PSH-19-0057

*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: September 27, 2019 ) Case No.: PSH-19-0057
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: December 4, 2019
_______________
Administrative Judge Decision
_______________
Katie Quintana, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the Individual”) to
hold an access authorization1 under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations set forth at
10 C.F.R. Part 710, Subpart A, entitled “General Criteria and Procedures for Determining
Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material.” As discussed below, after
carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National
Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that
the Individual’s access authorization should not be granted.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor that requested a security clearance on her behalf.
In applying for her clearance, the Individual completed an Electronic Questionnaire for
Investigations Processing (e-QIP) in December 2016. Ex 9. In response to one of the financial
questions, the Individual indicated that she was currently over 120 days delinquent on her student
loans. Id. at 45-46. Subsequently, the Local Security Office (LSO) asked her to complete a Letter
of Interrogatory (LOI). Ex. 6. Due to unresolved security concerns, the LSO informed the
Individual, in a Notification Letter dated August 23, 2019 (Notification Letter), that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding her eligibility to hold a security
clearance. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Ex. 1.
Upon receipt of the Notification Letter, the Individual exercised her right under the Part 710
regulations by requesting an administrative review hearing. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of
Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed me the Administrative Judge in the case, and I
1 Access authorization is defined as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access to
classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). Such
authorization will be referred to variously in this Decision as access authorization or security clearance.
- 2 -
subsequently conducted an administrative hearing in the matter. At the hearing, the DOE Counsel
submitted ten numbered exhibits (Exhibits 1–10) into the record. The Individual tendered six
exhibits (Exhibits A–F) and testified on her own behalf. The exhibits will be cited in this Decision
as “Ex.” followed by the appropriate alphabetical or numeric designation. The hearing transcript in
the case will be cited as “Tr.” followed by the relevant page number.
II. Regulatory Standard
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all of the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance.
See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990),
cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The Individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence 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 Individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence
at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
III. Notification Letter and Associated Concerns
As previously mentioned, the Notification Letter included a statement of derogatory information
that raised concerns about the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. The information in
the letter specifically cited Guideline F of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Guideline F addresses one’s
“[f]ailure to live within one's means, satisfy debts, and meet financial obligations.” Guideline F at
¶ 18. It is well established that 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. Id. Among the conditions set forth in
that guideline that could raise a disqualifying security concern are the inability to satisfy debts and
an unwillingness to satisfy debts regardless of the ability to do so. Guideline F at ¶ 19(a), (b). In
citing Guideline F, the LSO relied upon the Individual’s admissions in the LOI and the Individual’s
credit report, indicating that the Individual had 10 collection accounts, totaling $225,244,
consisting of: (1) three medical debts, (2) two miscellaneous debts,2 and (3) five student loan debts.
2 As the nature of these debts is unascertainable based upon the name of the creditor, I have characterized them as
miscellaneous.
- 3 -
Ex. 1. Additionally, the LSO cited that the Individual was 120 days past due on one of her student
loans, carrying a balance of $6,673. Id.
IV. Findings of Fact
I have carefully considered the totality of the record in reaching the findings of fact set forth below.
At the hearing, the Individual presented only her own testimony.
A. Medical Debts
The Individual testified that two of the three medical debts listed on the summary of security
concerns had been paid in full. Tr. at 28, 29; Ex. 2. She noted that she first became aware of these
two debts upon seeing her credit report as part of the security clearance process; however, she did
not know what these debts were. Id. As such, she disputed them on her credit report, but she
ultimately decided to pay them off in full. Id.; Ex. 2. With regard to the one remaining medical
debt, the Individual indicated that she “was unable to find any further information for it to be able
to see who the creditor is to be able to satisfy that debt.” Tr. at 30; Ex. 2.
B. Miscellaneous Debts
The Individual testified that, with regard to the two miscellaneous debts, both had been paid in full.
Tr. at 25-26; Ex. 2. She stated that she was unaware of these debts, and the first time she knew of
these debts was upon receipt of the summary of security concerns. Tr. at 26-27.
C. Student Loan Debts
In her opening statement, the Individual indicated that when she graduated college, approximately
10 years ago, she came under financial hardship due to “overwhelming student loan debt.” Tr. at
7. The Individual testified that she had a difficult time finding a job after graduation but was able
to delay the loan payments for six months. Id. at 14. Once she found a full time job, she then
arranged to make modified payments on her student loans; however, she was only able to make
those payments for approximately eight months before the modified payment agreement ended and
the payments subsequently doubled. Id. She explained that, along with the payment amounts
doubling, the interest rate on her loans increased as well. Id. at 24. The Individual estimated that
she stopped paying on the loans approximately in 2013. Id. at 17. She testified that, once she
realized that she would not be able to afford the loan payments, she filed for bankruptcy; however,
due to the nature of the loans, they were not able to be discharged through the bankruptcy
proceedings. Id. at 16.
The Individual testified that, although the summary of security concerns listed five student loan
debts, she had, in fact, only obtained four student loans. Id. at 10. She stated that she did not know
which of the student loan debts on the summary of security concerns was a duplicate. Id. At the
hearing, she was unable to definitively match each of her four known student loans to the loans
listed on the summary of security concerns. See id. at 11. The Individual noted she had contacted
the original creditor, but the loans had been charged off, and the original creditor could no longer
provide statements detailing her loans. Id. at 12. She further clarified that the amount that is now
- 4 -
being requested in collections is approximately twice that of the original student loan amounts, as
the result of interest and fees. Id. at 11-12.
The Individual acknowledged that she had not contacted the debt collectors to determine the current
amounts due, nor had she made any payment arrangements. Id. at 12-13. She stated that the “only
type of payment arrangement [the debt collectors] were willing to accept…was two payment
installments,” which totaled approximately $80,000 each. Id. at 13. However, she noted that she
never tried to send a partial payment in order to explore whether the debt collector would accept
such a payment. Id. at 20.
Following the hearing, the Individual submitted additional information to help provide insight into
the circumstances of her outstanding student loan debt. Based upon the information the Individual
provided, it appears that items 1 and 5 on the summary of security concerns are duplicative of one
another and represent the same loan. Ex. E. This is also true for items 3 and 4. Id. Despite this
additional information, it is unclear as to exact amounts owed on the four student loans; however,
the total indebtedness appears to be slightly under $200,000. Id. The Individual does acknowledge
that her last payment, on two of the loans, was made in February 2013, and the debts were charged
off in December 2013. Id. With regard to a third loan, her last payment was made in April of 2011,
and the account was charged off in March 2012. Id. The circumstances and payment history
concerning the fourth loan are unknown.
V. Analysis
I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions tendered in
this case and the testimony of the Individual presented at the hearing. In resolving the question of
the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization, I have been guided by the applicable factors
prescribed in 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) and the Adjudicative Guidelines. After due deliberation, I have
determined that the Individual has not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns noted by the
LSO with regard to Guideline F. I cannot find that granting the Individual’s 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). Therefore, I have determined that the Individual’s security
clearance should not be granted. The specific findings that I make in support of this decision are
discussed below.
An inability to satisfy one’s debts or an individual’s unwillingness to do so regardless of his or her
ability may raise a security concern that could serve as a disqualifier to receiving a security
clearance. Guideline F at ¶ 19(a)(b). An individual may be able to mitigate the security concerns
by demonstrating that 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. Id. at ¶ 20(a). Additionally, an individual may be
able to mitigate the security concerns if the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were
largely beyond the person’s control and the person acted responsibly under the circumstances. Id.
at ¶ 20(b). Further, if an individual has initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay
overdue creditors, an individual may be able to mitigate a security concern. Id. at ¶ 20(d).
With regard to the Individual’s medical and miscellaneous debt, I recognize that she quickly
resolved those debts once she learned of them. See id. at ¶ 20(d). However, I cannot find that the
- 5 -
Individual’s financial situation does not cast doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment. Id. at ¶ 20(a). The Individual appears to have a limited awareness of her financial
situation, as demonstrated by her complete lack of knowledge of the five medical and
miscellaneous debts, totaling over $1000, listed on the summary of security concerns.
Furthermore, with regard to the student loans, it appears that, over the years, the Individual made
no effort to address or manage the debt. The Individual demonstrated that she has very little
knowledge of the details of her loans and readily acknowledged that she stopped paying on her four
student loans over five years ago. She additionally stated that, at the time she ceased payment, she
had only made eight months of payments toward the debt.3 Though the Individual testified that she
was unable to make the student loan payments after graduating college, her current monthly budget
shows that she spends in excess of $500 a month on a recreational vehicle, but has failed to make
any recent payments toward the outstanding student loan debt of nearly $200,000. Ex. D. See
Guideline F at ¶ 19(b); contra id. at ¶ 20(d).
For the foregoing reasons, I cannot find that the Individual has mitigated the DOE’s security
concerns under Guideline F.
VI. CONCLUSION
After considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony and other evidence presented at
the hearing, I have found that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve
the security concern associated with Guideline F. Accordingly, I have determined that the
Individual’s access authorization should not be granted.
The parties may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel under the regulations set forth at
10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Katie Quintana
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals
3 The Individual submitted published articles describing “illegal student loan debt collection lawsuits” taken against
her creditor and debt collector; however, the Individual did not provide any evidence that indicated she was a victim
of any such illegal action. Ex. F.