TSO-1005

* 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.
June 9, 2011
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
Hearing Officer's Decision
Name of Case: Personnel Security Hearing
Date of Filing: February 10, 2011
Case Number: TSO-1005
This decision concerns the eligibility of XXXX X. XXXXX (hereinafter referred to as "the
Individual") to maintain a security clearance 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 conclude that the Individual’s
security clearance should not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
This case involves an Individual with a longstanding pattern of failing to meet his financial
obligations. After obtaining information indicating that the Individual had several debts that
were over 180 days delinquent, the LSO conducted an investigation of the Individual’s financial
circumstances. This investigation revealed that the Individual’s longstanding pattern of failing to
meet his financial obligations was continuing.
Unable to resolve the security concerns raised by this derogatory information, the LSO initiated
administrative review proceedings by issuing a letter (Notification Letter) advising the Individual
that it possessed reliable information that created a substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to
hold a security clearance. In the Notification Letter, the LSO set forth the derogatory
information at issue and advised that the derogatory information fell within the purview of
potentially disqualifying criteria set forth in the security regulations at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8,
subsection (l).1
1
Specifically, the Notification Letter alleges that the Individual has:
Engaged 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. Such conduct or
circumstances include, but are not limited to, criminal behavior, a pattern of financial
irresponsibility, conflicting allegiances, or violation of any commitment or promise upon which
DOE previously relied to favorably resolve an issue of access authorization eligibility.
2
The Notification Letter informed the Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before a Hearing
Officer in order to resolve the substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization.
The Individual requested a hearing, and the LSO forwarded his request to the Office of Hearings
and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as the Hearing Officer in this matter
on February 11, 2011.
At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(e) and (g), I took testimony only from
the Individual. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. TSO-1005 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The
LSO submitted 27 exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 27, and the Individual submitted four
exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through D.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Hearing Officer's role in this proceeding is to evaluate the evidence presented by the agency
and the Individual, and to render a decision based on that evidence. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a).
The regulations state that “[t]he decision as to access authorization is a comprehensive,
common-sense judgment, made after consideration of all the relevant information, favorable or
unfavorable, as to whether the granting of 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). I
have considered the following factors in rendering this decision: the nature, extent, and
seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances surrounding the conduct, including knowledgeable
participation; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the Individual's age and maturity at the
time of the conduct; the voluntariness of the Individual's participation; the absence or presence of
rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes; the motivation for the
conduct, the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence; and other relevant and material factors. See 10 C.F.R. §§ 710.7(c),
710.27(a). The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the testimony and
exhibits presented by both sides in this case.
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Individual does not dispute that he has exhibited a longstanding pattern of failing to meet his
financial obligations. In 1987, the Individual’s motor vehicle was repossessed. In 1992, the
Individual’s home was foreclosed. He has declared bankruptcy on at least three occasions, in
1997, 2005, and again in 2011. A credit report dated October 1, 2010, indicated that the
Individual had charged off accounts totaling $5,138. Exhibit 12. During a Personnel Security
Interview (PSI) conducted on November 3, 2010, the Individual admitted being at least six
months past due on credit accounts totaling $10,389.65. Exhibit 12; Exhibit 13; Exhibit 22 at
42-44, 52-53, 55-57, 62-65, 67-69, 71, 80-81, 106-108, 110, 112-113. The Individual also
admitted that he was $3,030 past due on his mortgage.
On at least five occasions, on May 19, 1992, July 24, 1997, December 16, 2004, October 20,
2005, and November 3, 2010, the LSO conducted PSIs of the Individual inquiring about his
3
financial circumstances.2 Exhibits 22, 23, 24, 25, and 26. In each of the Individual’s PSIs the
Individual was made aware of the DOE’s security concerns about his financial issues. During
each of these PSIs, the Individual stated his intent to resolve his financial issues.
IV. ANALYSIS
The record shows that the Individual has engaged in a pattern of financial irresponsibility. The
Individual’s pattern of financial irresponsibility raises significant security concerns under
Criterion L. The Revised Adjudicative Guidelines state in pertinent part:
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. An individual who is financially overextended is at risk of having to
engage in illegal acts to generate funds . . . . Conditions that could raise a security
concern and may be disqualifying include: (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy
debts; (b) indebtedness caused by frivolous or irresponsible spending and the
absence of any evidence of willingness or intent to pay the debt or establish a
realistic plan to pay the debt; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations; . . .
[and] (e) consistent spending beyond one's means, which may be indicated by
excessive indebtedness, significant negative cash flow, high debt-to-income ratio,
and/or other financial analysis.
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) at ¶¶ 18, 19. As the discussion above illustrates, the
record shows that several of the financial conditions that could raise security concerns identified
by Guideline F apply to the Individual.3 As for possible mitigating factors, I find that the
2 The transcript of the November 3, 2010, PSI appears in the record as Exhibit 22. The transcript of the October 20,
2005, PSI appears in the record as Exhibit 23. The transcript of the December 16, 2004, PSI, appears in the record
as Exhibit 24. The transcript of the July 24, 1997, PSI appears in the record as Exhibit 25. The transcript of the
May, 19, 1992, PSI, appears in the record as Exhibit 26.
3 Conditions that could mitigate security concerns arising from financial irresponsibility 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, 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
4
Individual has not met any of the conditions set forth at ¶ 20(a) of Guideline F. His failure to
exercise good judgment, honesty and reliability in his financial affairs has been a long-term
problem dating back to at least 1997, and appears not to have been resolved. His behavior casts
doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. I also find that the Individual has
not met the conditions set forth at ¶ 20(b) of Guideline F. While the Individual testified that his
financial setbacks have resulted, in part, from several work stoppages and providing assistance to
family members, including his mother who was stricken by cancer and his son and
granddaughter after his son had lost his job, the pattern of failing to meet his financial
obligations began several years prior to these challenges. Moreover, the irresponsible manner in
which the Individual has responded, over the years, or in some cases failed to respond, to his
financial set-backs has raised significant security concerns. In addition, the Individual has not
met the conditions set forth at ¶ 20(c) of Guideline F. While the Individual has sought credit
counseling assistance, he has not shown that such counseling has been effective. At the hearing,
the Individual admitted that he has not even begun to implement a family budget or a financial
plan which could reasonably be expected to resolve his financial issues. Tr. at 51, 77. The
Individual has presented no evidence to allow me to conclude that he is able to exert and
maintain control over his finances. The Individual has similarly failed to meet conditions set
forth at ¶ 20(d) of Guideline F, since the Individual has only recently entered into repayment
plans with many of his creditors. Finally, the Individual has not met the conditions set forth at ¶
20(e) of Guideline F. He has not shown that he has any reasonable basis to dispute the
legitimacy of his past-due debts and has not provided documented proof to substantiate that he
has taken sufficient action to resolve his financial issues.
For all the reasons set forth above, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the security
concerns associated with his documented financial irresponsibility. Thus, I find that he has not
resolved the security concerns raised under Criterion L.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, after carefully considering the evidence before me, I find that the
Individual has not resolved the security concerns raised under Criterion L. Therefore, the
Individual has not demonstrated that restoring his security clearance 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 not be restored. The Individual may seek review
of this Decision by an Appeal Panel under the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710.28.
Steven L. Fine
Hearing Officer
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: June 9, 2011
problem and provides documented proof to substantiate the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to
resolve the issue.
Guideline F at ¶ 20.