Consisting of the transcript (Tr.), Government exhibits (GE) 1-4, hearing exhibits (HE) I-III, and Applicant1 exhibit (AE) A. AE A was timely received post-hearing. DoD acted under Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry (February 20,2 1960), as amended; DoD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (January 2, 1992), as amended (Directive); and the adjudicative guidelines (AG) effective within the DoD on 1 September 2006. 1 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) XXXXXX, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx ) ISCR Case No. 14-03771 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Tovah A. Minster, Esquire, Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se ______________ Decision ______________ METZ, John Grattan, Jr., Administrative Judge: Based on the record in this case, I deny Applicant’s clearance.1 On 15 August 2014, the Department of Defense (DoD) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant detailing security concerns under Guideline F, Financial Considerations. Applicant timely answered the SOR, requesting a hearing before the2 Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA). DOHA assigned the case to me 5 December 2014, and I convened a hearing 22 January 2015. DOHA received the transcript (Tr.) 30 January 2015. Applicant’s clearance had been erroneously reinstated based on his earlier investigation (HE I-III).3 Accordingly, Applicant had not thought it necessary to bring any documentation to the hearing regarding the status of his debts (Tr. 24-40). Consequently, I left the record open to give Applicant the opportunity to submit AE A (Tr. 70-73). 2 Findings of Fact Applicant admitted the SOR allegations. He is a 42-year-old Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act analyst employed by a defense contractor since May 2013. He seeks to retain the clearance issued to him in approximately 2002. He requires the3 clearance for access to the building where he works (Tr. 48). The SOR alleges, Government exhibits (GE 2-4) establish, and Applicant admits, four delinquent debts totaling nearly $19,000. Over $18,000 of the debt consists of delinquent education loans guaranteed by the Government. The remaining debt is for two delinquent cable accounts. Applicant began making $84 monthly payments on the education loan at SOR 1.b in September 2014, and has made required payments of $420 through December 2014 (AE A). The education loan at SOR 1.c is due to come out of forbearance soon (Tr 44). The cable bills have not been paid (Tr. 63), although Applicant has had some difficulty locating the proper creditor. Applicant attributed his delinquent debts, particularly his education loans, to putting his child support obligations ahead of his education loans (Tr. 43), and to periods of unemployment and underemployment he experienced before he obtained his current job. However, he has had no child support obligation since 2012 (Tr. 47), and his periods of unemployment/underemployment have not been clearly identified (Tr 49- 50). Applicant provided no work or character references or evidence of community and civic contributions. He has received no credit or financial counseling (Tr. 64). Policies The adjudicative guidelines (AG) list factors to evaluate a person’s suitability for access to classified information. Administrative judges must assess disqualifying and mitigating conditions under each issue fairly raised by the facts and situation presented. Each decision must also show a fair, impartial, and commonsense consideration of the factors listed in AG ¶ 2(a). The applicability of a disqualifying or mitigating condition is not, by itself, conclusive. However, specific guidelines should be followed when a case can be measured against them, as they are policy guidance governing the grant or denial of a clearance. Considering the SOR allegations and the evidence as a whole, the relevant adjudicative guideline is Guideline F (Financial Considerations). Security clearance decisions resolve whether it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue an applicant’s security clearance. The Government must prove, by substantial evidence, disputed facts alleged in the SOR. If it does, the See, Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988).4 ¶19 (a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts; (c) a history of not meeting financial obligations;5 ¶ 20 (a) the behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that6 it is unlikely to recur . . . ; ¶ 20 (b) the conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the person’s control . . . and7 the individual acted responsibly under the circumstances; ¶ 20 (d) the individual initiated a good-faith effort to repay overdue creditors or otherwise resolve debts;8 3 burden shifts to applicant to refute, extenuate, or mitigate the Government’s case. Because no one has a right to a security clearance, the applicant bears a heavy burden of persuasion. Persons with access to classified information enter into a fiduciary relationship with the Government based on trust and confidence. Therefore, the Government has a compelling interest in ensuring each applicant possesses the required judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness of those who must protect national interests as their own. The “clearly consistent with the national interest” standard compels deciding any reasonable doubt about an Applicant’s suitability for access in favor of the Government.4 Analysis The Government established a case for disqualification under Guideline F, and Applicant did not mitigate the security concerns. Applicant has nearly $19,000 in delinquent debt that he voluntarily incurred and has yet to resolve. Moreover, the5 overwhelming majority of the delinquent debt is for Government-backed education loans he incurred to further his education. He has only recently begun to make any progress on these debts, after receiving the SOR. In addition, Applicant meets none of the mitigating conditions for financial considerations. His financial difficulties are recent, not infrequent, and ongoing. The6 circumstances that he cites as the cause of his indebtedness have not been demonstrated to be beyond his control, as he has not detailed his unemployment/unemployment and his child care obligation ended in 2012. He cannot be considered to have acted responsibly in addressing his debts under the circumstances, because he took no action to resolve his debts until he received the SOR. Further, his recent start of a repayment plan on one of his education loans have7 not continued long enough to consider them a good-faith effort to resolve his debts. 8 The concern with Applicant is that while he now promises to address his delinquent debts, he has made little progress in that direction. The Government is not the collection agent of last resort. The Government expects applicants to deal with their delinquent debts because of their legal and moral obligation to do so, not because they face the risk of adverse administrative action. He has not received credit or financial ¶ 20 (c) the person has received or is receiving counseling for the problem and there are clear indications9 that the problem is being resolved or is under control; 4 counseling. He certainly has not demonstrated that these delinquent debts are being resolved in an expeditious manner. Further, he provided no favorable character and9 work references to establish a “whole-person” analysis supporting a favorable clearance action. Accordingly, I conclude Guideline F against Applicant. Formal Findings Paragraph 1. Guideline F: AGAINST APPLICANT Subparagraphs a-d: Against Applicant Conclusion Under the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is not clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant. Clearance denied. JOHN GRATTAN METZ, JR Administrative Judge