PSH-15-0044

*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: June 5, 2015 ) Case No.: PSH-15-0044
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: August 21, 2015
______________________
Administrative Judge Decision
______________________
Richard A. Cronin, Jr., Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) to hold an access authorization1 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.” For the reasons set forth below, I have determined that the
Individual, at this time, should not be granted an access authorization.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor. Her employer
requested that the Individual be granted a security clearance. Because the local security office
(LSO) received information indicating that the Individual had significant financial problems, the
LSO conducted a personnel security interview (PSI) with the Individual in October 2014. After
the PSI, the LSO determined that there was derogatory information that cast into doubt the
individual’s eligibility for access authorization. The LSO informed the individual of this
determination in a letter (Notification Letter) and informed her as to the derogatory information
that created doubts regarding her eligibility for an access authorization. Ex. 1. The Notification
1 An access authorization is an administrative determination than an individual is eligible for access to classified
matter or special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5. Such authorization will be referred to in this Decision as
access authorization or a security clearance.
- 2 -
Letter also informed the Individual that her request for access authorization would be suspended.
Ex. 1.
Upon her receipt of the Notification Letter, the Individual exercised her right under the Part 710
regulations to request an administrative hearing in order to resolve the substantial doubt
concerning her eligibility for an access authorization. The Director of the Office of Hearings and
Appeals (OHA) appointed me the Administrative Judge, and I subsequently conducted a hearing
in the matter. The DOE introduced seven exhibits (Exs. 1-7) into the record of this proceeding
and the Individual introduced six exhibits (Ind. Exs. 1-6). The only testimony presented was that
of the Individual. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-15-0044 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”).
Furthermore, after the hearing, the Individual filed a post-hearing submission which included her
budget and pay stubs.
II. Regulatory Standards
The criteria for determining eligibility for security clearances set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710
dictate that in these proceedings, an Administrative Judge 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 and unfavorable, that has a bearing on the question of whether restoring
the individual’s 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). In considering these factors, the Administrative Judge also consults adjudicative
guidelines that set forth a more comprehensive listing of relevant factors and considerations. 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).
A DOE administrative proceeding under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 is for the purpose of affording the
individual an opportunity of supporting 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). 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).
- 3 -
III. Notification Letter and Associated Security Concerns
The Notification Letter cites information pertaining to subsection (l) of the criteria for eligibility
for access to classified matter or special nuclear material (hereinafter referred to as Criterion L)
set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8. DOE Ex. 1. Criterion L refers to information indicating that an
individual has “[e]ngaged in any unusual conduct or is subject to any circumstances which tend
to show that the individual is 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). The LSO also cited Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the Adjudicative
Guidelines which describes derogatory information relating to security concerns arising from an
individual’s failure or inability to live within one’s means. Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline F,
¶ 18.
In its Notification Letter, the LSO states that the Individual reported approximately $11,000 of
indebtedness and that the PSI revealed that she failed to list almost $1,400 of indebtedness. Id.
Along with these debts, the Individual also reported that she filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in
2000, that her home was foreclosed in 2011, that she did not file forbearance papers causing her
student loans to become delinquent, and that she did not file her 2012 taxes. Id. Furthermore, the
Notification Letter stated that despite receiving a $50,000 insurance payment in 2009, the
Individual failed to pay off any of her debts.2 Id. At the time of the Notification Letter, the
Individual had not attempted to resolve any of her financial delinquencies. Id.
The above information adequately justifies the DOE’s invocation of Criterion L, and raises
significant security concerns. The 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 information. See
Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline F.
IV. Findings of Fact and Analysis
I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions tendered
in this case and the testimony of the witness presented at the hearing. In determining whether the
Individual submitted sufficient information to resolve the security concerns raised by her
financial irresponsibility, I considered the mitigating conditions listed in the Adjudicative
Guidelines. See Adjudicative Guideline F, ¶ 20(a)-(f). After due deliberation, I have determined
2 The Individual actually received $100,000 but set aside $25,000 in a trust fund for each of her fiancée’s two
children. Ex. 3 at 28.
- 4 -
that the Individual’s access authorization should not be granted. I cannot find that granting the
Individual a DOE security clearance will not endanger the common defense and security and is
clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a). The specific findings that I
make in support of this decision are discussed below.
The Individual’s history of financial irresponsibility as outlined in the Notification Letter is
essentially undisputed and covers a span of over 20 years beginning with the Individual having
accounts in collection beginning in 1993. Tr. at 33; Ex. 6 at 13 (2000 Bankruptcy Petition). At
the hearing, the Individual acknowledged her history of financial problems which predate her
employment with the DOE contractor. Tr. at 18. After her 2000 bankruptcy, the Individual was
able stay out of debt for about four years and was able to purchase her home in 2004. Ex. 3 at 46.
However, after this purchase, she once again fell into a pattern of financial irresponsibility which
led to her current financial situation as demonstrated by her past due financial accounts detailed
in the Notification Letter. Since 2009, the Individual has had opportunities to pay off most of her
debts when she retained $50,000 of the proceeds from a life insurance payment upon the death of
her fiancée. Ex. 3 at 28, 47-50; Ex. 2 at 21 (Individual resigned from her job in 2009 because of
receipt of life insurance proceeds). However, instead of paying off her debts, the Individual
chose to buy clothes and other items she was not previously able to afford. Tr. at 16. By April
2009, only a few thousand of the $50,000 life insurance payment remained. Individual’s May
2005 Response to Access Authorization Suspension (Response) at 6. The Individual also
attributed much of her indebtedness to the passing of her fiancée, who helped her with her bills,
and chronic low wages due to unemployment or underemployment. Ex. 3 at 29; Tr. at 40. In a
July 2014 Questionnaire for National Security Positions, the Individual reported approximately
$11,000 of indebtedness. Ex. 2 at 47-55.
After her PSI, the Individual began working on getting her finances in order. Response at 2. She
has completely paid off at least five of her debts that were in collection, successfully disputed
one, and has been making payments on others with a plan to pay them off in a timely manner. Tr.
at 21-22; Ind. Ex. 6. The Individual believes that with her plan she should have all of her debts,
excepting a $9,000 collection account for a repossessed Jeep, paid off by February 2016. Tr. at
35. After the hearing, the Individual submitted her budget and pay stubs which she believes
provides evidence of her intention to keep herself financially stable. Ind. Ex. 6; Individual’s July
2015 Submission (Submission). The Individual also presented evidence that she consulted with a
debt reduction service. Ind. Ex. 3.
In prior cases involving financial considerations, Administrative Judges 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, e.g., Personnel Security
Hearing, Case No. PSH-14-0048 (2014); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-1078
(2011); Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0878 (2010). Additionally, Adjudicative
- 5 -
Guideline F lists several mitigating factors relating to security concerns raised by an individual’s
inability to live within one’s means. Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline F, ¶ 20.
The Individual asserts that the circumstances of her financial problems fit within the mitigating
factors listed in Guideline F of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Tr. at 38-40.3 Of the listed
mitigating factors, I find that only one mitigating factor is applicable – the Individual has made a
good faith effort to repay creditors (paragraph 20(d)). As for the other potentially relevant
mitigating factors, I cannot find that the Individual’s financial irresponsibility occurred so long
ago or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to occur (paragraph 20(a)). The
Individual financial problems have lasted for a considerable period and the Individual did not
attempt to resolve the problems until after the PSI in October 2014. Further, I cannot find that the
Individual’s financial problems were caused by circumstances beyond her control and that she
acted responsibly (paragraph 20(b)). The Individual’s misuse of the $50,000 life insurance
proceeds argues strongly against a finding for the Individual in this regard. Further, while the
Individual did see a credit counselling service (paragraph 20 (c)) and received advice, it is
unclear the extent of the counselling the Individual received. Lastly, while the Individual may
have a reasonable basis to dispute some of the past due accounts (paragraph 20(e)), the bulk of
her past due accounts are not in question.
The one mitigating factor I find applicable in this case – the Individual’s effort to repay her debts
– is outweighed by the relatively brief current period of time the Individual has demonstrated
financial responsibility. As referenced earlier, the Individual’s attempts to resolve her financial
situation originated in October 2014. Given the Individual’s lengthy period of financial
mismanagement and her prior resumption of financial irresponsibility after a four year period of
adequate financial management, I cannot find that the Individual, at this time, has demonstrated
an adequate period of sustained financial responsibility that allows me to conclude that the
security concerns raised by her financial condition have been resolved.4
V. Conclusion
3 The Guideline F mitigating factors are; (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; (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, or a death, divorce
or separation), and the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; (c) the person 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; (d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts; (e) the
individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt which is the cause of the problem and
provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the
issue; (f) the affluence resulted from a legal source of income. Adjudicative Guidelines, Guideline F, ¶ 20.
4 In making this decision, I have also taken in consideration the Individual’s praiseworthy efforts to improve her
quality of life and to obtain a higher education despite difficult circumstances. See Ind. Ex. 4.
- 6 -
In the above analysis, I have found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the
possession of the DOE that raises serious security concerns under Criterion L. After considering
all the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive common-sense
manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing. I have
found that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to mitigate all of the security
concerns associated with Criterion L. I therefore cannot find that granting the Individual’s access
authorization will not endanger the common defense and is clearly consistent with the national
interest. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual should not be granted an access
authorization at this time. The parties may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel
under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Richard A. Cronin, Jr.
Administrative Judge
Official of Hearings and Appeals
Date: August 21, 2015