1 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEFENSE OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS In the matter of: ) ) XXXXXXXXXX, XXXXX ) ISCR Case No. 14-03466 ) Applicant for Security Clearance ) Appearances For Government: Gregg A. Cervi, Esq., Department Counsel For Applicant: Pro se __________ Decision __________ TUIDER, Robert J., Administrative Judge: Applicant mitigated security concerns under Guideline F (financial considerations). Clearance is granted. Statement of the Case On March 15, 2015, Applicant submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (SF-86). On March 16, 2015, the Department of Defense Consolidated Adjudications Facility (DOD CAF) issued a Statement of Reasons (SOR) to Applicant, pursuant to Executive Order 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry, dated February 20, 1960, as amended; DOD Directive 5220.6, Defense Industrial Personnel Security Clearance Review Program (Directive), dated January 2, 1992, as amended; and the adjudicative guidelines (AG), which became effective on September 1, 2006. The SOR alleged security concerns under Guideline F. The SOR detailed reasons why DOD was unable to find that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue a security clearance for Applicant, and referred her case to an administrative judge for a determination whether her clearance should be granted or denied. 2 Applicant answered the SOR on May 1, 2015, and elected to have her case decided on the written record in lieu of a hearing. A complete copy of the file of relevant material (FORM), dated September 29, 2015, was provided to her by letter dated September 30, 2015. Applicant received the FORM on October 12, 2015. She was afforded 30 days to file objections and submit material in refutation, extenuation, or mitigation. Applicant timely submitted additional information after receipt of the FORM, which was received without objection from Department Counsel.1 On November 12, 2015, DOHA assigned the case to me. Findings of Fact Applicant denied all of the SOR allegations with explanations. Her SOR answers are incorporated in my findings of fact. Background Information Applicant is a 41-year-old plant manager employed by a defense contractor since November 2007. She was previously employed by the same defense contractor from February 2003 to August 2006. She seeks to renew her security clearance as a condition of continued employment. (Item 3, Item 7) Applicant graduated from high school in approximately 1992. She was awarded an associate’s degree in 2007, and attended several colleges after receiving her associate’s degree. (Item 3, Item 7) Applicant was married from 2002 to 2008, and that marriage ended by divorce. She has two children ages, 24 and 14. Applicant did not serve in the armed forces. (Item 3, Item 7) Financial Considerations Applicant’s SOR alleges ten debt allegations totaling $30,885. After Applicant received her copy of the FORM, she submitted additional information in her FORM response that clarified her financial situation. The following summarizes her SOR debts and their known status. SOR ¶ 1.a - Judgment filed against Applicant in 2011 for $8,151. Applicant is making payments on this account. DEBT BEING RESOLVED. (Item 2; FORM response) SOR ¶ 1.b – Collection account for $1,052. Applicant paid debt in full. DEBT RESOLVED. (Item 2; FORM response) SOR ¶¶ 1.c and 1.e – Collection accounts for $5,972 and $4,946. Both accounts are from the same creditor. Applicant denied that the first account is hers and provided documentation that she settled and paid an account with the creditor for $9,734. Debts 1 Applicant’s additional information will be referred to as “FORM response.” 3 appear to be duplicates or were consolidated. DEBTS RESOLVED. (Item 2; FORM response) SOR ¶ 1.d – Collection account for $432. Applicant paid debt in full. DEBT RESOLVED. (Item 2, SOR response) SOR ¶ 1.f – Charged-off credit card account for $8,201. Applicant paid debt in full. DEBT RESOLVED. (Item 2; SOR response) SOR ¶¶ 1.g – 1.j – Collection accounts for $957, $448, $448, and $278. Applicant denied these were her accounts and opined they most likely are her former husband’s accounts. These debts do not appear on her two credit reports dated April 9, 2014 and July 24, 2014. DEBTS RESOLVED. (Item 2, Item 5, Item 6, Item 7) Applicant attributes her financial difficulties to being laid off from July 2006 to November 2007, being a single mother, and having received “little to no child support” from her former husband after her 2008 divorce. She stated that she put her two children first, and with her limited income, fell behind on her bills. (Item 7) Applicant has been receiving employee-sponsored credit counseling for the past three years. This has helped her set up a manageable budget and return to financial responsibility. (Item 2) In addition to financial counseling, Applicant’s financial situation has improved as a result of receiving two promotions. Also, she no longer has to pay for her oldest child’s school tuition since he began college. (Item 7) She advised that she is doing much better financially and has set a goal of paying off all of her debts and improving her credit score. (Item 7) Policies The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the substantial discretion of the Executive Branch in regulating access to information pertaining to national security emphasizing, “no one has a ‘right’ to a security clearance.” Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 528 (1988). As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to control access to information bearing on national security and to determine whether an individual is sufficiently trustworthy to have access to such information.” Id. at 527. The President has authorized the Secretary of Defense or his designee to grant applicant’s eligibility for access to classified information “only upon a finding that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to do so.” Exec. Or. 10865, Safeguarding Classified Information within Industry § 2 (Feb. 20, 1960), as amended. Eligibility for a security clearance is predicated upon the applicant meeting the criteria contained in the adjudicative guidelines. These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with an evaluation of the whole person. An administrative judge’s overarching adjudicative goal is a fair, impartial, and commonsense decision. An administrative judge must consider all available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable. 4 The Government reposes a high degree of trust and confidence in persons with access to classified information. This relationship transcends normal duty hours and endures throughout off-duty hours. Decisions include, by necessity, consideration of the possible risk the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible extrapolation about potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information. Clearance decisions must be “in terms of the national interest and shall in no sense be a determination as to the loyalty of the applicant concerned.” See Exec. Or. 10865 § 7. See also Executive Order 12968 (Aug. 2, 1995), § 3.1. Thus, nothing in this Decision should be construed to suggest that I have based this decision, in whole or in part, on any express or implied determination about applicant’s allegiance, loyalty, or patriotism. It is merely an indication the applicant has not met the strict guidelines the President and the Secretary of Defense have established for issuing a clearance. Initially, the Government must establish, by substantial evidence, conditions in the personal or professional history of the applicant that may disqualify the applicant from being eligible for access to classified information. The Government has the burden of establishing controverted facts alleged in the SOR. See Egan, 484 U.S. at 531. “Substantial evidence” is “more than a scintilla but less than a preponderance.” See v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 36 F.3d 375, 380 (4th Cir. 1994). The guidelines presume a nexus or rational connection between proven conduct under any of the criteria listed therein and an applicant’s security suitability. See ISCR Case No. 95-0611 at 2 (App. Bd. May 2, 1996). Once the Government establishes a disqualifying condition by substantial evidence, the burden shifts to the applicant to rebut, explain, extenuate, or mitigate the facts. Directive ¶ E3.1.15. An applicant “has the ultimate burden of demonstrating that it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue her security clearance.” ISCR Case No. 01-20700 at 3 (App. Bd. Dec. 19, 2002). The burden of disproving a mitigating condition never shifts to the Government. See ISCR Case No. 02-31154 at 5 (App. Bd. Sep. 22, 2005). “[S]ecurity clearance determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials.” Egan, 484 U.S. at 531; see AG ¶ 2(b). Analysis Financial Considerations AG ¶ 18 articulates the security concern relating to financial problems: 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. 5 AG ¶ 19 provides two disqualifying conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying in this case: “(a) inability or unwillingness to satisfy debts;” and “(c) a history of not meeting financial obligations.” The evidence establishes the disqualifying conditions in AG ¶¶ 19(a) and 19(c), requiring additional inquiry about the possible applicability of mitigating conditions. Five mitigating conditions under AG ¶ 20 are potentially applicable: (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; and (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. Applicant’s conduct does not warrant full application of AG ¶ 20(a) because there is more than one delinquent debt and her financial problems are not isolated. Her debt is a “continuing course of conduct” under the Appeal Board’s jurisprudence. See ISCR Case No. 07-11814 at 3 (App. Bd. Aug. 29, 2008) (citing ISCR Case No. 01-03695 (App. Bd. Oct. 16, 2002)). Applicant receives partial credit under AG ¶ 20(b) as a result of being laid off from 2006 to 2007 and for the fallout after her 2008 divorce. She would have received full credit had those events been more recent. Applicant receives full credit under AG ¶ 20(c) for participating in financial counseling for the past three years and returning to financial responsibility. As noted, Applicant has either paid her known creditors or is in the process of repaying them. AG ¶ 20(d) is fully applicable. Given Applicant’s 6 resources, she is approaching her debts in a responsible and measured way.2 AG ¶ 20(e) is applicable to the debts in SOR ¶¶ 1.c, and 1.g – 1.j. Whole-Person Concept Under the whole-person concept, the administrative judge must evaluate an applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance by considering the totality of the applicant’s conduct and all the circumstances. The administrative judge should consider the nine adjudicative process factors listed at AG ¶ 2(a): (1) the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; (2) the circumstances surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; (3) the frequency and recency of the conduct; (4) the individual’s age and maturity at the time of the conduct; (5) the extent to which participation is voluntary; (6) the presence or absence of rehabilitation and other permanent behavioral changes; (7) the motivation for the conduct; (8) the potential for pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; and (9) the likelihood of continuation or recurrence. The ultimate determination of whether to grant eligibility for a security clearance must be an overall commonsense judgment based upon careful consideration of the guidelines and the whole-person concept. AG ¶ 2(c). The discussion in the Analysis section under Guideline F is incorporated in this whole-person section. However, further comments are warranted. Both the mitigating condition under Guidelines and the whole-person analysis support a favorable decision. Applicant’s employment with a defense contractor and having previously held a security clearance weigh in her favor. She is a law-abiding citizen and a productive member of society. She is current on her day-to-day expenses, lives within her means, and her SOR debts are resolved or are being resolved. The Appeal Board has addressed a key element in the whole-person analysis in financial cases stating: In evaluating F cases, the Board has previously noted that the concept of “‘meaningful track record’” necessarily includes evidence of actual debt reduction through payment of debts.” However, an applicant is not required, as a matter of law, to establish that he has paid off each and every debt listed in the SOR. All that is required is that an applicant demonstrate that he has “. . . established a plan to resolve his financial problems and taken significant actions to implement that plan.” The Judge 2 “Even if Applicant’s financial difficulties initially arose, in whole or in part, due to circumstances outside his [or her] control, the Judge could still consider whether Applicant has since acted in a reasonable manner when dealing with those financial difficulties.” ISCR Case No. 05-11366 at 4 n.9 (App. Bd. Jan. 12, 2007) (citing ISCR Case No. 99-0462 at 4 (App. Bd. May 25, 2000); ISCR Case No. 99-0012 at 4 (App. Bd. Dec. 1, 1999); ISCR Case No. 03-13096 at 4 (App. Bd. Nov. 29, 2005)). A component is whether she maintained contact with her creditors and attempted to negotiate partial payments to keep her debts current. 7 can reasonably consider the entirety of an applicant’s financial situation and his actions in evaluating the extent to which that applicant’s plan for the reduction of his outstanding indebtedness is credible and realistic. See Directive ¶ E2.2(a) (“Available, reliable information about the person, past and present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a determination.”) There is no requirement that a plan provide for payments on all outstanding debts simultaneously. Rather, a reasonable plan (and concomitant conduct) may provide for the payment of such debts one at a time. Likewise, there is no requirement that the first debts actually paid in furtherance of a reasonable debt plan be the ones listed in the SOR. ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations omitted). ISCR Case No. 07-06482 at 2-3 (App. Bd. May 21, 2008) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Applicant understands what she needs to do to establish and maintain her financial responsibility. Her efforts at debt resolution have established a “meaningful track record” of debt re-payment. I am confident she will resolve the remaining debt on her SOR and maintain her financial responsibility.3 I take this position based on the law, as set forth in Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518 (1988), my careful consideration of the whole-person factors and supporting evidence, my application of the pertinent factors under the adjudicative process, and my interpretation of my responsibilities under the adjudicative guidelines. Formal Findings Formal findings For or Against Applicant on the allegations set forth in the SOR, as required by Section E3.1.25 of Enclosure 3 of the Directive, are: Paragraph 1, Guideline F: FOR APPLICANT Subparagraphs 1.a to 1.j: FOR APPLICANT 3 Of course, the Government can re-validate Applicant’s financial status at any time through credit reports, investigation, and additional interrogatories. Approval of a clearance now does not bar the Government from subsequently revoking it, if warranted. “The Government has the right to reconsider the security significance of past conduct or circumstances in light of more recent conduct having negative security significance.” ISCR Case No. 10-06943 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 17, 2012). Violation of a promise made in a security context to pay legitimate debts also raises judgment concerns under Guideline E, and may support future revocation of a security clearance. An administrative judge does not have “authority to grant an interim, conditional, or probationary clearance.” ISCR Case No. 10-06943 at 4 (App. Bd. Feb. 17, 2012) (citing ISCR Case No. 10-03646 at 2 (App. Bd. Dec. 28, 2011)). See also ISCR Case No. 04-03907 at 2 (App. Bd. Sep. 18, 2006) (stating, “The Board has no authority to grant [a]pplicant a conditional or probationary security clearance to allow her the opportunity to have a security clearance while she works on her financial problems.”). This footnote does not imply that this Applicant’s security clearance is conditional. 8 Conclusion In light of all the circumstances presented by the record in this case, it is clearly consistent with the national interest to grant or continue Applicant’s eligibility for a security clearance. Clearance is granted. ____________________________ Robert J. Tuider Administrative Judge