PSH-23-0083

*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, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-23-0083
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: July 17, 2023
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material.”1 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 should be granted
access authorization.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 22, 2022, the Individual signed and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP) in connection with seeking access authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 10 at 50.2 The
Individual disclosed on the QNSP that he had fallen into delinquency on two routine financial
accounts on which he estimated that he owed $10,245. Id. at 45–47. During an interview with an
investigator (Investigator) on April 4, 2022, the Individual represented that he intended to contact
his creditors to resolve his debts. Id. at 60.
The local security office (LSO) subsequently issued the Individual a letter of interrogatory (LOI)
concerning his financial situation. Ex. 11. In his response, the Individual identified a third
delinquent account and estimated that he owed $10,497 across all three debts. Id. at 3. The
1 The regulations define access authorization 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). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
2 The internal pagination of numerous exhibits offered by the local security office does not correspond to the number
of pages included in the exhibits. For example, the pagination of Ex. 10 does not correspond to the total number of
pages due to an unnumbered first page. This Decision cites to pages in the order in which they appear in exhibits
without regard for their internal pagination.
- 2 -
Individual appended a personal financial statement (PFS) to his response to the LOI in which he
estimated that his net monthly income was $1,630. Ex. 12.
The LSO issued the Individual a letter notifying him that it possessed reliable information that
created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 3 at 1–2. In a
Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guideline F (Financial Considerations) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 4.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 5. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative
hearing. The LSO submitted twelve exhibits (Exs. 1–12). The Individual submitted two exhibits
(Exs. A–B). The Individual testified on his own behalf. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 3, 9. The LSO
did not call any witnesses to testify. Id. at 3.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline F of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the basis for its substantial doubt
regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 3 at 4. “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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 18. The SSC cited the Individual’s three delinquent
debts on which he owed an estimated $10,497, and the Individual’s failure to repay his debts
despite his stated intention to do so and his net monthly income of $1,630. Ex. 3 at 4. The LSO’s
allegations that the Individual demonstrated unwillingness to satisfy his debts and a history of not
meeting financial obligations justify its invocation of Guideline F. Adjudicative Guidelines at
¶ 19(b)–(c).
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
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
Dep’t 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) (strong
presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
An 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). An individual is afforded a
- 3 -
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her 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. Id.
at § 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence
to mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Individual opened a credit card with his wife (ex-wife), from whom he is now divorced, in
2013. Tr. at 12; Ex. 10 at 60, 81. The Individual and his ex-wife used the credit card for gifts and
miscellaneous purchases for several years, and made timely monthly payments on the card. Tr. at
12. In 2015, the Individual accepted a job offer from a DOE contractor and relocated his family to
a city near a DOE site. Id. at 12–13; Ex. 10 at 25. The Individual was unable to work at the DOE
site without access authorization, and he was unemployed while awaiting a determination
concerning his eligibility for access authorization. Tr. at 13–14. During this period of
unemployment, the Individual used the credit card for essential household expenses and fell behind
on payments. Id. at 13, 15.
After four months passed, the Individual determined that his financial situation was too precarious
to continue to wait for access authorization, and he accepted a physically demanding low-wage
job. Id. at 14, 16–17. The monthly payments on the credit card were too high for the Individual
and his ex-wife to make while also satisfying their current obligations, and in 2016 the account
was charged off by the creditor and referred to collections. Id. at 18. The Individual and his ex-
wife discussed potentially attempting to pay off the debt in 2017 when he obtained another job and
their financial position improved, but since it was already referred to collections they “just
continued to let it sit there.” Id.
In 2018, a medical debt (Medical Debt 1) attributed to the Individual was referred to collections.
Ex. 10 at 81. The Individual disputed Medical Debt 1. See id. (showing that the Individual
challenged the debt); see also Tr. at 9–10 (denying having ever received a bill concerning Medical
Debt 1 before it was referred to collections).
On March 22, 2022, the Individual signed and submitted the QNSP. Ex. 10 at 50. The Individual
disclosed his two delinquent debts on the QNSP. Id. at 45–47. On April 4, 2022, the Investigator
interviewed the Individual as part of an investigation into the Individual’s eligibility for access
authorization. Id. at 56. During the interview, the Individual represented that he intended to contact
his creditors to resolve his debts. Id. at 60.
On September 19, 2022, the LSO issued the Individual the LOI. Ex. 11 at 1. In his response to the
LOI, the Individual disclosed a new medical debt (Medical Debt 2) that he indicated had recently
been sent to collections. Id. at 3. The Individual denied knowledge of the source of Medical Debt
2 and represented that he had disputed the debt. Id. at 3–4. The Individual also reported that he had
successfully disputed Medical Debt 1 and that it had been removed from his credit report. Id. at 3.
The Individual indicated in his response to the LOI that “[n]o action has been taken” with respect
to his credit card debt. Id.; see also Tr. at 21 (indicating that he perceived that “the damage was
done” and that he did not realize that the credit card debt “would have this big of an impact” on
- 4 -
the adjudication of his eligibility for access authorization). The Individual appended the PFS, in
which he estimated that his monthly income net of all expenses was $1,630, to his response to the
LOI. Ex. 12.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that he adheres to a monthly budget and is “a lot more
cautious” in utilizing credit. Tr. at 23. The Individual represented that he contacted the collections
agency to which the credit card debt was referred and was told that the debt balance was zero. Id.
at 22. The Individual surmised that, due to the passage of seven years since the credit card debt
was referred to collections, the collections agency was no longer legally entitled to collect the debt
and therefore that the balance on the debt appeared as zero. Id. The Individual provided copies of
credit reports from May 2023. Ex. A; Ex. B. The credit card debt did not appear as a delinquency
on the credit reports, which indicated that the Individual was in good standing on his consumer
debts and had made timely payments on all accounts since 2019. Ex. A; Ex. B. The Individual also
indicated that he had successfully challenged Medical Debt 2. Tr. at 9–10.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline F
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline F include:
(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, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory lending
practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances;
(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;
(d) the individual initiated and is adhering to 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; and,
(g) the individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or pay
the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements.
- 5 -
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20.
The Individual incurred the credit card debt approximately eight years prior to the hearing during
a period in which he was unemployed while awaiting the adjudication of his security clearance
eligibility. When the Individual perceived that his financial situation was too dire to continue
waiting for a determination concerning his security clearance eligibility, he took an undesirable
job to provide for his family but was unable to earn enough money to both meet his current
obligations and repay the credit card debt he incurred while unemployed. The Individual’s
financial situation has significantly improved since he incurred the credit card debt, the credit card
debt no longer appears on his credit reports, and the Individual has demonstrated improved
financial responsibility by making timely payments towards his consumer debts for the past four
years. For these reasons, I find the first and second mitigating conditions under Guideline F
applicable. Id. at ¶ 20(a)–(b).
The third mitigating condition is inapplicable because the Individual does not claim to have
pursued financial counseling. Id. at ¶ 20(c). The fourth mitigating condition is inapplicable because
the Individual does not assert that he repaid the debts cited by the LSO in the SSC. Id. at ¶ 20(d).
The fifth mitigating condition is applicable to the medical debts cited by the LSO because the
Individual successfully challenged the validity of both debts. Id. at ¶ 20(e). The sixth mitigating
condition is inapplicable because the LSO did not allege that the Individual displayed unexplained
affluence. Id. at ¶ 20(f). The seventh mitigating condition is inapplicable because the LSO did not
allege that the Individual failed to file tax returns or pay taxes as required. Id. at ¶ 20(g).
The Individual fell into financial delinquency during a period of unemployment in 2015 that
occurred due to delays in adjudicating his clearance eligibility that were not within his control.
The Individual could not reasonably repay the credit card debt and provide essentials for his family
while employed at a low-wage job following the period of unemployment. While the Individual
might have made greater efforts to resolve the credit card debt after he obtained more remunerative
employment, I find that the Individual’s demonstrated financial responsibility since at least 2019
is sufficient to establish that his prior indebtedness does not reflect on his current reliability,
trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified information. Accordingly, I find that the Individual
has resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline F.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guideline F of the Adjudicative Guidelines. 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
find that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns set
forth in the Summary of Security Concerns. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual
should be granted access authorization. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the
procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
- 6 -
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals