶ 20.
In this case, I am also unable to conclude that the Individual has resolved the Criterion L
concerns raised by her longstanding pattern of financial irresponsibility. The Individual has
made some progress in addressing her finances by setting up a payment plan to pay her
outstanding taxes. Tr. at 136. She also has begun to seek assistance in managing her finances by
speaking with her close friends and researching financial education courses. Tr. at 50, 102-03.
Finally, the Individual has a plan for settling her accounts and intends to follow through with it
and ultimately pay all of her debts. See, e.g., Indiv. Ex. A. While these are positive steps, the
Individual is a long way from financial stability. Although, the DOE first made the Individual
aware of its concerns regarding her pattern of financial irresponsibility in 2006, with the
exception of entering into a payment plan to pay her delinquent taxes and avoid garnishment of
her wages, the Individual took little to no action to settle her judgments or delinquent accounts,
and it remains unclear when and if she will do so. Although she was overwhelmed by her
finances and did not understand how to manage them, she did not seek out assistance or attempt
to obtain the information she needed to begin to straighten out her finances until shortly before
the hearing. Finally, although the Individual prepared a budget outlining her income and
expenses, she admitted that it was an approximation and that it did not match the reality of her
financial situation each month. Tr. at 149.
In prior cases involving financial irresponsibility, Hearing Officers have held that “[o]nce an
individual has demonstrated a pattern of financial irresponsibility, he or she must demonstrate a
new, sustained pattern of financial responsibility for a period of time that is sufficient to
demonstrate that a recurrence of the past pattern is unlikely.” See Personnel Security Hearing,
Case No. TSO-1078 (2011); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0878 (2010); Personnel
Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0732 (2009); see also Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline F,
¶ 20. Given these factors, I cannot conclude at this time that the Individual’s financial situation
is stable at this time or that her financial difficulties are in the past and unlikely to recur and,
therefore, do not cast doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.
IV. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, I find that there was evidence that raised
doubts regarding the Individual’s eligibility for a security clearance under Criteria F and L of the
Part 710 regulations, and I find that there is sufficient information in the record to mitigate the
Criterion F concern. However, I find that the Individual has not presented sufficient information
to fully resolve the security concerns raised under Criterion L. Therefore, I cannot conclude that
- 6 -
restoring the Individual access authorization “would not endanger the common defense and
security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a).
Accordingly, I find that the DOE should not restore the Individual’s suspended access
authorization at this time.
The parties may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel, under the regulation set forth
at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Diane DeMoura
Hearing Officer
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: August 3, 2012